The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPA2024-0069_2025.05.23_Draft EIR_Appendix S. Water Supply Evaluation CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SNUG HARBOR W ATER S UPPLY E VALUATION C ITY OF N EWPORT B EACH O RANGE C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA PREPARED F OR : Back Bay Barrels, LLC 3857 Birch Street, Suite #521 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PREPARED B Y : FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 15535 Sand Canyon Ave, Unit 100 Irvine, CA 92618 949.474.1960 www.fuscoe.com D ATE P REPARED : D ECEMBER 24, 2024 D ATE 1 ST R EVISION : F EBRUARY 26, 2025 D ATE 2 ND R EVISION : A PRIL 7, 2025 City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 4 1.1. Background & Scope of Work........................................................................................................................ 4 1.2. Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1. Water Demand ................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2.2. Water Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.3. Water Supply Reliability .............................................................................................................................. 5 2. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND DETERMINATIONS.................................... 5 2.1. SB 610, Water Demand Threshold ............................................................................................................... 5 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 6 3.1. Existing Land Use ...................................................................................................................................................6 3.2. Proposed Land Use ................................................................................................................................................ 7 3.3. Water System ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 3.3.1. Regional Water System, The City of Newport Beach ............................................................... 7 3.3.2. Local Water System, Snug Harbor ...................................................................................................... 8 4. WATER DEMANDS .................................................................................... 8 4.1. Existing Regional Water Demands, City of Newport Beach ..................................................... 8 4.1.1. SBX7-7 Baseline and Targets ...................................................................................................................9 4.2. Proposed Regional Water Demands, City of Newport Beach ...................................................9 4.3. Existing Local Water Demands, Snug Harbor ................................................................................... 12 4.4. Proposed Local Water Demands, Snug Harbor................................................................................ 13 4.4.1. WaveGarden Cove Water Demand Estimates For Wave Pool ........................................ 13 4.4.2. Water Demand Estimates For Project Clubhouse and Accomodations .................. 14 4.5. Net Change In Water Demands (Existing to Proposed) ............................................................. 15 5. WATER SUPPLIES .................................................................................... 16 5.1. Existing Regional Water Supplies, City of Newport Beach ....................................................... 16 5.1.1. Groundwater .................................................................................................................................................... 17 5.1.1. Purchased or Imported Water .............................................................................................................. 18 5.1.2. Wastewater and Recycled Water ....................................................................................................... 18 5.2. Proposed Regional Water Supplies, City of Newport Beach .................................................... 19 5.2.1. Capital Improvement Projects.............................................................................................................. 19 6. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY ............................................. 20 6.1. Normal and Single Dry Year Water Reliability .................................................................................. 20 6.2. Multiple Dry Year Water Reliability ........................................................................................................... 21 6.3. The Implications of Snug Harbor on Future Water Demands & Supply Reliability .. 23 6.4. Local Water Conservation & Supply Shortage Program ............................................................ 23 6.4.1. Permanent Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements ........................................... 24 City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 3 6.4.2. Water Supply Shortage Levels ............................................................................................................. 24 6.4.3. Emergency Interconnections and Exemptions ....................................................................... 24 6.4.4. Enforcement and Compliance ............................................................................................................ 25 6.5. Regional Water Supply Reliability Conclusions ............................................................................... 25 7. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 26 8. APPENDICES ........................................................................................... 26 L IST OF T ABLES Table 1 –500 Unit Residential Demand - City of Newport Beach, Water Department Calendar Year 2024 Avg. Water Use......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2 – City of Newport Beach Actual Water Demands 2020 and CY 21-23 (AF) .............................. 9 Table 3 – City of Newport Beach Projected Water Demands 2025-2045 (AF) ....................................... 10 Table 4 – City of Newport Beach Approved Developments After 2020 ...................................................... 11 Table 5 – Snug Harbor Existing Water Demands ..................................................................................................... 12 Table 6 – Snug Harbor Proposed Lagoon Water Demands .............................................................................. 14 Table 7 – Proposed Water Use Factors ............................................................................................................................ 15 Table 8 – Snug Harbor Proposed Clubhouse & Accommodations Water Demands ........................ 15 Table 9 – Snug Harbor Net Change in Water Demands ...................................................................................... 16 Table 10 – Groundwater Volume Pumped 2017-2020 (AFY) .............................................................................. 17 Table 11 - Projected Water Supplies 2025 -2045 (AFY) ........................................................................................... 19 Table 12 – Proposed Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) .................................................................................. 20 Table 13 – Single and Normal Dry Year Supply & Demand Comparison (AFY) ...................................... 21 Table 14 - Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) ..................................................... 22 A PPENDICES Appendix A Snug Harbor Site Plan Appendix B Water Volume & Demand Calculations Appendix C Newport Beach UWMP 2020 Appendix D Basin 8-1 Alternative City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 4 1. O VERVIEW 1.1. BACKGROUND & SCOPE OF WORK This Water Supply Evaluation (WSE) has been prepared for Back Bay Barrels, LLC by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. in connection with the proposed Snug Harbor project (“Project”). The Project site is located in Newport Beach and involves redeveloping a portion of an existing golf course and commercial facilities into a wave pool/surf lagoon and associated clubhouse/amenities. This change in land use may increase water demand on the site beyond current levels, and this WSE assesses potential impacts of Project development on the City’s water supply. As the water provider for the proposed development site, the City of Newport Beach serves as the lead agency in reviewing and approving the Project’s water demands. Thus, the purpose of this WSE is to analyze the sufficiency of Newport Beach’s existing and planned water supplies to meet the projected demands of the Snug Harbor Project. This analysis considers regional and project specific water demand and supply projections under normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions, which is consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Findings from this WSE will support the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project and provide a clear evaluation of how the proposed changes in land use will interact with regional and City water resources. 1.2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As discussed, in the sections below, the City of Newport Beach in collaboration with regional agencies and water purveyors, manages water supplies within the project area and surrounding areas. Provided below is a summary of the projects existing and projected water demands, available supplies, and supply reliability under various drought conditions. 1.2.1. WATER DEMAND The projected water demand for the Snug Harbor project was estimated using water management data from Wavegarden Cove for the surf lagoon and regional usage factors from the Irvine Ranch Water District’s 2019 Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP). The total demand is expected to be approximately 85-acre feet per year (AFY), This demand includes water needs for the surf lagoon, which must use potable water to meet public health standards, ensuring safety for public contact, as well as water needs for associated commercial facilities. The site’s current potable water demand is approximately 1.56 AFY, based on average domestic meter usage from July 2022 to June 2024. The new project is expected to fully replace this existing demand, resulting in a net increase in potable water use of about 87 AFY. Prior water studies, EIR evaluations, and the City of Newport Beach’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), see Appendix C did not fully account for this new demand, so including the project’s demand in the City’s upcoming 2025 UWMP update is recommended. Inclusion of the project within the City’s upcoming UWMP will ensure that future demand forecasting and water supply planning and reliability assessments are accurate. Additionally, to support sustainable water use, the Snug Harbor project will incorporate water efficient fixtures and implement conservation practices aligned with the City and region’s local sustainability goals. This proactive approach will help manage the increased demands associated with the development and contribute to the City’s overall water conservation efforts. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 5 1.2.2. WATER SUPPLY As discussed in Section 5 of this WSE, the City of Newport Beach’s water supply is sourced from a combination of local groundwater, imported water, and recycled water. The City purchases imported water through the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which receives its water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET). MET sources water from both the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP), utilizing extensive infrastructure and storage to ensure reliability across member agencies. Newport Beach relies primarily on groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). This basin benefits from replenishment efforts through OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS), which utilizes treated wastewater to support groundwater sustainability. Recycled water, which is a small percentage of the City’s overall water supply, is also treated and distributed through OCWD, with applications primarily for non-potable uses like landscape irrigation. In 2020, the City’s water supply portfolio was comprised of approximately 68% groundwater, 28.5% imported water, and 3.5% recycled water. Projections indicate that by 2045, groundwater use will increase to about 82%, with imported water reduced to 14.5%, while recycled water use remains consistent at 3.5% . This diversified supply supports local and regional planning efforts throughout Newport Beach and can meet both current and anticipated future demands, including the proposed Snug Harbor project. 1.2.3. WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY As discussed in the City’s UWMP and this WSE, Newport Beach has sufficient supply to meet anticipated projected demands from 2020 through 2045 under the normal, single dry-year and multiple dry-year conditions, including the proposed Snug Harbor project. In the event of significant supply shortfalls, the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) provides a structured response. The WSCP outlines six stages of action, each progressively enforcing conservation and reduction measures based on the severity of the shortage. For instance, Stage 1 encourages voluntary conservation, while Stage 6 mandates emergency measures to address supply reductions exceeding 50%. 2. L EGAL R EQUIREMENTS AND D ETERMINATIONS 2.1. SB 610, WATER DEMAND THRESHOLD Among other things, in 2002 California’s SB 610 amended the California Water Code to require preparation of a “water supply assessment” (WSA) for proposed development projects meeting one or more specified water demand thresholds. The Water Code’s provisions regarding preparation of WSAs have subsequently been amended several times to, among other things, revise the thresholds for WSA preparation and expand WSA analysis requirements related to the use of groundwater to meet project demands. Pursuant to SB 610, a water supply assessment is required for any project subject to CEQA that is one or more of the following: 1) A proposed residential development of more than 500-dwelling units. 2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing over 1,000 persons or having over 500,000 square feet of floor space. 3) A proposed commercial office building employing over 1,000 persons or over 250,000 square feet of floor space. 4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 6 5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house over 1,000 persons, occupying over 40 acres of land or over 650,000 square feet of floor area. 6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. 7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project. (Water Code § 10912(a).) The Project does not require preparation of a WSA under thresholds (1) through (6) above. As described below, the Project also does not meet WSA preparation threshold (7) because it would not demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount required by a 500-dwelling unit project. Table 1 –500 Unit Residential Demand - City of Newport Beach, Water Department Calendar Year 2024 Avg. Water Use Average Residential Water Demand (AFY/PP)1 Average Persons Per Residential Unit (PP/DU)2 Water Use Factor (AFY/DU) Water Demand – 500 DUs (AFY) Proposed Snug Harbor Water Demands (AFY) 0.11 2.13 0.24 120.49 88.54 Sources 1. AFY/PP = Acre-feet Per Person. City of Newport Beach, "Email to Fuscoe Engineering." 11/2024. Calendar Year 2024 Avg. Water Use (101 Gallons Per Day Per Person) 2. PP/DU = Persons Per Dwelling Unit. State of California Department of Finance. 05/2024. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024 To determine whether the project’s demand would be equivalent to or exceed the demand for a 500 dwelling unit development, the Project’s demand was compared to the demand of a 500-unit residential project with per-unit demand equal to average residential unit demand in Newport Beach. The table above summarizes expected demand for a 500-unit residential project using 2024 average water use data for residential demand, which includes both single- family and multi-family residential units. This data provided a basis for estimating the threshold demand for a 500-dwelling unit residential project within Newport Beach. The results indicate that the proposed Snug Harbor project’s demand, at approximately 88.54 AFY, falls below the threshold of 120.49 AFY for a 500-unit residential project, meaning a WSA is not required for the Project. To validate the findings, a separate letter was submitted to the City of Newport Beach to confirm the proposed project does not trigger a WSA. Additional residential water usage analysis was provided in the letter for the City to confirm the project does not trigger WSA preparation under SB 610. The City provided a concurrence letter stating the project does not trigger a WSA. Although a WSA is not required, this WSE was prepared to ensure the City’s water supplies are adequate to serve the Project. 3. P ROJECT D ESCRIPTION 3.1. EXISTING LAND USE The proposed Snug Harbor project is located in the City of Newport Beach at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street. The project site is currently the Newport Beach Golf Course, which includes three holes of the 18-hole course, a driving range, a pro shop, a clubhouse, a restaurant, and a parking lot. The site spans approximately 15.4 acres and is bounded by the Santa Ana Delhi Channel to the north, Irvine Avenue to the northeast, existing commercial City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 7 property to the southeast, and Mesa Drive to the southwest. Surrounding land uses include commercial properties, office buildings, businesses, and a fire station. 3.2. PROPOSED LAND USE The development will transform the existing golf course into a facility that includes a 13-foot- deep surf lagoon, three pools, one spa, a three-story 68,478-square-foot clubhouse and accommodations with one subterranean level, a lodging building, and standalone restroom. The project will also feature parking lots with solar panel canopies, a service yard, landscaping, utilities, and retaining walls. This development is designed to introduce new recreational and lodging amenities to Newport Beach while complementing the surrounding area. The proposed development will convert three holes of the existing golf course and parking lot, to include the following features: · 5.5-Acre Wave Pool/Surf Lagoon · 3 Ancillary Pools And 1 Spa · 68,478 Square Feet of Clubhouse Building and Accommodations1 · 20 Athlete Rooms/Lodging Accommodations · 9 Outdoor Showers for Guests The following report sections will evaluate the potential water demands and impacts associated with the proposed Snug Harbor project and its amenities. See Appendix A for the proposed projects site plan. 3.3. WATER SYSTEM 3.3.1. REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The City of Newport Beach’s water service area spans approximately 11 square miles along the Orange County coast of Southern California. This area is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa to the north, Laguna Beach to the south, and Irvine to the east. While most of the City’s boundaries are within the service area, some portions are served by Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and Mesa Water District. The City’s water system is managed collaboratively by the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department. The Utilities Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the City’s water, wastewater, and storm drain systems. Meanwhile, the Public Works Department handles engineering services, including capital project delivery, bay water quality, environmental services, and transportation and development services. Together, these departments ensure the effective planning and improvement of the City’s water supply and distribution systems through master planning and capital improvement projects. Newport Beach’s water infrastructure includes a wellfield with a total capacity of 10,900 gallons per minute (GPM), 15 recycled water connections, and six inter-agency emergency interconnections. The City’s water distribution network consists of approximately 300 miles of pipelines, serving 26,765 connections. This distribution system is divided into five main pressure zones (Zones 1 through 5) and 16 minor zones. Zones 1 and 2 are the largest and meet the majority of City’s demands, while Zones 3, 4, and 5 are smaller pumped zones. Supporting this system are four wells, three storage reservoirs, five pump stations, and 43 pressure- reducing stations (PRS) that manage water pressure across the network. 1 69,216 SF includes Clubhouse Building 68,478 SF and the Standalone Restrooms 738 SF. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 8 3.3.2. LOCAL WATER SYSTEM, SNUG HARBOR The proposed project is located within the City of Newport Beach located east of the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. The property is bounded by the Santa Ana Delhi Channel to the north, Irvine Avenue to the northeast, existing commercial property to the southeast, and Mesa Drive to the southwest. The site is currently the Newport Beach Golf Course which consists of three holes, a driving range, pro shop, clubhouse, restaurant, and parking lot. Historically, the proposed project site has received water from both IRWD and the City of Newport Beach’s Public Works and Utilities Department. However, for this development, the City will provide water for the entire project site. Therefore, this WSE will evaluate the sufficiency of Newport Beach’s water supplies to meet Project demands. This WSE also evaluates water pressures in Pressure Zone 2, which serves the project area. 4. W ATER D EMANDS 4.1. EXISTING REGIONAL WATER DEMANDS, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Water use within the City of Newport Beach’s service area has remained relatively stable over the past decade, with an annual average consumption of approximately 15,413 AF up through 2020. This stability reflects the City’s land use growth and implementation of water conservation measures. Of the total water used, potable water, which includes both groundwater and imported water, has accounted for approximately 97% of the City’s total consumption, with the remaining 3% being non-potable recycled water used for landscape irrigation. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20, see Table 2, the City’s total water use was 15,005 AF, which included 14,492 AF of potable water and 513 AF of direct recycled water for landscape irrigation. During this time, the potable water use profile consisted of 58.9% residential consumption, 18.2% commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, and 18.1% for large landscape irrigation. Non- revenue water and other uses made up about 4.8% of the total potable water consumption. In addition to the water use reported in its UWMP, the City also tracks its annual calendar year (CY) water use under varying land use categories and for CY 21 through 23 water use ranged from approximately 13,960 AF in 2021 to 11,830 AF in 2023. This trend demonstrates further reductions in water demand and increased effectiveness of water conservation. These water uses are represented in Table 2, which outlines the City’s actual water demand by land use from 2020 to 2023. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 9 Table 2 – City of Newport Beach Actual Water Demands 2020 and CY 21-23 (AF) Land Use Type 2020 Meter Type CY21 CY22 CY23 Single Family 6,750 Single Family 6,820 6,339 5,732 Multi-Family 1,782 Multi-Family 1,850 1,735 1,634 Commercial 2,463 Commercial 2,260 2,322 2,231 Institutional/Governmental 173 City Meter 209 213 169 Landscape + Other Potable 2,720 Sprinkler 2,220 2,199 1,617 Losses 603 City Sprinkler 514 476 374 Total Potable 14,492 Boat Dock 18 15 12 Recycled Water 513 City Fire Meter 1 1 0 Total Potable + Non-Potable 15,005 Fire 6 6 5 Source: City of Newport Beach, 2020 UWMP, Table 4- 1: Retail: Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Actual Pool 61 57 55 Pump Station 1 0 0 Total Potable 13,960 13,363 11,830 Source: City of Newport Beach, “Email to Fuscoe Engineering.” 29 August 2024. As shown above the City’s existing total potable water demands have ranged from as low as 11,830 AF in CY 2023 to 14,492 AF in FY 19-20. Thus, the City has experienced a decrease in water use when comparing water usage from the past four years. Between FY 19-20 to CY 23 the sectors had a general average decrease in water use of approximately 7% for single family and 19% for commercial land uses. Significant above average rainfall for 2022/2023 and slightly above average rainfall for 2023/2024 may also be partially responsible for the recent decrease in water usage. See Table 4 for further discussion on how approved and developed projects since 2020 have influenced the City’s water usage trends. 4.1.1. SBX7-7 BASELINE AND TARGETS The Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SBx7-7 (Senate Bill 7), was signed into law in 2010 and mandated that the State of California reduce urban water use by 20% by the year 2020, using a 2013 baseline. To comply with SBx7-7, retail water suppliers, such as the City, had to determine their baseline water use and set targets for 2015 and 2020. Compliance for suppliers could be achieved individually or as part of a regional collaboration with other retail water suppliers. The City of Newport Beach achieved their SBx7-7 target both individually and as a member of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance, which is a coalition of MWDOC and its retail member agencies, as well as the Cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana. To determine the regional water, use target of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance a weighted average (based on population) of individual agency targets was taken. In 2020, the regional water use target for the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance was 158 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), and the actual water use in the region was 109 GPCD, demonstrating that the region successfully met its goal. Similarly, the City of Newport Beach met its water conservation goals, with an actual water use of 160 GPCD in 2020, which was well below its target of 207 GPCD. 4.2. PROPOSED REGIONAL WATER DEMANDS, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Looking ahead, the City’s projected water demand values were developed in collaboration with MWDOC as part of the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). MWDOC, as the regional wholesale supplier for much of Orange County, works closely with its retail agencies, City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 10 including Newport Beach, and with its wholesaler, MET, to develop accurate demand projections for imported water. The City’s future water demand projections consider several factors, including ongoing water conservation strategies and the expansion of recycled water use within the service area. While single-family and multi-family residential water use is projected to decrease due to increased water use efficiency measures, the demand for non-residential water uses is expected to increase. Projections for non-residential water use from 2025 through 2045 have been separated into commercial, industrial, and institutional/governmental categories based on the proportions reported for each billing sector in FY 2019-20 (See Table 2). Large landscape water demands are anticipated to remain consistent, while non-revenue water, which includes water losses within the system, is projected to increase slightly until 2040, after which it is expected to decrease as a result of infrastructure improvements and enhanced water loss control measures. See Table 3 for the breakdown of the City’s proposed water demand by land use. Table 3 – City of Newport Beach Projected Water Demands 2025-2045 (AF) Land Use Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Single Family 6,385 6,294 6,202 6,111 6,077 Multi-Family 1,729 1,691 1,653 1,615 1,614 Commercial 2,762 3,334 3,584 3,853 3,853 Institutional/ Governmental 194 234 251 270 270 Landscape + Other Potable 2,616 2,616 2,616 2,616 2,616 Losses 638 661 667 675 673 TOTAL 14,324 14,829 14,975 15,140 15,103 Recycled Water 542 542 542 542 542 TOTAL 14,866 15,371 15,517 15,682 15,645 Source: Table 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 Retail: Dry Projected, City of Newport Beach 2020 UWMP. The City’s total water demand is projected to increase by approximately 4% from 2020 to 2045, growing from 15,005 AF to 15,645 AF. The majority of this growth is anticipated to come from commercial and institutional/governmental water use, while residential water demands are expected to decline due to continued water use efficiency measures. As shown in Table 2 from CY21 to CY23 actual water demands ranged from approximately 13,960 AF in 2021 to 11,830 AF in 2023, which is 6-20% below the projected 14,866 AF that the UWMP anticipated for 2025. The City also tracks future development areas and projects and since 2020 the following six projects have been built and occupied and are described in more detail in Table 4 below. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 11 Table 4 – City of Newport Beach Approved Developments After 2020 Project Proposed DUs Proposed SF Percent Occupied as of 08/2024 Starbucks - Birch - - 100% Uptown Newport Mixed Use Development (PA2011-134) 1,244 11,500 37% Old Newport GPA Project - 25,000 100% Vue Newport (PA2001-210) 27 36,000 30% Saint Mark Presbyterian Church (PA2003-085) - 33,867 77% Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) 121 85,000 100% Total Units 1,392 DUs 191,367 SF 589 DUs / 151,133 SF Source: City of Newport Beach, “Email to Fuscoe Engineering.” 28 August 2024. As shown above there have been 6 developed projects since 2020 ranging from partially to fully occupied as of August 2024. These projects collectively encompass approximately 1,392 dwelling units (DUs) and 191,367 SF of nonresidential space. When summing the total percent of each project that is occupied there are approximately 589 DUs and 151,133 SF that would generate additional water demands, up to 112 AFY, when using the demand factors for High Density Residential – Newport Beach and Community Commercial uses listed in Section 4.4.2. When using these water demand factors and assuming all cumulative projects in Newport Beach will be built and fully occupied, the estimated increase in water demands is approximately 909 AFY2 and this does not specifically account for the Snug Harbor project. This estimate slightly exceeds the growth projections outlined in the City’s 2020 UWMP, which anticipates growth of 779 AFY in normal years, 826 AFY in single dry years, and 739 to 826 AFY in multiple dry years (See Section 6). This is primarily due to the fact that the 2019 Water System Master Plan, which was used as the basis for future water demand projections in the UWMP, did not account for all a number of current cumulative projects now underway. Therefore, the 909 AFY projected increase slightly exceeds the growth estimates in the current UWMP. Despite this, recent trends in water demands suggest that the City's actual water use may continue to lower than the demand projections. As discussed in Section 4.1, since 2020, the City of Newport Beach has experienced a reduction in existing water use, dropping from 15,005 AF in 2020 to 11,830 AF in 2023. Despite the approval of the 589 DUs and 151,133 square feet of non-residential space, which should’ve increased demands by 112 AFY, the City has instead lowered overall water usage. This reduction is due to improvements in water efficiency, conservation efforts, and the diversification of the City’s water supplies. As a result, while the 909 AFY projected increase from all the cumulative new developments does not match up directly with the anticipated growth in the UWMP, the City's current actual water use data suggest that the future projects including the proposed project falls within the projected demand and supply of the current UWMP. When the 2025 UWMP is updated which requires City Council approval by June 30, 2026, it will incorporate additional cumulative projects and provide a more accurate reflection of future water demands and supply impacts. Additionally, the 2020 UWMP matches supply to demands, and should the need arise, the City can purchase more MET water through MWDOC. This flexibility will support the City’s capacity to meet growing demands, even as new developments are completed. 2 The 909 AFY future demand volume assumes all potential projects on the City’s tracking excel spreadsheet will be approved, constructed, built and occupied at 100%. A number of projects on the list have been quiet or dormant for years and may not ultimately be built. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 12 4.3. EXISTING LOCAL WATER DEMANDS, SNUG HARBOR The existing water demand for the project site, which currently operates as a golf course with 18 holes, a driving range, a pro shop, a clubhouse, a restaurant, and a parking lot, includes both landscaping and commercial uses. The demand generated from the project covers both landscaping and commercial water use. The golf course’s landscape irrigation is supplied by well water pumped from the Orange County Water District (OCWD), while the buildings utilize domestic water from the City of Newport Beach. Over the past four years (2020-2023), well production for irrigation purposes has averaged approximately 91,796 gallons per day (GPD) or 103 AFY. These totals represent the full water demand for the entire 18-hole golf course of which the proposed project only occupies three. During this same period, potable water uses for commercial activities on the project sites buildings and amenities averaged 1,389 GPD or approximately 1.6 AFY. Combined, the total water demand (irrigation and commercial) for the 18-hole golf course and existing commercial building averages about 93,186 GPD or 104 AFY see Table 5 for a summary of these existing water demands. Table 5 – Snug Harbor Existing Water Demands Existing Irrigation Demands (Groundwater Well Production) 2020 29,750,000 gallons 2021 34,181,764 gallons 2022 36,267,210 gallons 2023 33,823,328 gallons Average Demand 2020-2023 (18-Hole Course) 91,796 GPD 103 AFY Estimated Project Area Demand 2020-2023 (3-Hole Course) 15,300 GPD 17.2 AFY Existing Commercial Demands (Potable Water) July ’22 – June ’23 529,584 gallons July ’23 – June ’24 484,704 gallons Average Demand FY 22-23 & 23-24 1,389 GPD 1.6 AFY Total Existing Demand (Irrigation + Commercial) 18-Hole Course + Commercial Demands 93,186 GPD 104 AFY Project Area Demand 3-Hole Course + Commercial 16,689 GPD 18.7 AFY Source: Coyne. 6 August 2024. Development Corporation, Domestic Meter and Well Production Invoices “Email to Fuscoe Engineering.” Given that the project site only encompasses 3 of the 18-hole course, the average irrigation demand from groundwater wells can be estimated for the 3 holes using a proportional approach. Dividing the total demand by 18 holes and then multiplying it by the 3 holes in the project area results in an estimated irrigation demand of approximately 15,300 GPD or 17.2 AFY for the course. This provides an estimate of 16,689 GPD or 18.7 AFY, conservatively assuming that the groundwater irrigation demand is relatively uniform across all holes. The existing drive range is supported by artificial turf and does not require irrigation. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 13 4.4. PROPOSED LOCAL WATER DEMANDS, SNUG HARBOR As described previously, the proposed project will transform the existing golf course into a facility that includes a 13-foot-deep surf lagoon, three pools, a spa, a three-story 50,000-square- foot clubhouse with one subterranean level, a lodging building, and standalone restroom. The following tables will present a detailed analysis of the local water use factors, demand analyses, and water studies used to determine the proposed projects anticipated water usage. These factors are necessary to understand how existing water demands will be altered when projecting future potable water needs under the Snug Harbor project. 4.4.1. WAVEGARDEN COVE WATER DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR WAVE POOL The Wavegarden Cove company designs and manufactures artificial wave-generating technology for surfing and is known as the market leader for the research and design of surf parks that mimic ocean waves. Wavegarden provided specialized consulting services for the proposed wave park/lagoon, providing guidance on necessary water treatment requirements, water demand requirements, water discharges, and water source quality analysis. Due to the proprietary nature of the technical methodologies and operational parameters utilized by Wavegarden, detailed documentation and data are not included within the WSE, as they are subject to confidentiality agreements3. A summary of the water demand parameters estimated for the Snug Harbor project are provided below. WATER DEMAND PARAMETERS Based on the general water demand parameters it is estimated that the total annual freshwater requirements will largely consist of the following relationship: Water Evaporation – Rainfall + Other Losses = Total Annual Requirement Water Evaporation: Water evaporation occurs naturally from the surface of the wave park/lagoon due to surrounding temperature, humidity, pressure, surface area, and wind conditions. In Newport Beach, the annual mean temperature is 66 degrees Fahrenheit, thus evaporation is a major factor in the projects water demand. The rate of evaporation will depend on the surface area of the lagoon, amount of exposure to sunlight, and changing wind patterns. Rainfall: Rainfall will provide a natural source of water replenishment for the lagoon. The amount of rainfall will help reduce the overall need for additional freshwater. Other Losses: Other losses in the system can occur from various sources including the following: spillage from wave splash, losses in pipes, basin leakages, users carrying water out, water treatment housekeeping, and filter backwash. Some of these losses are negligible or should not take place regularly (losses in pipes, basin leakages, etc.) and will be resolved once detected. Using the proprietary calculations estimated by Wavegarden an annual water requirement for the project has been determined to account for all the above factors. See Table 6 below which provides a breakdown of the various general water requirements for the project. 3 Wavegarden Cove, Water Management Introduction – Newport Beach Cove. 18 October 2024 City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 14 Table 6 – Snug Harbor Proposed Lagoon Water Demands WATER REQUIREMENTS – ROUTINE SURF LAGOON MAINTENANCE Gallons/Year Gallons/Day AFY Draining of the Lagoon – (Frequency: Annually) 5,100,000 13,973 15.65 Filter Cleaning of the Lagoon – (Frequency: 17 times per year) 45,067 123 0.14 Total Water Requirements – Routine Maintenance 5,145,067 14,096 15.79 WATER REQUIREMENTS – ANNUAL SURF LAGOON OPERATION Gallons/Year Gallons/Day AFY Average Temperature (ºF) 66 ºF Open Water Evaporation Estimate (gal/year) 12,966,764 35,525 39.79 Wave Operation Factor 1.45 Backwash losses (gal/year) 192,867 528 0.59 Average Evaporation Water Loss (gal/year) 51,512 141 0.16 Operating Water Loss (gal/year) 18,994,674 52,040 58.29 Annual Rainfall (11 inches) 1,396,018 3,825 4.28 Total Water Requirement – Annual Operation 17,598,655 48,215 54.01 Total Water Requirement – Routine Maintenance + Annual Operation 22,743,722 62,312 69.80 Sources 1. Wavegarden Cove. 18 October 2024. Water Management Introduction – Newport Beach Cove 2. Coyne. 30 September 2024. Water Requirement “Email to Fuscoe Engineering.” The water demand analysis provided by Wavegarden for the Snug Harbor lagoon demonstrates a total annual freshwater requirement that is projected to be approximately 22.7 million gallons per year or 69.8 AFY. Demands are primarily driven by open water evaporation, which accounts for the largest water demand as a result of the warm climate and the lagoons larger surface area. Additional demands come from routine maintenance wave generation, backwash, and other losses that contribute to the overall demands. 4.4.2. WATER DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR PROJECT CLUBHOUSE AND ACCOMODATIONS The water uses factors used to estimate the proposed commercial water demands are from IRWD’s 2019 Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP). All connections throughout IRWDs service area are metered and IRWD employs water use factors which assigns water demands to various land use types and then aggregates these regional demands. The water use factors are based on average water use and incorporate the effect of IRWD’s tiered-rate conservation pricing (budget-based rates)4. IRWD’s collaborative and thorough approach ensures that the water use factors as shown in Table 7 below represent actual regional usage patterns, support sustainable water management, and inform decision-making for land use planning throughout the multiple jurisdictions within its service area, including portions of the City. See 4 Irvine Ranch Water District, 2019, Water Resources Master Plan, Table 3-1 City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 15 Table 7 below for a summary of the IRWD water use factors used to calculate the projects commercial water demands. Table 7 – Proposed Water Use Factors IRWD WATER USE FACTORS Land Use Designation Water Use Factor Community Commercial 175 Gallons/KSF/Day Hotel 160 Gallons/Room/Day Sources: IRWD 2019 Water Resources Master Plan - Table 3-1: Land Use and Water Use Factors As shown above the water use factors that the proposed project uses are based on IRWD’s community commercial and hotel land use designations. See Table 8 below for an estimate of the proposed water demands based on these factors. Table 8 – Snug Harbor Proposed Clubhouse & Accommodations Water Demands Proposed Clubhouse and Accommodations Amount Avg. Unit Flow Avg. Flow (GPD) Avg. Flow (AFY) Clubhouse Building & Accommodations5 (SF) 69,216 SF 0.175 (GPD/SF)1 12,113 13.57 Athlete Accommodations (Rms) 20 Keys 160 (GPD/Key)1 3,200 3.58 Showers for Pools/Lagoons 9 Showers 54 (GPD/Shower)2 486 0.54 Recreational Pools and Spas (SF) 3 Pools 1 Spa * Proration of the lagoons water usage based on surface areas 931 1.04 TOTALS 16,733 18.74 1. Irvine Ranch Water District, 2019, Water Resources Master Plan, Table 3-1 2. 54 GPD/Shower = Assumed 18 gal/shower usage x 3 uses per day per shower facility. Source: Alliance for Water Efficiency. “Showering to Savings.” Home Water Works, 2016 Residential End Uses of Water Study, The Water Research Foundation, https://home-water-works.org/indoor-use/showers. As shown in the table above the Snug Harbor’s proposed clubhouse and accommodations will increase the volume of commercial uses and has the potential to demand up to 16,733 GPD or 18.74 AFY of water. 4.5. NET CHANGE IN WATER DEMANDS (EXISTING TO PROPOSED) In evaluating the water demand for the proposed Snug Harbor project, it is important to distinguish between existing and projected water sources. The current golf course is three holes and relies on groundwater for irrigation. However, the redevelopment plan shifts the focus to potable water demand for new commercial amenities, including a surf lagoon, pro shop, clubhouse, and restaurant. These new facilities will require potable water to meet health 5 69,216 SF includes Clubhouse Building 68,478 SF and the Standalone Restrooms 738 SF. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 16 and safety standards, particularly for the lagoon, which must maintain high water quality for public use. While groundwater is part of the overall water supply for the City, it will not be utilized for this specific project site at this time.6 Thus, the net change in water use calculations for the project will reflect only the demands from the existing potable commercial amenities and exclude the golf course’s groundwater usage. This approach provides a clear distinction in water sources and ensures an accurate reflection of the project’s new potable water demand that would be met by the City, see Table 9 below for more details. Table 9 – Snug Harbor Net Change in Water Demands Proposed Land Uses Amount GPD AFY Proposed Water Use Wave Pool/ Surf Lagoon · 5.06 Acre Wave Pool 62,312 69.80 Clubhouse & Accommodations · 69,216 SF · 20 Keys · 9 Showers · 3 Pools and 1 Spa 16,733 18.74 Total Proposed Water Demands 79,045 88.54 Existing Water Use Golf Course · 3-holes 15,299 17.14 Commercial Amenities · Pro Shop, Clubhouse, and Restaurant 1,389 1.56 Total Existing Water Demands 16,689 18.70 Net Change (Proposed – All Existing Uses) 62,356 70 Net Change (Proposed – Existing Commercial Amenities) 77,656 87 As shown above, the transition from the existing golf course and associated commercial building to the proposed Snug Harbor with its lagoon, pools, and associated clubhouse and accommodations is anticipated to result in a net increase in water demand. The total proposed water demand for the Snug Harbor project is estimated at 79,045 GPD or 85 AFY, while the existing water use for the golf course and current commercial amenities are approximately 16,689 GPD or 18.7 AFY. This would result in a net increase in water demand of 62,356 GPD or 70 AFY if the proposed Snug Harbor used the non-potable water for irrigating the golf-course. However, when comparing the net change in potable water demand met by the City, the proposed potable demands of the Snug Harbor project results in an increase of approximately 77,656 GPD or 87 AFY relative to demand of existing commercial facilities on the Project site. 5. W ATER S UPPLIES 5.1. EXISTING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The City of Newport Beach meets its water demands through a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water. The City collaborates closely with two primary agencies, the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and the OCWD, to ensure a reliable water supply, even during periods of drought and shortage. The City’s main source of water is groundwater from the Orange County Basin, which accounted for 68% of the total 6 The on-site groundwater well may be a future source of water for the proposed project, but it is not being analyzed in this EIR nor is it part of the water demand calculations. Any use of the existing or a future groundwater well for water supply will be adequately evaluated at that time. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 17 water supply in FY 2019-20. Imported water, making up 28.5% of the supply, is from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP), provided by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) and delivered through MWDOC. Recycled water accounts for the remaining 3.5% of the City’s water supply and is used primarily for non-potable purposes such as landscape irrigation. These sources of supply are summarized below and discussed in more detail in the UWMP, which is included as Attachment B to this WSE. 5.1.1. GROUNDWATER OC Basin groundwater has historically been the most cost-effective and reliable source of water for the City of Newport Beach. The OC Basin spans approximately 350 square miles and holds around 66 million acre-feet (MAF) of water across three aquifer systems: the Shallow, Principal, and Deep Aquifers. Over 90% of groundwater is extracted from the Principal Aquifer system, located between 200 and 1,300 feet. The OCWD monitors groundwater levels, water quality, and regulates recharge operations to prevent overdraft and seawater intrusion. The basin is not adjudicated, so pumping is managed through financial incentives rather than legal mandates. The City operates four active wells within the OC Basin and supplied 10,237 AF of groundwater or 68% of its total water supply in FY 2019-20. The City’s wellfield is located about five miles north in Fountain Valley with a total capacity of 10,900 GPM. Groundwater from the wellfield is transported via a 30 to 36-inch pipeline to the 16th Street Reservoir and then distributed throughout the City, including to the 600 AF Big Canyon Reservoir. The City’s groundwater supply is subject to the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) and the capacity of the four wells the City uses. The City also benefits from OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS), which treats wastewater to replenish the OC Basin and improve the overall sustainability of the groundwater supply by preventing seawater intrusion and supporting non-potable uses. Aside from a decrease in groundwater volume pumped in FY 2017-18, the City has experienced relative stability in groundwater volume pumped as shown in Table 10. Table 10 – Groundwater Volume Pumped 2017-2020 (AFY) Type Basin 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Alluvial Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin 9,616 10,004 8,200 10,877 10,237 TOTAL 9,616 10,004 8,200 10,877 10,237 Source: Table 6-4, City of Newport Beach 2020 UWMP. As shown above the fluctuations in City’s groundwater pumping are likely influenced by a combination of factors, including annual water demand, conservation efforts, and water availability in the OC Basin. The overall trend suggests that the City has maintained stable groundwater use in recent years, with 2020 levels being consistent with those of 2017, highlighting the City’s reliance on the OC Basin as a critical water supply source. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA) The SGMA is aimed at ensuring the long-term sustainability of California’s groundwater resources. Under SGMA, local agencies are required to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for basins classified as medium or high priority. There are multiple components that go into categorizing a priority level for the basins such as; current population and projected growth overlying the basin, number of public and private wells that draw from the basin, the irrigated acreage overlying the basin, the degree to which individuals rely on the groundwater as their primary source in City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 18 the basin, and any external impacts on the basin. The OC Basin, where Newport Beach sources a significant portion of its water, is classified as a medium priority basin due to the heavy regional reliance on its groundwater as a primary water supply7. Although the OC Basin is not in overdraft, OCWD, which manages the basin, has taken proactive steps to comply with SGMA requirements. In 2017, OCWD and other local agencies within Basin 8-1 collaborated to submit an Alternative to a GSP, known as the “Basin 8-1 Alternative,” to meet SGMA compliance, (See Appendix D). This plan outlines the management strategies and measures implemented to ensure the sustainable use of groundwater in the basin. OCWD’s management approach under SGMA includes monitoring groundwater levels and quality, regulating annual pumping through the BPP, and maintaining recharge operations using water from the Santa Ana River, recycled water from the GWRS, and other sources8. These efforts are designed to prevent issues such as land subsidence and seawater intrusion, ensuring that the OC Basin remains a reliable source of water for Newport Beach and surrounding communities. The Basin 8-1 Alternative is included as Attachment C to this WSE. In addition to the Basin 8-1 Alternative, OCWD’s broader groundwater management plans address various aspects of basin sustainability, including hydrogeology, water supply monitoring, and the operation of recharge facilities. These plans are integral to maintaining the health of the OC Basin and ensuring that it can continue to meet the water demands of the region under SGMA’s requirements9. 5.1.1. PURCHASED OR IMPORTED WATER The City supplements its local groundwater supply with imported water purchased from MET through MWDOC. In FY 2019-20, the City relied on approximately 4,255 AFY, which was 28.5% of the City’s water supply portfolio. MET’s principal sources of water are the Colorado River via the CRA and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California through the SWP. For Orange County, the water obtained from these sources is treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located in Yorba Linda. Typically, the Diemer Filtration Plant receives a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Mathews through the MET Lower Feeder and SWP water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. The City currently maintains six connections to the MET system along the Orange County Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 with a total available capacity of 104 cfs, or 67 MGD. 5.1.2. WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER The City of Newport Beach does not own or operate its own wastewater treatment facilities but sends all collected wastewater to the Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) for treatment and disposal. OC San then provides treated water to the OCWD. The City plays a role in recycled water production by supplying wastewater for indirect potable reuse (IPR) and collaborates with agencies like OCWD to expand and manage recycled water resources. The stormwater management system within the City is extensive, with over 3,200 catch basins and more than 95 miles of storm drainpipe that divert stormwater into the wastewater system. A portion of this combined stormwater and wastewater is treated by OCWD’s Green Acres Project (GAP) and the GWRS to produce recycled water, which is used for irrigation and other 7 State of California, Department of Water Resources SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Found here: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/# 8 Orange County Water District, 2015. Groundwater Management Plan. Found here: https://www.ocwd.com/wp- content/uploads/groundwatermanagementplan2015update_20150624.pdf 9 Orange County Water District. Accessed September 2024. Groundwater Management Plan. Found here: https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/groundwater-management/groundwater-management-plan/ City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 19 non-potable purposes. OCWD’s GAP is a water recycling system that provides up to 8,400 AFY of recycled water for irrigation and industrial uses. This recycled water is then distributed to parks, golf courses, greenbelts, cemeteries, and nurseries across Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana. The City purchases GAP water from OCWD and distributes it to its recycled water customers, with approximately 100 sites currently using GAP water. 5.2. PROPOSED REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Looking ahead, the City’s water supply portfolio is projected to shift by 2045, with groundwater expected to provide approximately 82% of the total supply, imported water 14.5%, and recycled water maintaining its 3.5% share. This shift aligns with projected demands, and the City has the capability to purchase additional MET water through MWDOC, if necessary. In addition to its primary water resources, the City has established inter-agency emergency interconnections to ensure water supply during shortages or outages. There are six emergency connections with the IRWD and seven with Mesa Water District, providing additional security for the City’s water system. See Table 11 below, which shows projected supply sources for the City of Newport Beach. Table 11 - Projected Water Supplies 2025 -2045 (AFY) Water Supply Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 OC Groundwater Basin (not desalinated) 10,237 12,175 12,605 12,729 12,869 12,838 Purchased or Imported Water (MWDOC) 4,255 2,149 2,224 2,246 2,271 2,265 Recycled Water (OCWD) 513 542 542 542 542 542 TOTAL 15,005 14,866 15,371 15,517 15,682 15,645 Source: Table 6-1 and 6-2, City of Newport Beach 2020 UWMP. As shown above the City projects that their water supply profile by 2045 will largely consist of 82% not desalinated groundwater, 14% purchased or imported water, and 4% recycled water. 5.2.1. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS The capital improvement programs within the City of Newport Beach include those managed by OCWD, Orange County Public Works (OCPW), and the City’s Public Works Department. These capital improvement programs are essential to maintaining, improving and expanding the regions water supply and infrastructure. See Table 12 for a list of the most recent capital improvement projects aimed at improving the City’s long-term water supply management. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 20 Table 12 – Proposed Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Project Name CIP Fiscal Year Project Summary Newport Beach Combined PFAS Treatment System2 FY 26-27 through FY 28-29 OCWD will design and construct a PFAS treatment system to remove contaminants from the water, which will enhance the City’s groundwater supply reliability. Water Well Rehabilitation Program2 FY 24-25 through FY 29-30 The City currently operates four potable water wells in Fountain Valley. These wells require on- going routine rehabilitation in order to maintain their pumping capacities and to prolong their service lives. This year's project will focus on rehabilitating both the City's deep and shallow wells are located in Fountain Valley. New Water Wells and Pipeline2 FY 24-25 through FY 29-30 This is a multi-year project that involves locating a new well site, drilling new potable water wells and installing a new transmission water main from this new well site to the City’s water system to increase the supply of groundwater. 1 OCWD Budget Report Fiscal Year 2024-2025 https://www.ocwd.com/wp-content/uploads/FY24-25-Budget- Report-Final.pdf 2 City of Newport Beach, Capital Improvement Program Proposed for Fiscal Year 2024-25 through 2029-30. Found here: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/public-works/capital-improvement- program These projects reflect the City’s efforts to ensure water quality and reliable water supply for its service area which includes the proposed project area. 6. R EGIONAL W ATER S UPPLY R ELIABILITY To ensure the proposed project is adequately supported, it is important to understand the City’s forecast of water supplies to meet future demands. The City of Newport Beach’s 2020 UWMP uses current and projected population data, water supply sources, demand estimates, and factors affecting water demand to forecast supply and demand into the future. This comprehensive approach allows the City to evaluate its ability to meet water needs through 2045 under various conditions, including normal, single dry-year, and multiple dry-year scenarios. The findings of the 2020 UWMP indicate that Newport Beach has sufficient supply to meet projected demands from 2020 through 2045 under the normal, single dry-year and multiple dry-year conditions. The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) also outlines specific actions to address droughts and other supply challenges, including conservation measures and demand reduction strategies. The WSCP, along with regional collaborations such as the GWRS, ensures the City has the capacity to manage both normal, single, and multiple dry-year conditions through 2045. 6.1. NORMAL AND SINGLE DRY YEAR WATER RELIABILITY For both normal and single dry year scenarios the City’s UWMP assures that water demands and supplies will be met and for simplicity shows that supply is equal to demand. As noted in previous discussions the City does have access to additional water supplies from MET and MWDOC, should the need arise. Thus, when determining dry year supply and demand City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 21 reliability the normal year represents the water supplies a supplier considers available during normal conditions. While a single-dry year is defined as a single year of no to minimal rainfall within a period that average precipitation is expected to occur. See Table 13 for a view of the City’s water supply and demand projections during normal and single dry years. Table 13 – Single and Normal Dry Year Supply & Demand Comparison (AFY) NORMAL-DRY YEAR 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 UWMP Projected Growth Supply Totals (AF) 14,866 15,371 15,517 15,682 15,645 779 AFY Demand Totals (AF) 14,866 15,371 15,517 15,682 15,645 DIFFERENCE (AF) 0 0 0 0 0 Snug Harbor Net Water Demand 87 SINGLE-DRY YEAR 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 UWMP Projected Growth Supply Totals (AF) 15,758 15,758 16,293 16,448 16,623 826 AFY Demand Totals (AF) 15,758 15,758 16,293 16,448 16,623 DIFFERENCE (AF) 0 0 0 0 0 Snug Harbor Net Water Demand 87 Source: Table 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4, City of Newport Beach 2020 UWMP. As outlined in the table above the City’s demands during normal dry year conditions are anticipated to grow from 779 AFY from 2025 to 2045 and up to 826 AFY during a single dry year. During the single dry year demands and supplies are anticipated to increase by an average of 6% because the City conservatively assumed that a single dry year demand is 6% greater than each respective year's normally projected total water demand. 6.2. MULTIPLE DRY YEAR WATER RELIABILITY The City describes an extended multiple drought year (5 years) as the driest five-year historical sequence, which may be the lowest average water supply available for five years in a row. Although water use may decrease in the later years of a multiple year drought due to implementation of conservation measures and drought messaging, the assessment is based on a 106% increase throughout the 5-year drought to be conservative. See Table 14 for an outline of the City’s projected supply and demand during five consecutive dry years. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 22 Table 14 - Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) MULTIPLE-DRY YEARS FIRST YEAR 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 UWMP Projected Growth Supply Totals (AF) 15,876 15,865 16,324 16,483 16,615 739 AFY Demand Totals (AF) 15,876 15,865 16,324 16,483 16,615 DIFFERENCE (AF) 0 0 0 0 0 Snug Harbor Net Water Demand 87 SECOND YEAR 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 UWMP Projected Growth Supply Totals (AF) 15,846 15,972 16,355 16,553 16,599 761 AFY Demand Totals (AF) 15,846 15,972 16,355 16,553 16,599 DIFFERENCE (AF) 0 0 0 0 0 Snug Harbor Net Water Demand 87 THIRD YEAR 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 UWMP Projected Growth Supply Totals (AF) 15,817 16,079 16,386 16,553 16,599 782 AFY Demand Totals (AF) 15,817 16,079 16,386 16,553 16,599 DIFFERENCE (AF) 0 0 0 0 0 Snug Harbor Net Water Demand 87 FOURTH YEAR 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 UWMP Projected Growth Supply Totals (AF) 15,787 16,186 16,417 16,588 16,592 805 AFY Demand Totals (AF) 15,787 16,186 16,417 16,588 16,592 DIFFERENCE (AF) 0 0 0 0 0 Snug Harbor Net Water Demand 87 FIFTH YEAR 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 UWMP Projected Growth Supply Totals (AF) 15,758 16,293 16,448 16,623 16,584 826 AFY Demand Totals (AF) 15,758 16,293 16,448 16,623 16,584 DIFFERENCE (AF) 0 0 0 0 0 Snug Harbor Net Water Demand 87 Source: Table 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4, City of Newport Beach 2020 UWMP. As shown above the City’s demand and supply varies from 2025 to 2045 with demands reaching as low as 15,758 AF (5th year 2025) to 16,615 AF (1st year 2045). Overall, from 2025 to 2045 in each dry year scenario growth in demands and supplies are anticipated to increase in the City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 23 range of 739 AF (1st multiple dry year) to 826 AF (5th multiple dry year). One factor that affects these projections is the continued drought conditions, which are conservatively anticipated to increase to as much as 106% of normal dry year values. 6.3. THE IMPLICATIONS OF SNUG HARBOR ON FUTURE WATER DEMANDS & SUPPLY RELIABILITY As shown in the tables above, the City’s supplies are expected to remain consistent throughout various dry year scenarios. However, the proposed Snug Harbor project, which was not accounted for in the City’s 2019 Water System Master Plans or the most recent 2020 UWMP, introduces an additional demand of approximately 85 AFY. To address the projects potential effect on the City’s projected water demands and supply reliability, the highest water demand scenario where all the City’s accounted for developments and the proposed Snug Harbor project was considered. Under this scenario the proposed project alongside all the City’s other planned projects and areas of development are assumed to be fully built out and occupied. The City’s current water supply and demand analysis would need to account for the projects projected net demand of 87 AFY beyond original 2020 projections, which matches supply projections to demands for simplicity. Therefore, under this scenario, the City can request additional water supplies from MWDOC, should the need arise. Additionally, the planning for the City’s 2025 UWMP will be initiated within the next 12 months and provides an opportunity for the City to reevaluate all prior anticipated projects, new projects (such as Snug Harbor), Regional Housing Needs Assessments, and population projections to provide a comprehensive demand assessment out to 2050. It is important to note that recent trends in existing and proposed water demands from new developments have not resulted in as high a demand as discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. Additionally, while all projects assumed in the UWMP were expected to be fully built and occupied, some projects have been stalled for years (such as Newport Back Bay Landing10) or canceled (such as Banning Ranch11). Thus, the City’s overall demand forecast is reduced and provides a buffer for unanticipated and new developments like Snug Harbor. By comparing actual water demands from 2020 to 2023 with projected demands it is not anticipated that incorporating the proposed Snug Harbor projects water demand will result in exceeding the projected demands and supplies. 6.4. LOCAL WATER CONSERVATION & SUPPLY SHORTAGE PROGRAM The City of Newport Beach’s Water Conservation and Water Supply Shortage Program is designed to manage water demand through both long-term conservation measures and responsive actions during times of water shortages. The program aims to reduce water consumption, prevent waste, and ensure a reliable supply of water for public health and safety. This is achieved by establishing permanent mandatory water conservation requirements, as well as implementing specific restrictions during declared water supply shortages. 10 The Newport Back Bay Landing project initially proposed in 2012, aimed to develop a mixed-use waterfront village. Over the years the project has faced delays and as of 2024 the project has not yet commenced construction, reflecting the complexities and extended timelines of projects. Notice of Preparation, 10/1/2012. Found here: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/pln/CEQA_REVIEW/Back%20Bay%20Landing/Final%20NOP_with_PA_No%20.p df 11 The City’s 2019 WSMP incorporated the potential water demands of the Banning Ranch project, which at the time was listed as a future development with a maximum buildout of 1,375 residential units, 75,000 square feet of retail commercial space, and 75 hotel rooms. However, in 2022 an agreement was finalized to preserve Banning Ranch as a nature preserve and public park. As a result, the projected water demands associated with this development are no longer anticipated. See description of the agreement here: https://mrca.ca.gov/press/13639/ . City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 24 6.4.1. PERMANENT MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS To promote efficient water, use at all times, the City enforces several permanent mandatory water conservation measures. These include the following limits12: · Residential o No watering landscape between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. o Limit watering landscape to no more than 10 minutes per station for automated irrigation systems. o Repair water leaks or breaks within 3 days o Watering outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff. o No washing down hard surfaces including sidewalks and driveways. o Irrigating lawn, shrubs or ornamental landscape during or 48-hours after rainfall. o Operating a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is part of a recirculating system. o Washing a vehicle (including cars, trucks, boats, trailers and recreational) with a hose, unless the hose is fitted with a self-closing shut-off nozzle. · Commercial o No watering of non-functional grass o Restaurants and other food service establishments can only serve water to customers on request. o Hotels and motels must provide guests with the option of not having towels and linens laundered daily. In addition to these permanent mandatory water conservation requirements the City has several other plans and procedures to prepare for water supply shortages13. 6.4.2. WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE LEVELS In times of water shortages, the City can declare different levels of water supply shortages, ranging from Level One (up to 10% reduction) to Level Six (over 50% reduction). As the severity of the shortage increases, the restrictions on water use become more stringent. For example, during a Level One shortage, irrigation is limited to four days per week, while in a Level Five severe shortage, the use of potable water for landscape irrigation is prohibited entirely, with limited exceptions for fire protection and public safety. A Level Six catastrophic shortage includes additional prohibitions, such as the suspension of new water connections and restrictions on non-essential water uses. 6.4.3. EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS To ensure water supply reliability during emergencies, the City has established inter-agency emergency interconnections with neighboring water districts, such as IRWD and Mesa Water District. Certain water uses necessary for public health and safety are exempt from restrictions, and customers who face unique hardships can apply for relief from compliance through a water conservation plan, which must demonstrate the maximum feasible reduction in water consumption. 12 City of Newport Beach, Water Quality and Conservation Program. Found here: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/public-works/water-quality-and- conservation/water-conservation 13 City of Newport Beach, Water Conservation And Water Supply Shortage Program. Found here: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/#!/html/NewportBeach14/NewportBeach1416.html City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 25 6.4.4. ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE The City enforces its water conservation regulations through a structured implementation plan, which includes public notifications, fines, and penalties for violations. For willful or continued non-compliance, the City may install water flow restrictors or even terminate water service. The City Council may also adjust the regulations in response to changes in water supply conditions or mandates from state authorities during declared emergencies. By adopting these comprehensive measures, the City of Newport Beach manages its water demands effectively, and ensures long-term water supply reliability for its residents and businesses. 6.5. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY CONCLUSIONS As discussed, and outlined above in all supply scenarios, whether normal year, single year, or multiple dry-year sequences, the City projects a balanced supply and demand, with no expected shortages. Groundwater storage, coupled with conservation efforts and the use of recycled water, will ensure that Newport Beach’s water resources remain sustainable and reliable through 2045. The City’s WSCP assessment also identifies potential limitations on water availability, including the effects of droughts on imported water supplies. However, Newport Beach’s access to groundwater allows the City to shift its reliance to groundwater during single dry years and consecutive dry years. The local groundwater basins act as a large reservoir, storing water during wet years and allowing the City to meet its demands during dry periods. The City’s proactive management and regional collaboration with the OCWD and MWD will also provide flexibility and security in maintaining adequate water supplies, even in the face of prolonged drought conditions. As a result, with the proposed Snug Harbor Newport Beach’s water supplies are not significantly impacted during any of the normal, single or multiple dry year conditions. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 26 7. C ONCLUSION The following is a summary of the key findings and conclusions that were discussed in further detail throughout the report. This summary focuses on the proposed projects impact on water demand and supplies and highlights some of the regulations and projects that will support the project; · Water Demand: The projected water demand for the Snug Harbor project is estimated to be approximately 85 acre-feet per year (AFY), which encompasses the demands for the projects proposed lagoon, pools, spa, and club house. This estimate is based on established water use factors sourced from the IRWD and Wave Garden engineering, which specializes in the research and design of wave generating systems and lagoons, such as what is proposed for the project. Refer to Section 4 for more details. · Water Supply: The primary water sources available to the project area includes groundwater, imported water, and recycled water. The total available water supply from these sources is projected to be sufficient to meet the demands of the proposed project under normal, single-dry, and multiple- dry year scenarios. Refer to Section 5 for more details. · Groundwater Management: The groundwater basin serving the project area is the Coastal Plain of Orange County groundwater basin also known as Basin 8-1 “OC Basin” or “Basin.” The Basin is currently managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), is classified as a medium priority basin, due to the regional reliance on the Basin’s groundwater supplies. The Basin is not currently experiencing overdraft conditions, and the project's groundwater use is expected to be sustainable under the basin's existing management plans. Refer to Section 5.1.1 for more details. · Future Water Supply Improvements: The City of Newport Beach alongside other stakeholders using the regional water supplies has identified future capital improvement program (CIP) projects that will support the regional water supply and reliability. These projects include City and OCWD improvements, which will further enhance the water system. Refer to Section 5.2.1 for more details. Overall, the analysis in this WSE demonstrates that the proposed Snug Harbor water demands are anticipated to be met by the City under various drought scenarios ranging from normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years. With the incorporation of water sustainability measures and ongoing infrastructure improvements managed by the City’s Utility Department, the Project’s the City can meet the Project’s demand without causing adverse effects on its water supplies or supplies available to its other customers. 8. A PPENDICES Appendix A Snug Harbor Site Plan Appendix B Water Volume & Demand Calculations Appendix C Newport Beach UWMP 2020 Appendix D Basin 8-1 Alternative City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 27 APPENDIX A S NUG H ARBOR S ITE P LAN M E S A D R I V E M E S A D R I V E IRVIN E A V E N U E SANTA A N A - D E L H I C H A N N E L AC A C I A S T R E E T NAP NAP SNUG HARBOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Site Development Review BACK BAY BARRELS, LLC 3857 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 521 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 FUSCOE ENGINEERING 15535 SAND CANYON AVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92618 PHONE: 949.474.1960 11/13/2024 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY C-04 LEGEND cf-,, • • / / . ·,~/ ' ---=---::::.;:--:57 ----•,, --~ -..::=-==-==--"'' _;-,< ___ 1tF1. 77: ------, --~---,.,_ --___ /J'J.\.TV s:s,, _,----~ ·-,c ----- -~ ---f)J.,"\· ~ --------:.::-:.~ / •• ~-=-_. -_ ....... ---------_;,----' ' ==-- --_ _:::.:::;---• i, -~~- --~ -_.::--~-/_;'.(1:,.,'fi.. __ / --..:::--...::-- -------------== -_;:--------~/ -~-;:-~-~ ✓ .• / ~--::----/ .,.,,,..,.,,. / --1/ ----~,,<''/ ~----1/ / --~--_;:::,:;-;..,-- / /--·/ ------:;,,- /. ., / / ..----------------" ~ ;;.--:;,,-:;,,-/. _,,,. ·s c. ~--Y r -- ,,.. /. 1/ ~--....-:: .....-:: :;,,-:;,,-r ;:.-,- /,-/ 1/ / /, 1/ /, 1/ 1/ / 1/ -- '"" ~ PROP BIORETENTIO""'- WITH UNDE ~ ~ -• --~-~q1·· _ _,:cr,:Cy ('.:; // V , .~ I I --_ '),l ~ -, I _,,_-' ~~/ ','\ --',\,, ------u,· -__ ,, ''-'.' -------- -;-,c,c,-:::-e/ --'\ ,)"":;:::, CONNECTION TO CHANNEL '"" ~/~f· "/_,....-'2.:5<=--_ .... ::;,-<· 1/ /'-.... ''< / ., / . ,, • • / . ' ~"i /"' < ~, '• / x"if'"--;. / I f -~-_ .. , I~ .· l/; ' -:::_;,(•' - -\ . ••' '•¥!'.-/ •t : I / .,, ~ j:_ ";_· /~ I , , :'I I , '.I '•·"-:, "•>-. ~ \ ,,\ ' "':----rr-¼~ ' ' ' ··/ ••• ···•···•'>;_ \ \ PROP BIORETENTIDN WITH UNDERDRAIN PROP MODULAR WETLAND 4'X8' .:r--<, "' .• "" • t.;,/ .~~~ ' ~¾\\:\ ~ • • ~ ',·· <~~I·~·".~~ ,'\K '¾,•·/ 1,11 --~\ '. '-\ \ 1 11 '\ •••. ,,~ ,. \•I,,', ""'1\: \;;~~" • ~ '-, ;,,. "2" ·, ·• .. 11"-· · I ·•• ',;,':-•;, '\' •. ·. •.·.·~ Ill •.. • ':·•. '--'-' .....,::1 -,, ' / , .... ~ . -~, ,~, ~"¾, ~~ '< ·, ~ ',, ·~ ~ ··~.. ·." ~\."•~:cc-,..·~ c I C, " • -~ ~·~· j ~ '~'~\·· •.•.. ·, ••• ~~ ' ' " • . " . . ' ' ---~~ ' •• 0, "'" ,P ""'' • ""'" \ \ \ \ \ ' \ ------------ PROP MODULAR WETLAND 4'X8' \ \ , , , ' ' 4 1X, • • ,,,,,")"{\ ':-\ .. • GREASE, INTERCEP • • ' I_ --/t ___ _ /\:·// ' , , I I . I , • \ ' ' ,~' .. ~~., • ' ·---. ___ ""' • ' ' 'PROP SSMH f • ' ' "'. ' C A,W· .'-. "' ---_ BOUNDARY LINE CENTERLINE --ss SC - C'il'--- ---F'ii--- EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE EXISTING DOMESTIC WATER LINE EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE EXISTING DRY UTILITY PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LINE PROPOSED IRRIGATION WATER LINE PROPOSED FIRE WATER LINE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED AREA DRAIN LINE PROPOSED WATER QUALITY PRACTICES PROPOSED DRY UTILITY F:\ PROJECTS\ 4206\ 00 I \PLANS\ ENTITLEM ENTS\SCH EMA TIC PLANS\4206-001 ET04UT.OWG (11-13-2024 6:26:45PM) J) Plotted by: GAttard PROP MODULAR 8'X16' ~~ ~ • ~ ,. ~" ~i~"-. " ~~ ""'& '' --.;'-,__ S~[li'\_ "~ ',,~ ., "" "' '>~~."-.... ~·•.· .. ~ ~~ ~. '-....._ ··~ ••• ... • .. ~ i ',~ •, ·,·· ••... : ~· ~':',.;' ' i.,"',,"" . "" s ~ . .Z i ·-,. ·-.,</ 1-.. ' ·,___ ..... ----~';,,;,,~~ ' ---~ ,··•• ... , . ..._ .,. ¾ '/'> ~" ~"""'"'· ~ •••• .•···· ... ---~ ~ •• ...., ..._ ...:"-.,.. . >· .. ~ .... -~ ' ·--~-----, • ··s._ ' "-.... •. • , .. , . . '-.,_ / / 'I, ~··.: • .... '"-~ ::; '-.,_ . ' ~ ,' ' ..:; . ... , ~· ~:::.;._""0 ~ ... ~ 1 i •••• •.... ~ '-,.,··i / ·-------. ·,_ .,.~.,';~'!;,~---·--/_/--___ -_-_·-._ ... ~·•.... ·• ••• ··:: ' ,~··· •••• ,.. ""----~ "S ~ '-""-:;: °' )~l._ ~+--, d;, ~ ' ~,:, ·-.__ ~ ........................ ..._,::-'~ ,•, ,. / / ------- # .·/··.o"· ,,,,,, . .,,- ------ I • ""' • IEXIST. FIRE STATIONI / / / / 2; "(_l'/i ------------ ,------- c__J I_/ l_l l_i 1-l r-1 r7 r-1 • ----- EXIST. COMMERCIAL BLDGS. r, 0-.. ',*, ~ /'' "-::: ' \ ~ / / / / / / / / / / / - / / / / / / / / / / / / 40' o· 20· 40' SCALE: 1 " 40' City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 28 APPENDIX B W ATER V OLUME & D EMAND C ALCULATIONS City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 29 Snug Harbor Existing Water Demands Existing Irrigation Demands (Groundwater Well Production) 2020 29,750,000 gallons 2021 34,181,764 gallons 2022 36,267,210 gallons 2023 33,823,328 gallons Average Demand 2020-2023 (18-Hole Course) 91,796 GPD 103 AFY Estimated Project Area Demand 2020-2023 (3-Hole Course) 15,300 GPD 17.2 AFY Existing Commercial Demands (Potable Water) July ’22 – June ’23 529,584 gallons July ’23 – June ’24 484,704 gallons Average Demand FY 22-23 & 23-24 1,389 GPD 1.6 AFY Total Existing Demand (Irrigation + Commercial) 18-Hole Course + Commercial Demands 93,186 GPD 104 AFY Project Area Demand 3-Hole Course + Commercial 16,689 GPD 18.7 AFY Source: Coyne. 6 August 2024. Development Corporation, Domestic Meter and Well Production Invoices “Email to Fuscoe Engineering.” City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 30 Wavegarden Cove, Water Management Introduction – Newport Beach Cove. 18 October 2024. Proposed Lagoon Water Estimates 18.994 MILLION GALLONS = ANNUAL OPERATION VOLUMES (OPERATING LOSS) AND DOES NOT INCLUDE INITIAL LAGOON FILL OR DRAW DOWN AND REFILL. I n the fo llowing graph it can be seen how rainfa ll compensates water evaporation and fina l fresh water requirements are much lower than evaporation losses, 7.000 6.000 sooo ,.ooo 3.000 2.000 1.000 Av,orag,o Fr...J> Wat,or R,oqu,r,om,onu (n3/month) JAN FEB MAR ABR MAY JUN JUL AUS SEP OCT NO~ DEC -Fr•h Wtt• Requlr.,,,.,.ts lm3(monithJ _._Aw~,eOpenrtJncWi1t@f'loH (ml/month) _..,..M«ilhn1lnfal1 [m3t I n add ition, it may is prudent to a lso consider a possib le drain/fill of the who le Cove lagoon for exceptional maintenance issues; this represents some 10.2 Mga l of ad d itional water requirements (although this is unlikely to be requ ired every year). I n add ition , we have made a rough estimation considering that the water tempera t ure doesn ·t go be low 19°C . This artificia l increase of water temperature generates an "extra " evaporation. It is like having summer water temperature the who le year. Table 2.Generaf water requirements estimation for Newport Beach Cove considering that water temperature is over 19°G Surf lagoon water loss calculatkm Temperatu re mean (9C) Open wate r Evaporation Est imate lm3/year] (Bal/yea r] Wave operation Facto, WG Backwash lo sses lm3/year] (ga Vyea r) Average Eva poration Water Loss (ml/day) (gal/yeor) Opera ting Water Loss {m3/yearl(gol/yearl Annuol rolnfoll {m ml(lnch) Annual rai nfal l {m3] (gal] Total Year Water Requirements (m3/year) (s,,1/year) Mean total water requirements (m3/day) (gal/day) Average total water requirements not considering Annual fill and no rain (m3/day)(gal/day) Ma•imum daily August (mu average temp) (m3/day){gal/day) Totals 19 49 .079 1,45 730 195 71.89S 267 S.28Q 66 .611 182 197 272 Gallons 12.966.764 192.867 51.51 2 11 t .396.018 17.S!l.l.6SS 41.US S!.040 71.811 Wavega rden o nly ass umes liab ility if th e Technical Specificatio n are materia lly incorrect and assumes no responsit>fllty for an impro per and/or Incorre ct desig n or construcLl on o f the Lagoon. Wavegarden Property -Confide ntia l 9 > City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 31 Snug Harbor Proposed Lagoon Water Demands WATER REQUIREMENTS – ROUTINE SURF LAGOON MAINTENANCE Gallons/Year Gallons/Day AFY Draining of the Lagoon – (Frequency: Annually) 5,100,000 13,973 15.65 Filter Cleaning of the Lagoon – (Frequency: 17 times per year) 45,067 123 0.14 Total Water Requirements – Routine Maintenance 5,145,067 14,096 15.79 WATER REQUIREMENTS – ANNUAL SURF LAGOON OPERATION Gallons/Year Gallons/Day AFY Average Temperature (ºF) 66 ºF Open Water Evaporation Estimate (gal/year) 12,966,764 35,525 39.79 Wave Operation Factor 1.45 Backwash losses (gal/year) 192,867 528 0.59 Average Evaporation Water Loss (gal/year) 51,512 141 0.16 Operating Water Loss (gal/year) 18,994,674 52,040 58.29 Annual Rainfall (11 inches) 1,396,018 3,825 4.28 Total Water Requirement – Annual Operation 17,598,655 48,215 54.01 Total Water Requirement – Routine Maintenance + Annual Operation 22,743,722 62,312 69.80 Sources 1. Wavegarden Cove. 18 October 2024. Water Management Introduction – Newport Beach Cove 2. Coyne. 30 September 2024. Water Requirement “Email to Fuscoe Engineering.” Proposed Water Use Factors IRWD WATER USE FACTORS Land Use Designation Water Use Factor Community Commercial 175 Gallons/KSF/Day Hotel 160 Gallons/Room/Day Sources: IRWD 2019 Water Resources Master Plan - Table 3-1: Land Use and Water Use Factors City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 32 Snug Harbor Proposed Clubhouse & Accommodations Water Demands Proposed Clubhouse and Accommodations Amount Avg. Unit Flow Avg. Flow (GPD) Avg. Flow (AFY) Clubhouse Building & Accommodations14 (SF) 69,216 SF 0.175 (GPD/SF)1 12,113 13.57 Athlete Accommodations (Rms) 20 Keys 160 (GPD/Key)1 3,200 3.58 Showers for Pools/Lagoons 9 Showers 54 (GPD/Shower)2 486 0.54 Recreational Pools and Spas (SF) 3 Pools 1 Spa * Proration of the lagoons water usage based on surface areas 931 1.04 TOTALS 16,733 18.74 1. Irvine Ranch Water District, 2019, Water Resources Master Plan, Table 3-1 2. 54 GPD/Shower = Assumed 18 gal/shower usage x 3 uses per day per shower facility. Source: Alliance for Water Efficiency. “Showering to Savings.” Home Water Works, 2016 Residential End Uses of Water Study, The Water Research Foundation, https://home-water-works.org/indoor-use/showers. Snug Harbor Net Change in Water Demands Proposed Land Uses Amount GPD AFY Proposed Water Use Wave Pool/ Surf Lagoon · 5.5 Acre Wave Pool 62,312 69.80 Clubhouse & Accommodations · 69,216 SF · 20 Keys · 9 Showers · 3 Pools and 1 Spa 16,733 18.74 Total Proposed Water Demands 79,045 88.54 Existing Water Use Golf Course · 3-holes 15,299 17.14 Commercial Amenities · Pro Shop, Clubhouse, and Restaurant 1,389 1.56 Total Existing Water Demands 16,689 18.70 Net Change (Proposed – All Existing Uses) 62,356 70 Net Change (Proposed – Existing Commercial Amenities) 77,656 87 14 69,216 SF includes Clubhouse Building 68,478 SF and the Standalone Restrooms 738 SF. City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 33 APPENDIX C N EWPORT B EACH UWMP 2020 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Final June 2021 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 949 W. 16th Street Newport Beach, California 92663 Prepared by: Arcadis U.S., Inc. 320 Commerce Suite 200 Irvine California 92602 Tel 714 730 9052 Fax 714 730 9345 Our Ref: 30055240 Date: June 2021 Sarina Sriboonlue, P.E. Project Manager Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com i CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ES-1 1 Introduction and UWMP Overview ..................................................................................................... 1-1 Overview of Urban Water Management Plan Requirements ...................................................... 1-1 UWMP Organization .................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 UWMP Preparation ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 Individual Planning and Compliance ........................................................................................... 2-1 Coordination and Outreach ......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Integration with Other Planning Efforts .................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2 Wholesale and Retail Coordination ........................................................................................ 2-4 2.2.3 Public Participation ................................................................................................................. 2-4 3 System Description ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 Agency Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Formation and Purpose .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 City Council ............................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Relationship to MWDOC ........................................................................................................ 3-2 Water Service Area and Facilities ............................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Water Service Area ................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.2 Water Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 3-4 Climate ......................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Population, Demographics, and Socioeconomics ....................................................................... 3-6 3.4.1 Population .............................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.4.2 Demographics and Socioeconomics ...................................................................................... 3-7 3.4.3 CDR Projection Methodology ................................................................................................. 3-8 Land Uses .................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.1 Current Land Uses ................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.5.2 Projected Land Uses .............................................................................................................. 3-8 4 Water Use Characterization ............................................................................................................... 4-1 Water Use Overview .................................................................................................................... 4-1 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com ii 5 Conservation Target Compliance....................................................................................................... 5-1 Baseline Water Use ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Ten to 15-Year Baseline Period (Baseline GPCD) ................................................................ 5-2 5.1.2 Five-Year Baseline Period (Target Confirmation) .................................................................. 5-2 5.1.3 Service Area Population ......................................................................................................... 5-2 SBx7-7 Water Use Targets .......................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.1 SBx7-7 Target Methods ......................................................................................................... 5-3 5.2.2 2020 Targets and Compliance ............................................................................................... 5-3 Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance ................................................................................ 5-4 6 Water Supply Characterization .......................................................................................................... 6-1 Water Supply Overview ............................................................................................................... 6-1 Imported Water ............................................................................................................................ 6-5 6.2.1 Colorado River Supplies ........................................................................................................ 6-5 6.2.2 State Water Project Supplies ................................................................................................. 6-7 6.2.3 Storage ................................................................................................................................. 6-11 6.2.4 Planned Future Sources ...................................................................................................... 6-12 Groundwater .............................................................................................................................. 6-13 6.3.1 Historical Groundwater Extraction ........................................................................................ 6-13 6.3.2 Basin Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 6-14 6.3.3 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ........................................................................ 6-17 6.3.4 Basin Production Percentage ............................................................................................... 6-17 2020 OCWD Groundwater Reliability Plan .................................................................. 6-19 OCWD Engineer’s Report ............................................................................................ 6-19 6.3.5 Recharge Management ........................................................................................................ 6-20 6.3.6 MET Groundwater Replenishment Program ........................................................................ 6-20 6.3.7 MET Conjunctive Use Program / Cyclic Storage Program with OCWD .............................. 6-21 6.3.8 Overdraft Conditions ............................................................................................................ 6-21 6.3.9 Planned Future Sources ...................................................................................................... 6-22 Surface Water ............................................................................................................................ 6-22 6.4.1 Existing Sources................................................................................................................... 6-22 6.4.2 Planned Future Sources ...................................................................................................... 6-22 5.1 5 .2 5 .3 6 .1 6 .2 6 .3 6.4 6.3.4 .1 6 .3.4 .2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com iii Stormwater ................................................................................................................................ 6-23 6.5.1 Existing Sources................................................................................................................... 6-23 6.5.2 Planned Future Sources ...................................................................................................... 6-23 Wastewater and Recycled Water .............................................................................................. 6-23 6.6.1 Agency Coordination ............................................................................................................ 6-23 OCWD Green Acres Project ........................................................................................ 6-23 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System .............................................................. 6-24 6.6.2 Wastewater Description and Disposal ................................................................................. 6-24 6.6.3 Current Recycled Water Uses .............................................................................................. 6-26 6.6.4 Projected Recycled Water Uses .......................................................................................... 6-26 6.6.5 Potential Recycled Water Uses ............................................................................................ 6-28 6.6.6 Optimization Plan ................................................................................................................. 6-28 Desalination Opportunities ........................................................................................................ 6-29 6.7.1 Ocean Water Desalination ................................................................................................... 6-30 6.7.2 Groundwater Desalination .................................................................................................... 6-32 Water Exchanges and Transfers ............................................................................................... 6-32 6.8.1 Existing Exchanges and Transfers ....................................................................................... 6-32 6.8.2 Planned and Potential Exchanges and Transfers ................................................................ 6-32 Summary of Future Water Supply Projects ............................................................................... 6-33 6.9.1 City Initiatives ....................................................................................................................... 6-33 6.9.2 Regional Initiatives ............................................................................................................... 6-34 Energy Intensity.................................................................................................................... 6-35 6.10.1 Water Supply Energy Intensity ......................................................................................... 6-36 Operational Control and Reporting Period ............................................................... 6-38 Volume of Water Entering Processes ...................................................................... 6-38 Energy Consumption and Generation ...................................................................... 6-38 6.10.2 Wastewater and Recycled Water Energy Intensity .......................................................... 6-38 Operational Control and Reporting Period ............................................................... 6-40 Volume of Wastewater Entering Processes ............................................................. 6-40 Energy Consumption and Generation ...................................................................... 6-40 6.10.3 Key Findings and Next Steps ........................................................................................... 6-40 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6 .6.1.1 6.6.1 .2 6.10.1.1 6.10.1.2 6.10.1.3 6.10.2 .1 6.10.2.2 6.10.2.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com iv 7 Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment .................................................................. 7-1 Water Service Reliability Overview .............................................................................................. 7-1 Factors Affecting Reliability ......................................................................................................... 7-3 7.2.1 Climate Change and the Environment ................................................................................... 7-3 7.2.2 Regulatory and Legal ............................................................................................................. 7-4 7.2.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 7-4 Imported Water ............................................................................................................... 7-4 Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 7-5 7.2.4 Locally Applicable Criteria ...................................................................................................... 7-8 Water Service Reliability Assessment ......................................................................................... 7-8 7.3.1 Normal Year Reliability ........................................................................................................... 7-8 7.3.2 Single Dry Year Reliability ...................................................................................................... 7-9 7.3.3 Multiple Dry Year Reliability ................................................................................................. 7-10 Management Tools and Options ............................................................................................... 7-12 Drought Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................... 7-13 7.5.1 DRA Methodology ................................................................................................................ 7-13 7.5.2 Total Water Supply and Use Comparison ............................................................................ 7-15 7.5.3 Water Source Reliability ....................................................................................................... 7-17 8 Water Shortage Contingency Planning .............................................................................................. 8-1 Layperson Description ................................................................................................................. 8-1 Overview of the WSCP ................................................................................................................ 8-1 Summary of Water Shortage Response Strategy and Required DWR Tables ........................... 8-2 9 Demand Management Measures ....................................................................................................... 9-1 Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers ................................................................. 9-1 9.1.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances ..................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.2 Metering ................................................................................................................................. 9-2 9.1.3 Conservation Pricing .............................................................................................................. 9-3 9.1.4 Public Education and Outreach .............................................................................................. 9-3 9.1.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss ......................................... 9-6 9.1.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support ......................................... 9-6 9.1.7 Other Demand Management Measures ................................................................................. 9-8 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 8.1 8.2 8.3 9 .1 7.2.3.1 7.2.3 .2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com v Residential Program ....................................................................................................... 9-8 CII Programs .................................................................................................................. 9-8 Landscape Programs ..................................................................................................... 9-9 Implementation over the Past Five Years.................................................................................. 9-12 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements) .......................................................................... 9-14 10 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ................................................................................ 10-1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 10-1 Agency Coordination ............................................................................................................ 10-2 Public Participation ............................................................................................................... 10-2 UWMP Submittal .................................................................................................................. 10-3 Amending the Adopted UWMP or WSCP ............................................................................ 10-3 11 References ....................................................................................................................................... 11-1 TABLES Table 2-1: Plan Identification...................................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2: Supplier Identification ............................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-3: Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange ........................................................................... 2-4 Table 3-1: Retail Only: Public Water Systems ........................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-2: Retail: Population - Current and Projected ............................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-3: City of Newport Beach Service Area Dwelling Units by Type .................................................. 3-7 Table 3-4: Future Development Areas per 2019 Water Master Plan ........................................................ 3-9 Table 4-1: Retail: Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Actual ................................................ 4-2 Table 4-2: Water Use Projections for 2021 to 2025 ................................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-3: Retail: Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water - Projected .................................................... 4-6 Table 4-4: Retail: Total Water Use (Potable and Non-Potable) ................................................................. 4-7 Table 4-5: Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections ...................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-6: SCAG 6th Cycle Household Allocation Based on Median Household Income ......................... 4-8 Table 4-7: Projected Water Use for Low Income Households (AF) ........................................................... 4-8 Table 4-8: Retail: 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting .......................................................................... 4-9 Table 5-1: Baselines and Targets Summary .............................................................................................. 5-3 9.2 9.3 10.1 10 .2 10.3 10.4 10.5 9.1.7.1 9.1.7.2 9.1.7.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com vi Table 5-2: 2020 Compliance ...................................................................................................................... 5-4 Table 6-1: Retail: Water Supplies – Actual ................................................................................................ 6-2 Table 6-2: Retail: Water Supplies – Projected ........................................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-3: MET SWP Program Capabilities ............................................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-4: Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped .................................................................................... 6-14 Table 6-5: Management Actions Based on Changes in Groundwater Storage ....................................... 6-18 Table 6-6: Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2020 .................................................... 6-25 Table 6-7: Retail: Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area ...................................... 6-27 Table 6-8: Retail: 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual ................... 6-28 Table 6-9: Recommended Energy Intensity – Multiple Water Delivery Products .................................... 6-37 Table 6-10: Recommended Energy Intensity – Wastewater & Recycled Water ..................................... 6-39 Table 7-1: Retail: Basis of Water Year Data (Reliability Assessment) ...................................................... 7-2 Table 7-2: Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................................ 7-9 Table 7-3: Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ..................................................... 7-10 Table 7-4: Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................. 7-11 Table 7-5: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to Address Water Code Section 10635(b) ....... 7-15 Table 8-1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels ................................................................................ 8-4 Table 9-1: Newport Beach Residential Water Usage Rates ...................................................................... 9-3 Table 9-2: City of Newport Beach Water Conservation Efficiency Program Participation ....................... 9-13 Table 9-3: MWDOC Programs to Assist in Meeting WUO ....................................................................... 9-14 Table 9-4: CII BMP Implementation Programs Offered ........................................................................... 9-17 Table 10-1: External Coordination and Outreach .................................................................................... 10-1 Table 10-2: Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties ............................................................................ 10-2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com vii FIGURES Figure 3-1: Regional Location of City of Newport Beach and Other MWDOC Member Agencies ............ 3-3 Figure 3-2: City of Newport Beach Water Service Area ............................................................................ 3-4 Figure 4-1: Water Use Projection Methodology Diagram .......................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-2: Water Loss Audit for CY2015 - FY 2019/20 .......................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-3: Water Loss Performance Indicators for CY2015 - FY 2019/20 ............................................. 4-10 Figure 6-1: City’s Projected Water Supply Sources (AF) ........................................................................... 6-4 Figure 6-2: Map of the OC Basin ............................................................................................................. 6-16 Figure 8-1: UWMP Overview ..................................................................................................................... 8-2 APPENDICES Appendix A. UWMP Water Code Checklist Appendix B. DWR Standardized Tables Appendix C. Reduced Delta Reliance Appendix D. SBx7-7 Verification and Compliance Forms Appendix E. 2021 OC Water Demand Forecast for MWDOC and OCWD Technical Memorandum Appendix F. AWWA Water Loss Audits Appendix G. 2017 Basin 8-1 Alternative Appendix H. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Appendix I. Water Use Efficiency Implementation Report Appendix J. Demand Management Measures Appendix K. Notice of Public Hearing Appendix L. Adopted UWMP Resolution Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com viii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS % Percent 20x2020 20% water use reduction in GPCD by year 2020 ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit Act Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 AF Acre-Feet AFY Acre-Feet per Year AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure AWWA American Water Works Association BEA Basin Equity Assessment Biops Biological Opinions BMP Best Management Practice BPP Basin Production Percentage CCC California Coastal Commission CDR Center for Demographic Research at California State Fullerton CEC Constituents of Emerging Concern CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency CFS Cubic Feet per Second CII Commercial/Industrial/Institutional CIP Capital Improvement Program City City of Newport Beach CPTP Coastal Pumping Transfer Program CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CTE Career Technical Education CUP Conjunctive Use Program CVP Central Valley Project CY Calendar Year DAC Disadvantaged Communities DCP Delta Conveyance Project DDW California State Division of Drinking Water Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta DRA Drought Risk Assessment DMM Demand Management Measure DOF Department of Finance DVL Diamond Valley Lake DWR Department of Water Resources FIRO Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations FY Fiscal Year GAP Green Acres Project Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com ix GHG Greenhouse Gas GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day gpf Gallons per Flush GRP Groundwater Reliability Plan GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System GWRSFE Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion H2O2 Hydrogen Peroxide HECW High Efficiency Clothes Washer HEN High Efficiency Nozzle HET High Efficiency Toilet HOA Home Owners Association IPR Indirect Potable Reuse IRP Integrated Water Resources Plan JADU Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit kWh Kilowatt-Hour LRP Local Resources Program LTFP Long-Term Facilities Plan MAF Million Acre-Feet MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MET Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MF Microfiltration MG Million Gallon MGD Million Gallons per Day MHI Median Household Income MNWD Moulton Niguel Water District MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County MWELO Model Water Use Efficiency Landscape Ordinance NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRW Non-Revenue Water OC Orange County OC Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin OC San Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District ORP On-Site Retrofit Program PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com x PFOS perfluorooctane sulfanate Poseidon Poseidon Resources LLC PPCP Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Product ppt Parts per trillion PSA Public Service Announcement QWEL Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper RA Replenishment Assessment RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RO Reverse Osmosis RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan SBx7-7 Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCWD South Coast Water District SMWD Santa Margarita Water District SDP Seawater Desalination Program sf Square Feet STEAM Science Technology Engineering Arts and Mathematics SWP State Water Project SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board TAF Thousand Acre-Feet TDS Total Dissolved Solids USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation UV Ultraviolet UWMP Urban Water Management Plan UWMP Act Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 VOC Volatile Organic Compound Water Code California Water Code WBIC Weather-Based Irrigation Controller WF-21 Water Factory 21 WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSIP Water Savings Inventory Program WUO Water Use Objective Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AND UWMP OVERVIEW The City of Newport Beach (City) prepared this 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to submit to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to satisfy the UWMP Act of 1983 (UWMP Act or Act) and subsequent California Water Code (Water Code) requirements. The City is a retail water supplier that provides water to its residents and other customers using the imported potable water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin), and recycled water from the Orange County Water District (OCWD). UWMPs are comprehensive documents that present an evaluation of a water supplier’s reliability over a long-term (20-25 year) horizon. This 2020 UWMP provides an assessment of the present and future water supply sources and demands within the City’s service area. It presents an update to the 2015 UWMP on the City’s water resource needs, water use efficiency programs, water reliability assessment and strategies to mitigate water shortage conditions. It also presents a new 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) designed to prepare for and respond to water shortages. This 2020 UWMP contains all elements to meet compliance of the new requirements of the Act as amended since 2015. UWMP PREPARATION The City coordinated the preparation of this 2020 UWMP with other key entities, including MWDOC (regional wholesaler of imported water for Orange County), Metropolitan Water District of southern California (MET) (regional wholesaler for Southern California and the direct supplier of imported water to MWDOC), and OCWD (OC Basin manager and provider of recycled water in north Orange County). The City also coordinated with other entities, which provided valuable data for the analyses prepared in this UWMP, such as the Center for Demographic Research (CDR) at California State University Fullerton for population projections, through MWDOC’s assistance. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The City was incorporated on September 1, 1906 and is governed by a seven-member City Council which operates under a Council-Manager format of government. The City Utilities Department and the Public Works Department work collaboratively to provide water to the customers. The City’s water service area covers about 11 square miles located along the Orange County coast of Southern California. The water service area covers most of the City’s boundaries with the remaining areas served by Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and Mesa Water District (Mesa Water). The City operates a wellfield with a total capacity of 10,900 gallons per minute (gpm), 15 recycled water connections, 6 inter-agency emergency interconnections and manages about 300-mile water mains system with 26,765 service connections. Lying in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), its climate is characterized by Southern California’s “Mediterranean” climate with mild winters, warm summers and moderate rainfall. In terms of land use, the City is almost built out with predominantly single and multi-family residential units. Moving forward, the City will continue planning for its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and future planned developments beyond 2020 will mainly include addition of institutional, commercial and a few Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com ES-2 residential units. The current population of 61,916 is projected to increase by only 4.8% over the next 25 years. WATER USE CHARACTERIZATION Water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 15,413 AF. In this period, potable and non-potable water use accounted for an average of 97% and 3% of total City water use, respectively. In FY2019-20, the City’s water use was 14,492 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported) and 513 AF of direct recycled water for landscape irrigation. In FY2019-20, the City’s potable water use profile was comprised of 58.9% residential use, 18.2% commercial, institutional, and industrial (CII) and 18.1% large landscape/irrigation, with non-revenue water and other uses comprising about 4.8%. Water Use Projections: 5-year and 25-year The City’s service area is almost completely built-out and is projected to add minimum land use and small population increase. Water demand is likely to decrease less than 1% over the next 5 years. In the longer term, water demand is projected to increase 5.2% from 2025 through 2045. The projected water use for 2045 is 15,103 AF for potable water and 542 AF for recycled water. This demand projection considers such factors as current and future demographics, future water use efficiency measures, and long term weather variability. CONSERVATION TARGET COMPLIANCE Retail water suppliers are required to comply with the requirements of Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SBx7-7 (Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session), which was signed into law in 2010 and requires the State of California to reduce urban water use by 20% by 2020 from a 2013 baseline. The retail water suppliers can comply individually or as a region in collaboration with other retail water suppliers, in order to be eligible for water related state grants and loans. The City is part of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance created in collaboration with MWDOC, its retail member agencies as well as the Cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana. The Alliance was created to assist OC retail agencies in complying with SBx7-7. The City met its 2020 water use target and is in compliance with SBx7-7; the actual 2020 consumption was 160 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), which is below its 2020 target of 207 GPCD. WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERIZATION The City meets all of its demands with a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water. The City works together with two primary agencies, MWDOC and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) provided by MET and delivered through MWDOC. The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the OC Basin. Imported water and recycled water supplement the City’s water supply portfolio. In FY 2019-20, the City’s water supplies consisted of 68% groundwater, 28.5% imported water, and 3.5% recycled water. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com ES-3 It is projected that by 2045, the water supply portfolio will shift to 82% groundwater, 14.5% imported water, and 3.5% recycled water. Note that these representations of supply match the projected demand. The City can purchase more MET water through MWDOC, should the need arise. The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to OC San for treatment and disposal. The City benefits from its direct and indirect uses of recycled water. OCWD’s Green Acres Project (GAP) produces recycled water for direct non-potable reuses such as landscape irrigation. OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) produces recycled water for indirect potable reuse (IPR) through the replenishment of the OC Basin. WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY AND DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT Every urban water supplier is required to assess the reliability of their water service to its customers under a normal year, a single dry year, and a drought period lasting five consecutive years. The water service reliability assessment compares projected supply to projected demand for the three hydrological conditions between 2025 and 2045. Factors affecting reliability, such as climate change and regulatory impacts, are accounted for as part of the assessment. The City depends on a combination of imported and local supplies to meet its water demands and has taken numerous steps to ensure it has adequate supplies. MET’s and MWDOC’s 2020 UWMPs conclude that they can meet full-service demands of their member agencies through 2045 during normal years, single-dry years, and multiple-dry years. Consequently, the City is projected to meet full-service demands through 2045 for all scenarios, due to diversified supply and conservation measures. The Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) evaluates the City’s near-term ability to supply water assuming the City is experiencing a drought over the next five years. Even under the assumption of a drought over the next five years, MET’s 2020 UWMP concludes a surplus of water supplies would be available to all of its Member Agencies, including MWDOC and in effect, the City, should the need for additional supplies arise to close any local supply gap. Additionally, the City partakes in various efforts to reduce its reliance on imported water supplies such as increasing the use of local groundwater and recycled water supplies. WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING Water shortage contingency planning is a strategic planning process that the City engages to prepare for and respond to water shortages. A water shortage, when water supply available is insufficient to meet the normally expected customer water use at a given point in time, may occur due to a number of reasons, such as water supply quality changes, climate change, drought, and catastrophic events (e.g., earthquake). The City’s WSCP provides real-time water supply availability assessment and structured steps designed to respond to actual conditions. This level of detailed planning and preparation will help maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions. The WSCP serves as the operating manual that the City will use to prevent catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, mitigation of water shortages. The WSCP contains the processes and procedures that will be deployed when shortage conditions arise so that the City’s governing body, its staff, and its retail agencies can easily identify and efficiently implement Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com ES-4 pre-determined steps to mitigate a water shortage to the level appropriate to the degree of water shortfall anticipated. DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES The City, along with other Retail water agencies throughout Orange County, recognizes the need to use existing water supplies efficiently. This ethic of efficient water use has evolved as a result of the development and implementation of water use efficiency programs that make economic sense while reflecting responsible stewardship of the region’s water resources. The City works closely with MWDOC to promote regional efficiency by participating in the regional water savings programs, leveraging MWDOC local program assistance, and applying the findings of MWDOCs research and evaluation efforts. This approach helps minimize confusion to consumers by providing the same programs with the same participation guidelines, maintains a consistent message to the public to use water efficiently, and provides support to retail water agencies with MWDOC serving as program administrator for the region. PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION The Water Code requires the UWMP to be adopted by the Supplier’s governing body. Before the adoption of the UWMP, the City notified the public and the cities and counties within its service area per the Water Code and held a public hearing to receive input from the public on the UWMP. Post adoption, the City submitted the UWMP to DWR and the other key agencies and will make it available for public review no later than 30 days after filing with DWR. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION AND UWMP OVERVIEW The City of Newport Beach (City) prepared this 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP or Plan) to submit to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to satisfy the UWMP Act of 1983 (UWMP Act or Act) and subsequent California Water Code (Water Code) requirements. The City is a retail water supplier that provides water to its residents and other customers using the imported potable water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin), and recycled water from the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The City, as one of MWDOC’s 28 member agencies, prepared this 2020 UWMP in collaboration with MWDOC, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET), OCWD, and other key agencies. UWMPs are comprehensive documents that present an evaluation of a water supplier’s reliability over a long-term (20-25 year) horizon. In response to the changing climatic conditions and regulatory updates since the 2015 UWMP, the City has been proactively managing its water supply and demand. The water loss audit program, water conservation measures and efforts for increased self-reliance in order to reduce dependency on imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) are some of the water management efforts that the City is a part of to maintain the reliability of water supply for its service area. This 2020 UWMP provides an assessment of the present and future water supply sources and demands within the City’s service area. It presents an update to the 2015 UWMP on City’s water resource needs, water use efficiency programs, water reliability assessment and strategies to mitigate water shortage conditions. It presents a new 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) designed to prepare for and respond to water shortages. This 2020 UWMP contains all elements to meet compliance of the new requirements of the Act as amended since 2015. Overview of Urban Water Management Plan Requirements The UWMP Act enacted by California legislature requires every urban water supplier (Supplier) providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually to prepare, adopt, and file an UWMP with the California DWR every five years in the years ending in zero and five. For this 2020 UWMP cycle, DWR placed emphasis on achieving improvements for long term reliability and resilience to drought and climate change in California. Legislation related to water supply planning in California has evolved to address these issues, namely Making Conservation a Way of Life [Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606] and Water Loss Performance Standard SB555. New UWMP requirements in 2020 are a direct result of these new water regulations. Two complementary components were added to the 2020 UWMP. First is the WSCP to assess the Supplier’s near term 5-year drought risk assessment (DRA) and provide a structured guide for the Supplier to deal with water shortages. Second is the Annual Water Supply Demand Assessment (WSDA) to assess the current year plus one dry year i.e., short-term demand/supply outlook. Analyses over near- and long-term horizons together will provide a more complete picture of Supplier’s reliability and will serve to inform appropriate actions it needs to take to build up capacity over the long term. 1.1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 1-2 The various key new additions in the 2020 UWMP included as a result of the most recent water regulations are: • Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) – WSCP helps a Supplier to better prepare for drought conditions and provides the steps and water use efficiency measures to be taken in times of water shortage conditions. WSCP now has more prescriptive elements, including an analysis of water supply reliability; the water use efficiency measures for each of the six standard water shortage levels, that correspond to water shortage percentages ranging from 0 - 10% to greater than 50%; an estimate of potential to close supply gap for each measure; protocols and procedures to communicate identified actions for any current or predicted water shortage conditions; procedures for an annual water supply and demand assessment; monitoring and reporting requirements to determine customer compliance; reevaluation and improvement procedures for evaluating the WSCP. • Drought Risk Assessment – The Suppliers are now required to compare their total water use and supply projections and conduct a reliability assessment of all their sources for a consecutive five-year drought period beginning 2021. • Five Consecutive Dry-Year Water Reliability Assessment - The three-year multiple dry year reliability assessment in previous UWMPs has now been extended from three to five consecutive dry years to include a more comprehensive assessment of the reliability of the water sources to improve preparedness of Suppliers for extended drought conditions. • Seismic Risk – The UWMP now includes a seismic risk assessment of the water supply infrastructure and a plan to mitigate any seismic risks on the water supply assets. • Groundwater Supplies Coordination – The UWMP should be in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 and consistent with the Groundwater Sustainability Plans, wherever applicable. • Lay Description – To provide a better understanding of the UWMP to the general public, a lay description of the UWMP is included, especially summarizing the Supplier’s detailed water service reliability assessment and the planned management steps and actions to mitigate any possible shortage scenarios. UWMP Organization This UWMP is organized into 10 main sections aligned with the DWR Guidebook recommendations. The subsections are customized to tell the City’s story of water supply reliability and ways to overcome any water shortages over a planning horizon of the next 25 years. Section 1 Introduction and UWMP Overview gives an overview of the UWMP fundamentals and briefly describes the new additional requirements passed by the Legislature for 2020 UWMP. Section 2 UWMP Preparation identifies this UWMP as an individual planning effort of the City, lists the type of year and units of measure used and introduces the coordination and outreach activities conducted by the City to develop this UWMP. Section 3 System Description gives a background on the City’s water system and its climate characteristics, population projection, demographics, socioeconomics and predominant current and projected land uses of its service area. 1.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 1-3 Section 4 Water Use Characterization provides historical, current, and projected water use by customer category for the next 25 years within the City’s service area and the projection methodology used by MWDOC to develop the 25-year projections. Section 5 Conservation Target Compliance reports the SB X7-7 water use conservation target compliance of the City (individually and as a member of the OC 20x2020 Regional Alliance). Section 6 Water Supply Characterization describes the current water supply portfolio of the City as well as the planned and potential water supply projects and water exchange and transfer opportunities. Section 7 Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment assesses the reliability of the City’s water supply service to its customers for a normal year, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years scenarios. This section also includes a DRA of all the supply sources for a consecutive five-year drought period beginning 2021. Section 8 Water Shortage Contingency Planning is a brief summary of the standalone WSCP document (Appendix H) which provides a structured guide for the City to deal with water shortages, incorporating prescriptive information and standardized action levels, lists the appropriate actions and water use efficiency measures to be taken to ensure water supply reliability in times of water shortage conditions, along with implementation actions in the event of a catastrophic supply interruption. Section 9 Demand Management Measures provides a comprehensive description of the water conservation programs that the City has implemented, is currently implementing, and plans to implement in order to meet its urban water use reduction targets. Section 10 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation provides a record of the process the City followed to adopt and implement its UWMP. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 2-1 2 UWMP PREPARATION The City’s 2020 UWMP is an individual UWMP for the City to meet the Water Code compliance as a retail water supplier. While the City opted to prepare its own UWMP and meet Water Code compliance individually, the development of this UWMP involved close coordination with its whole supplier, MWDOC along with other key entities within the region. Individual Planning and Compliance The City opted to prepare its own UWMP (Table 2-1) and comply with the Water Code individually, while closely coordinating with MWDOC and various key entities as discussed in Section 2.2 to ensure regional integration. The UWMP Checklist was completed to confirm the compliance of this UWMP with the Water Code Appendix A. One consistency with MWDOC and the majority of its other retail member agencies is that the City selected to report demands and supplies using fiscal year (FY) basis (Table 2-2). Table 2-1: Plan Identification DWR Submittal Table 2-2: Plan Identification Select Only One Type of Plan Name of RUWMP or Regional Alliance if applicable Individual UWMP Water Supplier is also a member of a RUWMP Water Supplier is also a member of a Regional Alliance Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) NOTES: 2.1 □ □ Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 2-2 Table 2-2: Supplier Identification DWR Submittal Table 2-3: Supplier Identification Type of Supplier (select one or both) Supplier is a wholesaler Supplier is a retailer Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one) UWMP Tables are in calendar years UWMP Tables are in fiscal years If using fiscal years provide month and date that the fiscal year begins (mm/dd) 7/1 Units of measure used in UWMP (select from drop down) Unit AF NOTES: The energy intensity data is reported in calendar year consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Coordination and Outreach 2.2.1 Integration with Other Planning Efforts The City, as a retail water supplier, coordinated this UWMP preparation effort with other key entities, including MWDOC (regional wholesale supplier for OC), MET (regional wholesaler for Southern California and the direct supplier of imported water to MWDOC), and OCWD (OC Basin manager and provider of recycled water in north OC). The City also developed this Plan in conjunction with other MWDOC-led efforts such as population projection from the Center for Demographic Research at California State University Fullerton (CDR). Some of the key planning and reporting documents that were used to develop this UWMP are: • MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP provides the basis for the projections of the imported supply availability over the next 25 years for the City’s service area. • MWDOC’s 2020 WSCP provides a water supply availability assessment and structured steps designed to respond to actual conditions that will help maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions. □ □ 2.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 2-3 • 2021 OC Water Demand Forecast for MWDOC and OCWD Technical Memorandum (Demand Forecast TM) provides the basis for water demand projections for MWDOC’s member agencies as well as Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana. • MET’s 2020 Draft Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) is a long-term planning document to ensure water supply availability in Southern California and provides a basis for water supply reliability in Orange County. • MET’s 2020 UWMP was developed as a part of the 2020 IRP planning process and was used by MWDOC as another basis for the projections of supply capability of the imported water received from MET. • MET’s 2020 WSCP provides a water supply assessment and guide for MET’s intended actions during water shortage conditions. • OCWD’s Groundwater Reliability Plan (to be finalized after July 2021) provides the latest information on groundwater management and supply projection for the OC Basin, the primary source of groundwater for 19 retail water suppliers in OC. • OCWD’s 2019-20 Engineer’s Report provides information on the groundwater conditions and basin utilization of the OC Basin. • OCWD’s 2017 Basin 8-1 Alternative is an alternative to the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the OC Basin and provides significant information related to sustainable management of the basin in the past and hydrogeology of the basin, including groundwater quality and basin characteristics. • Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides the basis for the seismic risk analysis of the water system facilities. • Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission’s 2020 Municipal Service Review for MWDOC Report provides comprehensive review of the municipal services provided by MWDOC. • Water Master Plan of the City provides information on water infrastructure planning projects and plans to address any required water system improvements. Statewide Water Planning In addition to regional coordination with various agencies described above, the City as a MWDOC member agency is currently a part of MET’s statewide planning effort to reduce reliance on the water imported from Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It is the policy of the State of California to reduce reliance on the Delta in meeting California’s future water supply needs through a statewide strategy of investing in improved regional supplies, conservation, and water use efficiency. This policy is codified through the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan Policy WR P1 and is measured through Supplier reporting in each Urban Water Management Planning cycle. WR P1 is relevant to water suppliers that plan to participate in multi-year water transfers, conveyance facilities, or new diversions in the Delta. Through significant local and regional investment in water use efficiency, water recycling, advanced water technologies, local and regional water supply projects, and improved regional coordination of local and regional water supply efforts, the City has demonstrated a reduction in Delta reliance and a subsequent improvement in regional self-reliance. For a detailed description and documentation of the City’s consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1 see Section 7.4 and Appendix C. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 2-4 2.2.2 Wholesale and Retail Coordination The City developed its UWMP in conjunction with MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP. The City provided its historical water use and initial water use projections data to MWDOC (Table 2-3). MWDOC facilitated in refining the projections of the City’s water demand and the imported supply from MWDOC over the next 25 years. The City also has been taking part in many regional programs administered by MWDOC to assist retail agencies meet various State compliance, such as the OC Regional Alliance for SBx7-7 compliance, regional water loss program for SB555 compliance, and regional water use efficiency programs. Sections 5 and 9 provide detailed information on these programs. Table 2-3: Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange DWR Submittal Table 2-4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange The retail Supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use in accordance with Water Code Section 10631. Wholesale Water Supplier Name MWDOC NOTES: 2.2.3 Public Participation For further coordination with other key agencies and to encourage public participation in the review and update of this Plan, the City held a public hearing and notified key entities and the public per the Water Code requirements. Sections 10.2 and 10.3 describe these efforts in detail. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-1 3 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The City was incorporated on September 1, 1906 and is governed by a seven-member City Council which operates under a Council-Manager format of government. The City Utilities Department and the Public Works Department work collaboratively to provide water to the customers. The City’s water service area covers about 11 square miles located along the Orange County coast of Southern California, bounded to the West by the Pacific Ocean, to the North by the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, to the South by Laguna Beach, and to the East by Irvine. The water service area covers most of the City’s boundaries with the remaining areas served by Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and Mesa Water District (Mesa Water). The City operates a wellfield with a total capacity of 10,900 gallons per minute (gpm), 15 recycled water connections, 6 inter-agency emergency interconnections and manages about 300-mile water mains system with 26,765 service connections. Lying in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), its climate is characterized by Southern California’s “Mediterranean” climate with mild winters, warm summers and moderate rainfall. In terms of land use, the City is almost built out with predominantly single and multi-family residential units. Moving forward, the City will continue planning for its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and future planned developments beyond 2020 will mainly include addition of institutional, commercial and a few residential units. The current population of 61,916 is projected to increase by only 4.8% over the next 25 years. Agency Overview This section provides information on the formation and history of the City, its organizational structure, roles, objectives, and the relationship to MWDOC. 3.1.1 Formation and Purpose The City was incorporated on September 1, 1906 and the current City Charter was adopted in 1954. The City is known for its fine residential areas, modern shopping facilities, strong business community and quality school system. It surrounds Newport Bay where approximately 4,300 boats of all types are docked within the 21-square-mile harbor area. The bay area and the City’s eight miles of ocean beach offer outstanding fishing, swimming, surfing, and aquatic sports activities. The City Utilities Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the City’s water, wastewater, and storm drain systems, as well as and other municipal utilities within the City. The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for engineering services including, capital project delivery, bay water quality and environmental services, and transportation and development services. The two departments work collaboratively to plan for the City’s water supply and distribution system improvements through master planning and capital improvement program (CIP) efforts. 3.1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-2 3.1.2 City Council The City Council operates under a Council-Manager format of government. Its seven City Council Members are elected by district, but the population as a whole votes for them. The current City Council members are: • Brad Avery, Mayor • Kevin Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tem • Diane B. Dixon • Duffy Duffield • Noah Blom • Joy Brenner • Will O'Neill 3.1.3 Relationship to MWDOC The City is one of MWDOC’s 28 member agencies purchasing imported water from MWDOC, Orange County’s wholesale water supplier and a member agency of MET. The City’s location within MWDOC’s service is shown on Figure 3-1. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-3 Figure 3-1: Regional Location of City of Newport Beach and Other MWDOC Member Agencies Cl MWOOC Reolail Agencies o ......... ,......,...,_, c:::::J East Orang! CcuntyW'a1ef Oislricl(Wholes:alec) c:::::J Or~eo...ity WaterOisri:t F1"eewa~and T~ • .., ___ N w+• s .. ' - MWDOC Serv ice Area and Member Agenc ies -··-c----_,. ________ _ " Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-4 Water Service Area and Facilities 3.2.1 Water Service Area The City provides water to approximately 11 square miles of land area located along the Orange County coast of Southern California. The City is bounded to the West by the Pacific Ocean, to the North by the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, to the South by Laguna Beach, and to the East by Irvine. The water service area covers most of the City’s boundaries with the remaining areas served by IRWD and Mesa Water as shown on Figure 3-2. Figure 3-2: City of Newport Beach Water Service Area 3.2.2 Water Facilities Groundwater Facilities The City receives a large percentage of its supply from groundwater. The City’s wellfield with a total capacity of 10,900 gpm is located in Fountain Valley, approximately five miles north of the City. Groundwater is conveyed from the wellfield to the City via a 30 to 36-inch pipeline that discharges into the 16th Street Reservoir. From the reservoir, the water is pumped into the City’s distribution system and into a 600 Acre-foot (AF) storage facility across town called Big Canyon Reservoir. 3.2 Pacific Ocean Legend •"•" Water Service Boundary -·-·· Ci!y Bcun<!ary ~ Clly of Newport Beach ~ Mesa Water District Irvine Ranch Water Otstrtct ~ARCADIS 2019 WATER MASTER Pl.AN Water service Area -·· 1-1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-5 Reservoirs The City has three reservoirs - Big Canyon Reservoir has a capacity of 600 AF, 16th Street Reservoir can store up to 3 AF, and Spyglass Reservoir has a capacity of 1.5 AF. Imported Water Supply Facilities The City supplements its local groundwater with imported water purchased from MET through MWDOC as a wholesaler. All of the water supplied by the City is sold to its retail customers (residential and commercial). The City maintains its own retail distribution system. The City delivers potable water through its water system which consists of approximately 300 miles of pipelines ranging in size from 1-inch to 48 inches. The City has an extensive distribution system, which includes five pressure zones and six connections along the Orange County Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2. Maximum turnout capacity equals 67 million gallons per day (MGD). The City has five pump stations that deliver water to the upper zones, and backup generation facilities ensure that the City can still deliver water to all zones during a rolling blackout. Recycled Water Facilities The City owns and operates recycled water pump stations for Big Canyon Country Club and the Newport Beach Country Club. Including these two sites, there are currently 15 recycled water connections that supply five different customers. Recycled water is purchased from OCWD and sold to the City’s customers. Water Transmission System Water is delivered to the City’s customers from the Groundwater Transmission Main, and from diversions off the Orange County Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2. The transmission system consists of pipelines, booster pump stations, and storage reservoirs and tanks. The current capacity of the City’s potable water supply is 104 cubic feet per second (cfs). Emergency Interconnections For emergency water shortage or outage conditions, the City has six inter-agency emergency interconnections with IRWD and seven with Mesa. The system connections and water volume supplied are summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Retail Only: Public Water Systems DWR Submittal Table 2-1 Retail Only: Public Water Systems Public Water System Number Public Water System Name Number of Municipal Connections 2020 Volume of Water Supplied 2020 CA3010023 City of Newport Beach 26,765 15,047 TOTAL 26,765 15,047 NOTES: Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-6 Climate The City is located within the SCAB that encompasses all of OC, and the urban areas of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The SCAB climate is characterized by Southern California’s “Mediterranean” climate: a semi-arid environment with mild winters, warm summers and moderate rainfall. Local rainfall has limited impacts on reducing water demand in the City, except for landscape irrigation demand. Water that infiltrates into the soil may enter groundwater supplies depending on the local geography. However, due to the large extent of impervious cover in Southern California, rainfall runoff quickly flows to a system of concrete storm drains and channels that lead directly to the ocean. OCWD is one agency that has successfully captured stormwater along the Santa Ana River and in recharge basins for years and used it as an additional source of supply for groundwater recharge. Based on the 2017 Basin 8-1 Alternative Plan, OCWD captured an average annual stormwater volume of approximately 44,000 AF over the period of ten years, from Water Year 2006-07 to 2015-16; however, this period’s rainfall was 17% below the long term average using San Bernardino precipitation data. Based on a longer period (1989-2015) of rainfall and captured stormwater records, the average year water budget of OCWD assumes a stormwater capture volume of 52,000 AF. MET's water supplies come from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), influenced by climate conditions in northern California and the Colorado River Basin, respectively. The years 2000-2018 have been the driest 19-year period in the history and both regions have been receiving record low precipitation which directly impact water supplies to Southern California. Due to the prolonged drought conditions since 2000, storage within the Colorado River system has declined to half of its reservoir capacity and has been fluctuating at that level (DWR, January 2020) Population, Demographics, and Socioeconomics 3.4.1 Population Based on CDR and the City’s Planning Department’s estimates, the City’s service area population is projected to increase by about 4.8% over the 25-year period from 2020 to 2045. The growth is slightly higher in the first 15 years until 2035 and tapered off from there. There is limited vacant land left within the service area and most growth is projected to be from densification of existing communities. Table 3-2 shows the population projections in five-year increments out to 2045 within the City’s service area. Table 3-2: Retail: Population - Current and Projected DWR Submittal Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected Population Served 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 61,916 64,273 65,015 65,397 65,360 64,872 NOTES: Source - Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, 2020 3.3 3.4 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-7 In March of 2021, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, adopted the 6th cycle of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) spanning the years of 2021 through 2029. RHNA is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing element of the City’s General Plan. Currently, the City is in the process of updating its General Plan housing element, which is due to be completed by October of 2021 followed by an up-to three-year rezoning process to plan for RHNA. The RHNA allocations may affect future iterations of the population and housing projections after the City updates the General Plan Housing Element, and zoning. If rezoning land to residential uses or rezoning to increase housing densities occurs as a result of the RHNA allocations, this may result in the City providing feedback, to CDR and/or SCAG during future growth forecast update processes, if additional housing units are expected to be built beyond what was forecast in the previous growth forecast iteration. Future City UWMPs will incorporate the best available local planning information for the City’s service area. 3.4.2 Demographics and Socioeconomics As shown in Table 3-3 below, the total number of dwelling units in the City is expected to increase by 4.1% in the next 25 years from 33,146 in 2020 to 34,511 in 2045. Table 3-3 also shows a breakdown of the total dwelling units by type for the 25-year period from 2020 to 2045. Table 3-3: City of Newport Beach Service Area Dwelling Units by Type City of Newport Beach Service Area Dwelling Units by Type Dwelling Units 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Total 33,146 34,279 34,280 34,496 34,499 34,511 Single Family 12,431 12,450 12,451 12,451 12,451 12,453 All Other* 20,715 21,829 21,829 22,045 22,048 22,058 Source: Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, 2020 *Includes duplex, triplex, apartment, condo, townhouse, mobile home, etc. Yachts, houseboats, recreational vehicles, vans, etc. are included if is primary place of residence. Does not include group quartered units, cars, railroad box cars, etc. In addition to the types and proportions of dwelling units, various socio-economic factors such as age distribution, education levels, general health status, income and poverty levels affect City’s water management and planning. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau's QuickFacts, the City has about 23.1% of population of 65 years and over, 17.2% under the age of 18 years and 3.9% under the age of 5 years. 97.8% of the City’s population with an age of more than 25 years has a minimum of high school graduate and 67% of this age group has at least a bachelor’s degree. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-8 3.4.3 CDR Projection Methodology The City obtains its services area population and dwelling unit data from MWDOC via CDR. MWDOC contracts with CDR to update the historic population estimates for 2010 to the current year and provide an annual estimate of population served by each of its retail water suppliers within its service area. CDR uses GIS and data from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Decennial Censuses, State Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates, and the CDR annual population estimates. These annual estimates incorporate annual revisions to the DOF annual population estimates, often for every year back to the most recent Decennial Census. As a result, all previous estimates were set aside and replaced with the most current set of annual estimates. Annexations and boundary changes for water suppliers are incorporated into these annual estimates. In the summer of 2020, projections by water supplier for population and dwelling units by type were estimated using the 2018 Orange County Projections dataset. Growth for each of the five-year increments was allocated using GIS and a review of the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) with a 2019 aerial photo. The growth was added to the 2020 estimates by water supplier. The City made minor revision to the 2020 population estimated by CDR and used 4.8% as the overall growth in the population by 2045, which is consistent with the CDR’s projections. Land Uses 3.5.1 Current Land Uses The City’s service area can best be described as a predominantly residential single and multi-family community located along the coast in central Orange County, close to scenic beaches and natural preserves. Based on the zoning designation collected and aggregated by SCAG around 2018, the current land use within the City’s service area can be categorized as follows: • Single family residential – 36.4% • Multi-family residential – 12.3% • Commercial – 11.6% • Industrial – 0.9% • Institutional/Governmental – 6.2% • Open space and parks – 21.2% • Other – 7.5% (e.g., Undevelopable or Protected Land, Water, and Vacant) • No land use designations – 3.9% 3.5.2 Projected Land Uses The City is nearly built out within its water service area. Table 3-4 lists the information on planned future development and redevelopment areas per the 2019 Water Master Plan of the City. 3.5 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-9 Table 3-4: Future Development Areas per 2019 Water Master Plan Future Development/Redevelopment Anticipated Development Type and Size Future Land Use Category (Existing) Size (Acres) Anticipated Development Period ENC Preschool Vacant since 2007 Mixed Use (Office) 1.25 2022 Lido Villas (DART) Church: 8,961 sq.ft. Office Building: 32,469 sq. ft. Residential Very High (Residential) 1.20 2022 Back Bay Landing RV, Boat storage, 45 storage units, kayak/paddleboard rentals. Mixed Use (Mixed Use) 12.74 2024 Plaza Corona del Mar Vacant Mixed Use (Mixed Use) 0.35 2022 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Master Plan Update Project Vacant Commercial (Large Water User) 17.53 Long term plans unknown. No new major development Ullman Sail Lofts Commercial: 9,962 sq. ft. Mixed Use (Mixed Use) 0.13 2021 Newport Crossings Retail: 22,976 sq. ft. Restaurant: 15,887 sq. ft. Medical Office: 5,467 sq. ft Mixed Use (Mixed Use) 1.94 2023 Newport Dunes Hotel None - Vacant area of Newport Dunes Resort Commercial (Parks and Recreation) 69.41 2025 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-10 Future Development/Redevelopment Anticipated Development Type and Size Future Land Use Category (Existing) Size (Acres) Anticipated Development Period Newport Village – Mariners Mile Retail, Service Office: 65,604 sq. ft. Mixed use (Commercial) 8.23 2023 Westcliff Mixed-Use Project None Mixed use (Commercial) 0.99 2023 Banning Ranch (currently on hold due to the lack of the Coastal Development Permit) To be determined Residential/Mixed use/Institutional/Open Space - Currently unknown In addition to the above upcoming developments, the following requirements and changes in laws will impact the City’s future land use: • RHNA - State law requires jurisdictions to provide their share of the RHNA allocation and SCAG determines the housing growth needs by income for local jurisdictions through RHNA. The City’s RHNA allocation for the 2021 - 2029 is 4,845 dwelling units. This includes 1,456 units for very low-income households, 930 units for low-income households, 1,050 units for moderate-income households, and 1,409 units for above moderate-income households. • Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330) – This law was signed in 2019 to respond to the California housing crisis. Effective January 1, 2020, the law aims to increase residential unit development, protect existing housing inventory, and expedite permit processing. Under this legislation, municipal and county agencies are restricted in ordinances and polices that can be applied to residential development. The revised definition of “Housing Development” now contains residential projects of two or more units, mixed-use projects (with two-thirds of the floor area designated for residential use), transitional, supportive, and emergency housing projects. The City currently has 5 applications in process under this law. • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – ADUs are separate small dwellings embedded within residential properties. There has been an increase in the construction of ADUs in California in response to the rise in interest to provide affordable housing supply. The Legislature updated the ADU law effective January 1, 2020 to clarify and improve various provisions to promote the development of ADUs (AB-881, "Accessory dwelling units," and AB-68, "Land use: accessory dwelling units”). These include: o allowing ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) to be built concurrently with a single-family dwelling. JADUs max size is 500 sf. o opening areas where ADUs can be created to include all zoning districts that allow single-family and multi-family uses o maximum size cannot be less than 850 sf for a one-bedroom ADU or 1,000 sf for more than one bedroom (California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020) Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 3-11 About 92% of the ADUs in California are being built in the single-family-zoned parcels (University of California Berkeley, 2020). The increase in ADUs implies an increase in number of people per dwelling unit which potentially translates to higher water demand. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-1 4 WATER USE CHARACTERIZATION Water Use Overview Water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 15,413 AF. In this period, potable and non-potable water use accounted for an average of 97% and 3% of total City water use, respectively. In FY2019-20, the City’s water use was 14,492 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported) and 513 AF of direct recycled water for landscape irrigation. In FY2019-20, the City’s potable water use profile was comprised of 58.9% residential use, 18.2% commercial, institutional, and industrial (CII) and 18.1% large landscape/irrigation, with non-revenue water and other uses comprising about 4.8%. As described in Section 3, the City’s service area is almost completely built-out and is projected to add minimum land use and small population increase. Water demand is likely to decrease less than 1% over the next 5 years. In the longer term, water demand is projected to increase 5.2% from 2025 through 2045. The projected water use for 2045 is 15,103 AF for potable water and 542 AF for recycled water. The passive savings are anticipated to continue for the next 25 years and are considered in the water use projections. Permanent water conservation requirements and water conservation strategies are discussed in Section 8 and 9 of this document. Past and Current Water Use The City’s service area has exhibited relatively stable water use within the past decade—the annual average being 15,413 AF. A stable trend is expected because the city is essentially built-out and the rate of population growth is small (less than 0.2% per year). Water conservation efforts also kept per capita water use down. As a result of Governor Jerry Brown’s mandatory water conservation order in 2014, the City’s water use in the last five years decreased below the 10-year average. Between FY 2015-16 and FY 2019-20, water use within the City’s service area ranged from 13,326 to 15,358 acre-feet per year (AFY) (potable and non-potable combined). In the past decade, between FY 2010-11 and FY 2019-20, potable and non-potable water use accounts for an average of 97% and 3% of total City water use, respectively. Potable water uses include demands from residential, CII, and large landscape irrigation. Non-potable use includes the use of recycled water for large landscape and golf course irrigation. As of FY 2019-20 there are 26,765 active service connections in the City’s water distribution system. Of these, 17 are recycled water accounts. Table 4-1 summarizes the City’s total water demand for potable and non-potable water for FY 2019-20. The City has a mix of commercial uses (markets, restaurants, etc.), public entities (schools, fire stations and government offices), and office complexes. Single and multi- family residential water demand combined accounts for 58.8% of the total water demand. Commercial and governmental/institutional use account for 16.9%, and 1.2% of total demand, respectively. Large landscape (irrigation) accounts for 18.1% of total demand. 4.1 4.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-2 Table 4-1: Retail: Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Actual DWR Submittal Table 4-1 Retail: Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water - Actual Use Type 2020 Actual Additional Description (as needed) Level of Treatment When Delivered Volume Single Family Drinking Water 6,750 Multi-Family Drinking Water 1,782 Commercial Drinking Water 2,463 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 173 Landscape Represents large landscape (with irrigation meters) served by potable water and not recycled water Drinking Water 2,629 Losses Non-Revenue Water Drinking Water 603 Other Potable Drinking Water 91 TOTAL 14,492 NOTES: Volumes reported in AF. This table only represents potable water; recycled water projections are shown in Table 4-4 (DWR Submittal Tables 4-3) and Table 6-8 (DWR Submittal Tables 6-4). 603 AF NRW value is based on the most FY 2019-20 Water Loss Audit. Water Use Projections A key component of this 2020 UWMP is to provide an insight into the City’s future water demand outlook. This section discusses the considerations and methodology used to estimate the 25-year water use projection. Overall, total water demand is projected to increase 4.3% between 2020 and 2045. While single and multifamily residential use is projected to decrease between 2025 and 2045, usage by CII is projected to increase during the same timeframe. Demands for large landscape applications are projected to remain steady. Non-revenue water loss as a percentage of total demand is also projected to remain steady. The City’s AMI system anticipated to be completed at the end of FY2021-22 will help maintain a low water loss rate into the future. 4.3.1 Water Use Projection Methodology In 2021, MWDOC and OCWD, in collaboration with their member agencies, led the effort to update water demand projections originally done as part of the 2021 OC Water Demand Forecast for MWDOC and OCWD. The updated demand projections, prepared by CDM Smith, were for the Orange County region 4.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-3 as a whole, and provided retail agency specific demands. The projections span the years of 2025-2050 and are based upon information surveyed from each Orange County water agency. The forecast methodology began with a retail water agency survey that asked for FY 2017-18, FY 2018- 19 and FY 2019-20 water use by major sector, including number of accounts. If a member agency provided recycled water to customers that information was also requested. Given that FY 2017-18 was a slightly above-normal demand year (warmer/drier than average) and FY 2018-19 was a slightly below- normal demand year (cooler/wetter than average), water use from these two years were averaged to represent an average-year base water demand. For the residential sectors (single-family and multifamily) the base year water demand was divided by households in order to get a total per unit water use (gallons per home per day). In order to split household water use into indoor and outdoor uses, three sources of information were used, along with CDM Smith’s expertise. The sources of information included: (1) the Residential End Uses of Water (Water Research Foundation, 2016); (2) California’s plumbing codes and landscape ordinances; and (3) CA DWR’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) calculator. Three different periods of residential end uses of water were analyzed as follows: • Pre-2010 efficiency levels – Has an average indoor water use that is considered to be moderately efficient, also does not include the most recent requirements for MWELO. • High-efficiency levels – Includes the most recent plumbing codes that are considered to be highly efficient, and also includes the most recent requirements for MWELO. • Current average efficiency levels – Represents the weighted average between pre-2010 efficiency and high efficiency levels, based on average age of homes for each retail water agency. For outdoor residential water use, the indoor per capita total was multiplied by each member agency- specific persons per household in order to get an indoor residential household water use (gallons per day per home), and then was subtracted from the base year total household water use for single-family and multifamily for each agency based on actual water use as reported by the agency surveys. For existing residential homes, the current average indoor and outdoor water use for each member agency were used for the year 2020. It was assumed that indoor water uses would reach the high efficiency level by 2040. Based on current age of homes, replacement/remodeling rates, and water utility rebate programs it is believed this assumption is very achievable. It was also assumed that current outdoor water use would be reduced by 5% by 2050. For new homes, the indoor high efficiency level was assumed for the years 2025 through 2050. Outdoor uses for new homes were assumed to be 25% and 30% lower than current household water use for single-family and multifamily homes, respectively. This methodology is illustrated in Figure 4-1 below. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-4 Figure 4-1: Water Use Projection Methodology Diagram Existing and projected population, single-family and multifamily households for each retail water agency were provided by CDR under contract by MWDOC and OCWD. CDR provides historical and future demographics by census tracts for all of Orange County (Section 3.4). Census tract data is then clipped to retail water agency service boundaries in order to produce historical and projected demographic data by agency. For the CII water demands, which have been fairly stable from a unit use perspective (gallons/account/day), it was assumed that the unit demand in FY 2019-20 would remain the same from 2020-2025 to represent COVID-19 impacts. Reviewing agency water use data from FY 2017-18 through FY2019-20 revealed that residential water use increased slightly in FY 2019-20 while CII demands decreased slightly as a result of COVID-19. From 2030 to 2050, the average CII unit use from FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 was used. These unit use factors were then multiplied by an assumed growth of CII accounts under three broad scenarios: • Low Scenario – assuming no growth in CII accounts • Mid Scenario – assuming 0.5% annual growth in CII accounts • High Scenario – assuming 1.5% annual growth in CII accounts For most retail agencies, the Mid Scenario of CII account growth was used, but for those retail agencies that have had faster historical growth the High Scenario was used. For those retail agencies that have had relatively stable CII water demand, the Low Scenario was used. For Newport Beach, the high scenario was used. For those agencies that supply recycled water for non-potable demands, MWDOC used agency-specified growth assumptions. Most agencies have already maximized their recycled water and thus are not expecting for this category of demand to grow. However, a few agencies in South Orange County do expect moderate growth in recycled water customers. Ba se Year 2020 2040-2050 Indoor Use: Indoor Use: Water Use Current Efficiency High Efficiency ' (agency survey) Curren t Total Water Use . X Homes (2020-2050) -(CDR) . # of Homes Outdoor Use: Outdoor Use: (CDR*) To t al -Indoor Reduced 5% 2025 -2050 Indoor Use: *CDR = Center for Demographic High Efficiency Fu t ure Total Water Use Resea rc h New X Homes (2025-2050) Customers Outdoor Use: (CDR) **MWELO = CA Model Water Efficient Reduced 25-30% Landscape O r d i nan ce per MWELO** Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-5 For large landscape customers served currently by potable water use, MWDOC assumed these demands to be constant through 2050, except for agencies that have growing recycled water demands. For the agencies that have growing recycled water demands, large landscape demands served by potable water reduced accordingly. For non-revenue water, which represents the difference in total water production less all water billed to customers, this percentage was held constant through 2050. Note that 2050 data was not presented in the UWMP. A member agency’s water use demand projection is the summation of their residential water demand, CII demands, large landscape and recycled water demands, and water losses all projected over the 25-year time horizon. These demands were provided to each of the Orange County water agencies for their review, feedback, and revision before being finalized. The MWDOC regional water demand projection was collaboratively developed between MWDOC and its member agencies. MWDOC’s projections were built upon the same model developed by CDM Smith, and took into consideration specific assumptions and projections provided to MWDOC by its member agencies. Weather Variability and Long-Term Climate Change Impacts In any given year water demands can vary substantially due to weather. In addition, long-term climate change can have an impact on water demands into the future. For the 2014 OC Water Reliability Study, CDM Smith developed a statistical model of total water monthly production from 1990 to 2014 from a sample of retail water agencies. This model removed impacts from population growth, the economy and drought restrictions in order to estimate the impact on water use from temperature and precipitation. The results of this statistical analysis are: • Hot/dry weather demands will be 5.5% greater than current average weather demands • Cooler/wet weather demands will be 6% lower than current average weather demands • Climate change impacts will increase current average weather demands by: o 2% in 2030 o 4% in 2040 o 6% in 2050 4.3.2 25-Year Water Use Projection The projected demand values were provided by MWDOC and reviewed by the City as part of the UWMP effort. As the regional wholesale supplier for much of Orange County, MWDOC works in collaboration with each of its retail agencies as well as MET, its wholesaler, to develop demand projections for imported water. The City has been proactively decreasing its reliance on imported water by pursuing a variety of water conservation strategies and continuing its recycled water use within the service area. Future water savings and low-income water use are included in these projected values. 4 .3.1 .1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-6 Water Use Projections for 2021-2025 The water use projection for normal year conditions without drought for 2021-2025 is presented in Table 4-2. This table will be adjusted to estimate the five-years’ cumulative drought effects as described in the five-year DRA in Section 7. A linear decrease in total water demand is expected between 2021 and 2025. Table 4-2: Water Use Projections for 2021 to 2025 Retail: Total Water Demand FY Ending 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Water Demand (AF) 14,977 14,949 14,921 14,893 14,866 NOTES: Water Use Projections for 2025-2045 Table 4-3 is a projection of the City’s water demand for the next 25 years. While single-family and multi- family residential use is projected to decrease due to water use efficiency measures, usage by CII is projected to increase. CII projections for 2025 through 2045 were broken down into commercial, industrial, and institutional/governmental using proportions reported for each billing sector in FY 2019-20. Demands for large landscape applications are projected to stay consistent, while non-revenue water is projected to increase until 2040, then decrease slightly. The demand data presented in this section accounts for passive savings in the future. Passive savings are water savings as a result of codes, standards, ordinances and public outreach on water conservation and higher efficiency fixtures. Passive savings are anticipated to continue for the next 25 years and will result in continued water saving and reduced consumption levels. Permanent water conservation requirements and water conservation strategies are discussed in Section 8 and 9 of this document. Table 4-3: Retail: Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water - Projected DWR Submittal Table 4-2 Retail: Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water - Projected Use Type Additional Description (as needed) Projected Water Use 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Single Family 6,385 6,294 6,202 6,111 6,077 Multi-Family 1,729 1,691 1,653 1,615 1,614 Commercial 2,762 3,334 3,584 3,853 3,853 Institutional/Governmental 194 234 251 270 270 Landscape Large Landscape Potable 2,616 2,616 2,616 2,616 2,616 Losses Non-Revenue Water 638 661 667 675 673 TOTAL 14,324 14,829 14,975 15,140 15,103 4 .3.2.1 4 .3.2.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-7 NOTES: Volumes reported in AF. This table only represents potable water; recycled water projections are shown in Table 4-4 (DWR Submittal Tables 4-3) and Table 6-8 (DWR Submittal Tables 6-4). Based on the information provided above, the total demand for potable water is listed below in Table 4-4. The City currently provides recycled water in its service area and is projected to maintain its use. Table 4-4: Retail: Total Water Use (Potable and Non-Potable) DWR Submittal Table 4-3 Retail: Total Gross Water Use (Potable and Non-Potable) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Potable Water, Raw, Other Non-potable 14,492 14,324 14,829 14,975 15,140 15,103 Recycled Water Demand 513 542 542 542 542 542 TOTAL WATER USE 15,005 14,866 15,371 15,517 15,682 15,645 NOTES: Volumes reported in AF Future water savings and low-income water use are included in these projected values (Table 4-5). Table 4-5: Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections DWR Submittal Table 4-5 Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? (Refer to Appendix K of UWMP Guidebook) Yes If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, ordinances, or otherwise are utilized in demand projections are found. Section 8 and 9 Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Yes NOTES: Water Use Projections for Lower Income Households Since 2010, the UWMP Act has required retail water suppliers to include water use projections for single- family and multi-family residential housing for lower income and affordable households. This will assist the City in complying with the requirement under Government Code Section 65589.7 granting priority for providing water service to lower income households. A lower income household is defined as a household earning below 80% of the MHI. DWR recommends retail suppliers rely on the housing elements of city or county general plans to quantify planned lower income housing with the City's service area (DWR, 2020). RHNA assists jurisdictions in updating general plan's housing elements section. The RHNA identifies additional housing needs and assesses households by income level for the City through 2010 decennial Census and 2005-2009 4 .3.2 .3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-8 American Community Survey data. The sixth cycle of the RHNA covers the planning period of October 2021 to October 2029. The SCAG adopted the RHNA Allocation Plan for this cycle on March 4, 2021. The California Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed the housing elements data submitted by jurisdictions in the SCAG region and concluded the data meets statutory requirements for the assessment of current housing needs. Under the assumption that the RHNA household allocations adequately represent ratios of the City’s overall future income categories (not the exact ratio of all household by income but a conservative one for low-income household estimates), the RHNA low-income percentage can be used to estimate future low income demands. One objective of RHNA is to increase affordable housing, therefore RHNA has been allocating additional low-income households to various regions. Because relying on the RHNA distribution of households by income category is likely to produce an overestimate of low-income water demands, this approach represents a conservative projection of future low-income water use. Table 4-6 presents the City’s RHNA housing allocation. RHNA classifies low income housing into two categories: very low income (<30% - 50% MHI), and low income (51% - 80% MHI). Altogether 49.2% of the City’s allocated housing need for the planning period of October 2021 to October 2029 are considered low-income housing (SCAG, 2021). Table 4-6: SCAG 6th Cycle Household Allocation Based on Median Household Income Household Category by Income Number of Households % of Total Allocated Households Very Low Income 1,456 30.1% Low Income 930 19.2% Moderate Income 1,050 21.7% Above Moderate Income 1,409 29.1% Total Future Allocated Households 4,845 100.0% By applying the percentage of low-income housing from the SCAG report to the total projected SF/MF residential demand calculated in Table 4-3 above, low-income demand can be conservatively estimated for both SF and MF through 2045. For example, the total low-income single family residential demand is projected to be 3,144 AF in 2025 and 2,993 AF in 2045 (Table 4-7). Table 4-7: Projected Water Use for Low Income Households (AF) Water Use Sector FY Ending 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Total Residential Demand (AF) 8,114 7,984 7,856 7,726 7,691 Single-Family Residential Demand - Low Income Households (AF) 3,144 3,099 3,054 3,009 2,993 Multi-Family Residential Demand - Low Income Households (AF) 851 833 814 795 795 Total Low Income Households Demand (AF) 3,996 3,932 3,869 3,805 3,788 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-9 Water Loss The City has conducted annual water loss audit since 2015 per the American Water Works Association (AWWA) methodology per SB 555 to understand the relationship between water loss, operating costs and revenue losses. Non-revenue water for CY2015 to FY 2019-20 (Figure 4-2) consists of three components: real losses (e.g., leakage in mains and service lines, and storage tank overflows), apparent losses (unauthorized consumption, customer metering inaccuracies and systematic data handling errors), and unbilled water (e.g., hydrant flushing, firefighting, and blow-off water from well start-ups). The City’s real losses ranged from 354 AFY to 881 AFY and apparent losses ranged from 186 AFY to 212 AFY between CY2015 and FY 2019-20. The unbilled water ranged from 32 AFY to 37 AFY in that same timeframe. In the latest water loss audit (FY2019/20), the City’s total water loss was 567 AFY (Table 4-8), compared to the total water use of 15,047 AF in that period. The total water loss consists of real loss of 354 AFY and apparent loss of 212 AFY. The non-revenue water was 603 AFY. The active and inactive service connections were relatively consistent in the last five years with 26,765 connections in FY2019/20. The real loss performance indicator was 12 gals/connection/day in FY2019/20. Figure 4-3 presents the performance indicators of gallons of real and apparent loss per connection per day. The City’s recent AMI implementation will likely reduce water loss in future years. Understanding and controlling water loss from a distribution system is an effective way for the City to achieve regulatory standards and manage their existing resources. The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is still developing water loss performance standards; these standards have not yet been adopted. Table 4-8: Retail: 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting DWR Submittal Table 4-4 Retail: Last Five Years of Water Loss Audit Reporting Reporting Period Start Date (mm/yyyy) Volume of Water Loss 1,2 (AF) 01/2015 855 01/2016 805 01/2017 1080 07/2018 891 07/2019 567 1 Taken from the field "Water Losses" (a combination of apparent losses and real losses) from the AWWA worksheet. 2 Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Table 2-3. NOTES: Water audit data collected in both CY 2018 and FY 2018-2019. 4.4 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 4-10 Figure 4-2: Water Loss Audit for CY2015 - FY 2019/20 Figure 4-3: Water Loss Performance Indicators for CY2015 - FY 2019/20 1200 1000 ~ 800 LL ::!.. Ill Ill 600 0 _, .., 1u $ 400 200 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 Year ■ Real Lo ss ■ Apparent Lo ss ■ Unbilled Water 35 30 25 > "' -0 ...... C: 20 _Q .... u .., C: C: 15 0 u :::a-"' 1.9 10 5 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 Year ■ Real Loss ■ Apparent Loss Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 5-1 5 CONSERVATION TARGET COMPLIANCE The Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SBx7-7 (Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session), signed into law on February 3, 2010, requires the State of California to reduce urban water use by 20% by the year 2020 (20x2020). To achieve this each retail urban water supplier must determine baseline water use during their baseline period and target water use for the years 2015 and 2020 to meet the state’s water reduction goal. Retail water suppliers are required to comply with SBx7-7 individually or as a region in collaboration with other retail water suppliers, or demonstrate they have a plan or have secured funding to be in compliance, in order to be eligible for water related state grants and loans on or after July 16, 2016. The City’s actual 2020 water use is lower than its 2020 water use target, therefore, demonstrating compliance with SBx7-7. In its 2015 UWMP, the City revised its baseline per capita water use calculations using 2010 U.S. Census data. Changes in the baseline calculations resulted in updated per capita water use targets. The following sections describe the efforts by the City to comply with the requirements of SBx7-7 and efforts by MWDOC to assist retail agencies, including the formation of a Regional Alliance to provide additional flexibility to all water suppliers in Orange County. A discussion of programs implemented to support retail agencies in achieving their per capita water reduction goals is covered in Section 9 – Demand Management Measures of this UWMP. Complimentary to information presented in this section are SBx7-7 Verification and Compliance Forms, a set of standardized tables required by DWR to demonstrate compliance with the Water Conservation Act in this 2020 UWMP (Appendix D) including calculations of recycled water used for groundwater recharge (indirect reuse) to offset a portion of the agency’s potable demand when meeting the regional as well as individual water use targets. Baseline Water Use The baseline water use is the City’s gross water use divided by its service area population, reported in GPCD. Gross water use is a measure of water that enters the distribution system of the supplier over a 12-month period with certain allowable exclusions. These exclusions are: • Recycled water delivered within the service area • Indirect recycled water • Water placed in long term storage • Water conveyed to another urban supplier • Water delivered for agricultural use • Process water. Water suppliers within the OCWD Groundwater Basin, including the City, have the option of choosing to deduct recycled water used for indirect potable reuse (IPR) from their gross water use to account for the recharge of recycled water into the OC Basin by OCWD, historically through Water Factory 21 (WF-21), and now by the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). 5.1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 5-2 Water suppliers must report baseline water use for two baseline periods, the 10- to 15-year baseline (baseline GPCD) and the five-year baseline (target confirmation) as described below. 5.1.1 Ten to 15-Year Baseline Period (Baseline GPCD) The first step to calculating the City’s water use targets is to determine its base daily per capita water use (baseline water use). The baseline water use is calculated as a continuous (rolling) 10-year average during a period, which ends no earlier than December 31, 2004 and no later than December 31, 2010. Water suppliers whose recycled water made up 10% or more of their 2008 retail water delivery can use up to a 15-year average for the calculation. Recycled water use was less than 10% of the City’s retail delivery in 2008; therefore, a 10-year baseline period is used. The City’s baseline water use is 258 GPCD, obtained from the 10-year period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2005. 5.1.2 Five-Year Baseline Period (Target Confirmation) Water suppliers are required to calculate water use, in GPCD, for a five-year baseline period. This number is used to confirm that the selected 2020 target meets the minimum water use reduction requirements. Regardless of the compliance option adopted by the City, it will need to meet a minimum water use target of 5% reduction from the five-year baseline water use. This five-year baseline water use is calculated as a continuous five-year average during a period, which ends no earlier than December 31, 2007 and no later than December 31, 2010. The City’s five-year baseline water use is 256 GPCD, obtained from the five-year period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008. 5.1.3 Service Area Population The City’s service area boundaries correspond with the boundaries for a city or census designated place. This allows the City to use service area population estimates prepared by the DOF. CDR is the entity which compiles population data for Orange County based on DOF data. The calculation of the City’s baseline water use and water use targets in the 2010 UWMP was based on the 2000 U.S. Census population numbers obtained from CDR. The baseline water use and water use targets in the 2015 UWMP were revised based on the 2010 U.S. Census population obtained from CDR in 2012. The population numbers and baseline water use (both 10- and 5-year baselines) were revised again in this 2020 UWMP per CDR’s most recently adjusted population numbers for 2001 onward. SBx7-7 Water Use Targets In the 2020 UWMP, the City may update its 2020 water use target by selecting a different target method than what was used previously. The target methods and determination of the 2015 and 2020 targets are described below. The City selected Option 1 consistent with 2015 but its 2020 target water use was adjusted as a result of the adjusted population and baseline water use values. 5.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 5-3 5.2.1 SBx7-7 Target Methods DWR has established four target calculation methods for urban retail water suppliers to choose from. The City is required to adopt one of the four options to comply with SBx7-7 requirements. The four options include: • Option 1 requires a simple 20% reduction from the baseline by 2020 and 10% by 2015. • Option 2 employs a budget-based approach by requiring an agency to achieve a performance standard based on three metrics o Residential indoor water use of 55 GPCD o Landscape water use commensurate with the Model Landscape Ordinance o 10% reduction in baseline CII water use • Option 3 is to achieve 95% of the applicable state hydrologic region target as set forth in the State’s 202020 Water Conservation Plan. • Option 4 requires the subtraction of Total Savings from the baseline GPCD: o Total savings includes indoor residential savings, meter savings, CII savings, and landscape and water loss savings. With MWDOC’s assistance in the calculation of the City’s base daily per capita use and water use targets, the City selected to comply with Option 1 consistent with the option selected in 2010 and 2015. 5.2.2 2020 Targets and Compliance Under Compliance Option 1, the simple 20% reduction, the City’s 2020 target is 207 GPCD as summarized in Table 5-1. In addition, the confirmed 2020 target needs to meet a minimum of 5% reduction from the five-year baseline water use. Table 5-1: Baselines and Targets Summary DWR Submittal Table 5-1 Baselines and Targets Summary From SB X7-7 Verification Form Retail Supplier or Regional Alliance Only Baseline Period Start Year * End Year * Average Baseline GPCD* Confirmed 2020 Target* 10-15 year 1996 2005 258 207 5 Year 2004 2008 256 *All cells in this table should be populated manually from the supplier's SBX7-7 Verification Form and reported in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 5-4 The City’s actual 2020 consumption is 160 GPCD which is below its 2020 target of 207 GPCD (Table 5-2). As shown in Table 5-2, the City did not make any adjustments in its actual 2020 consumption using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events. The City met its 2020 water use target and is in compliance with SBx7-7. Table 5-2: 2020 Compliance DWR Submittal Table 5-2: 2020 Compliance From SB X7-7 2020 Compliance Form Retail Supplier or Regional Alliance Only 2020 GPCD 2020 Confirmed Target GPCD* Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2020? Y/N Actual 2020 GPCD* 2020 TOTAL Adjustments* Adjusted 2020 GPCD* (Adjusted if applicable) 160 0 160 207 Y *All cells in this table should be populated manually from the supplier's SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form and reported in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance A retail supplier may choose to meet the SBx7-7 targets on its own or it may form a regional alliance with other retail suppliers to meet the water use target as a region. Within a Regional Alliance, each retail water supplier will have an additional opportunity to achieve compliance under both an individual target and a regional target. • If the Regional Alliance meets its water use target on a regional basis, all agencies in the alliance are deemed compliant. • If the Regional Alliance fails to meet its water use target, each individual supplier will have an opportunity to meet their water use targets individually. The City is a member of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance formed by MWDOC, its wholesaler. This regional alliance consists of 29 retail agencies in Orange County as described in MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP. MWDOC provides assistance in the calculation of each retail agency’s baseline water use and water use targets. In 2020, the regional baseline and targets were revised from 2015 to account for any revisions made by the retail agencies to their individual 2020 targets. The regional water use target is the weighted average of the individual retail agencies’ targets (by population). The Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance weighted 2020 target is 158 GPCD. The actual 2020 water use in the region is 109 GPCD, i.e., the region met its 2020 GPCD goal. 5.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-1 6 WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERIZATION As a counterpart to Section 4’s Water Use Characterization, this section characterizes the City’s water supply. This section includes identification and quantification of water supply sources through 2045, descriptions of each water supply source and their management, opportunities for exchanges and transfers, and discussion regarding any planned future water supply projects. This section also includes the energy intensity of the water service, a new UWMP requirement. Water Supply Overview The City meets all of its demands with a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water. The City works together with two primary agencies, MWDOC and OCWD, to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include water from the Colorado River and the SWP provided by MET and delivered through MWDOC. The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the OC Basin. Imported water and recycled water make up the rest of the City’s water supply portfolio. In FY 2019-20, the City relied on 68% groundwater, 28.5% imported water, and 3.5% recycled water (Table 6-1). It is projected that by 2045, the water supply portfolio will change to approximately 82% groundwater, 14.5% imported water, and 3.5% recycled water (Table 6-2 and Figure 6-1). Note that these representations of supply match the projected demand. However, the City can purchase more MET water through MWDOC, should the need arise. Additionally, GWRS supplies are included as part of groundwater pumping numbers. The following subsections provide a detailed discussion of the City’s water sources as well as the future water supply portfolio for the next 25 years. 6.1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-2 Table 6-1: Retail: Water Supplies – Actual DWR Submittal Table 6-8 Retail: Water Supplies — Actual Water Supply Additional Detail on Water Supply 2020 Actual Volume (AF) Water Quality Groundwater (not desalinated) Orange County Groundwater Basin 10,237 Drinking Water Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 4,255 Drinking Water Recycled Water OCWD 513 Recycled Water Total 15,005 NOTES: Source - MWDOC, 2020 for groundwater and purchased water data, Newport Beach for recycled water data. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-3 Table 6-2: Retail: Water Supplies – Projected DWR Submittal Table 6-9 Retail: Water Supplies — Projected Water Supply Additional Detail on Water Supply Projected Water Supply (AF) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Groundwater (not desalinated) Orange County Groundwater Basin 12,175 12,605 12,729 12,869 12,838 Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 2,149 2,224 2,246 2,271 2,265 Recycled Water OCWD 542 542 542 542 542 Total 14,866 15,371 15,517 15,682 15,645 NOTES: Source - CDM Smith, 2021 Due to OCWD’s plans to increase regional groundwater recharge, the basin production percentage (BPP) is expected to be 85% starting in 2025 (Refer to Section 6.3.4). The BPP is only applied to the City’s potable water supply. Volumes of groundwater and imported water may vary depending on OCWD's actual BPP projections, which are established annually. This table only considers direct use of recycled water - this does not include indirect potable recharge. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-4 Figure 6-1: City’s Projected Water Supply Sources (AF) 100% 90% 80% 7CY/o 6CY/o 5CY/o 4CY/o 3fY/o 2fY/o l fY/o 0% 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 ■ Groundwa ter ■ Impo rted Water ■ Recycled Water arcadis.com 6-5 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Imported Water The City supplements its local water supply with imported water purchased from MET through MWDOC. In FY 2019-20, the City relied on approximately 4,255 AFY – approximately 28.5% of the City’s water supply portfolio for FY 2019-20 – of imported water from MET / MWDOC. MET’s principal sources of water are the Colorado River via the CRA and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California through the SWP. For Orange County, the water obtained from these sources is treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located in Yorba Linda. Typically, the Diemer Filtration Plant receives a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Mathews through the MET Lower Feeder and SWP water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. The City currently maintains six connections to the MET system along the Orange County Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 with a total available capacity of 104 cfs, or 67 MGD. 6.2.1 Colorado River Supplies Background The Colorado River was MET’s original source of water after MET’s establishment in 1928. The CRA, which is owned and operated by MET, transports water from the Colorado River to its terminus Lake Mathews, in Riverside County. The actual amount of water per year that may be conveyed through the CRA to MET’s member agencies is subject to the availability of Colorado River water. Approximately 40 million people rely on the Colorado River and its tributaries for water with 5.5 million acres of land using Colorado River water for irrigation. The CRA includes supplies from the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and its related agreements to transfer water from agricultural agencies to urban uses. The 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement enabled California to implement major Colorado River water conservation and transfer programs, in order to stabilize water supplies and reduce the state’s demand on the river to its 4.4 million acre-feet (MAF) entitlement. Colorado River transactions are potentially available to supply additional water up to the CRA capacity of 1.25 MAF on an as-needed basis. Water from the Colorado River or its tributaries is available to users in California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Mexico. California is apportioned the use of 4.4 MAF of water from the Colorado River each year plus one-half of any surplus that may be available for use collectively in Arizona, California, and Nevada. In addition, California has historically been allowed to use Colorado River water apportioned to, but not used by, Arizona or Nevada. MET has a basic entitlement of 550,000 AFY of Colorado River water, plus surplus water up to an additional 662,000 AFY when the following conditions exists (MET, 2021): • Water is unused by the California holders of priorities 1 through 3 • Water is saved by the Palo Verde land management, crop rotation, and water supply program • When the U.S. Secretary of the Interior makes available either one or both of the following: o Surplus water o Colorado River water that is apportioned to but unused by Arizona and/or Nevada. Current Conditions and Supply MET has not received surplus water for a number of years. The Colorado River supply faces current and future imbalances between water supply and demand in the Colorado River Basin due to long-term 6.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-6 drought conditions. Analysis of historical records suggests a potential change in the relationship between precipitation and runoff in the Colorado River Basin. The past 21 years (1999-2020) have seen an overall drying trend, even though the period included several wet or average years. The river basin has substantial storage capacity, but the significant reduction in system reservoir storage in the last two decades is great enough to consider the period a drought (DWR, 2020a). At the close of 2020, system storage was at or near its lowest since 2000, so there is very little buffer to avoid a shortage from any future period of reduced precipitation and runoff (MET, 2021). Looking ahead, the long-term imbalance in the Colorado River Basin’s future supply and demand is projected to be approximately 3.2 MAF by the year 2060 (USBR, 2012). Over the years, MET has helped fund and implement various programs to improve Colorado River supply reliability and help resolve the imbalance between supply and demand. Implementation of such programs have contributed to achievements like achieving a record low diversion of the Colorado River in 2019, a level not seen since the 1950s. Colorado River water management programs include: • Imperial Irrigation District / MET Conservation Program – Under agreements executed in 1988 and 1989, this program allows MET to fund water efficiency improvements within Imperial Irrigation District’s service area in return for the right to divert the water conserved by those investments. An average of 105,000 AFY of water has been conserved since the program’s implementation. • Palo Verde Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program – Authorized in 2004, this 35-year program allows MET to pay participating farmers to reduce their water use, and for MET to receive the saved water. Over the life of the program, an average of 84,500 AFY has been saved and made available to MET. • Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program – Authorized in 2019, this program allows MET to pay participating farmers in Bard to reduce their water use between the late spring and summer months of selected years, which provides up to 6,000 AF of water to be available to MET in certain years. • Management of MET-Owned Land in Palo Verde – Since 2001, MET has acquired approximately 21,000 acres of irrigable farmland that are leased to growers, with incentives to grow low water-using crops and experiment with low water-consumption practices. If long-term water savings are realized, MET may explore ways to formally account them for Colorado River supplies. • Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) and MET Storage and Interstate Release Agreement – Entered in 2004, this agreement allows SNWA to store its unused, conserved water with MET, in exchange for MET to receive additional Colorado River water supply. MET has relied on the additional water during dry years, especially during the 2011-2016 California drought, and SNWA is not expected to call upon MET to return water until after 2026. • Lower Colorado Water Supply Projects – Authorized in 1980s, this project provides up to 10,000 AFY of water to certain entities that do not have or have insufficient rights to use Colorado River water. A contract executed in 2007 allowed MET to receive project water left unused by the project contractors along the River – nearly 10,000 AF was received by MET in 2019 and is estimated for 2020. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-7 • Exchange Programs – MET is involved in separate exchange programs with the United States Bureau of Reclamation, which takes place at the Colorado River Intake and with San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), which exchanges conserved Colorado River water. • Lake Mead Storage Program – Executed in 2006, this program allows MET to leave excessively conserved water in Lake Mead, for exclusive use by MET in later years. • Quagga Mussel Control Program – Developed in 2007, this program introduced surveillance activities and control measures to combat quagga mussels, an invasive species that impact the Colorado River’s water quality. • Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan – Signed in 2019, this agreement incentivizes storage in Lake Mead through 2026 and overall, it increases MET’s flexibility to fill the CRA as needed (MET, 2021). Future Programs / Plans The Colorado River faces long-term challenges of water demands exceeding available supply with additional uncertainties due to climate change. Climate change impacts expected in the Colorado River Basin include the following: • More frequent, more intense, and longer lasting droughts, which will result in water deficits • Continued dryness in the Colorado River Basin, which will increase the likelihood of triggering a first-ever shortage in the Lower Basin • Increased temperatures, which will affect the percentage of precipitation that falls as rain or snow, as well as the amount and timing of mountain snowpack (DWR, 2020b) Acknowledging the various uncertainties regarding reliability, MET plans to continue ongoing programs, such as those listed earlier in this section. Additionally, MET supports increasing water recycling in the Colorado River Basin and is in the process of developing additional transfer programs for the future (MET, 2021). 6.2.2 State Water Project Supplies Background The SWP consists of a series of pump stations, reservoirs, aqueducts, tunnels, and power plants operated by DWR and is an integral part of the effort to ensure that business and industry, urban and suburban residents, and farmers throughout much of California have sufficient water. Water from the SWP originates at Lake Oroville, which is located on the Feather River in Northern California. Much of the SWP water supply passes through the Delta. The SWP is the largest state-built, multipurpose, user-financed water project in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of residents in California receive at least part of their water from the SWP, with approximately 70% of SWP’s contracted water supply going to urban users and 30% to agricultural users. The primary purpose of the SWP is to divert and store water during wet periods in Northern and Central California and distribute it to areas of need in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern California (MET, 2021). Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-8 The Delta is key to the SWP’s ability to deliver water to its agricultural and urban contractors. All but five of the 29 SWP contractors receive water deliveries below the Delta (pumped via the Harvey O. Banks or Barker Slough pumping plants). However, the Delta faces many challenges concerning its long-term sustainability such as climate change posing a threat of increased variability in floods and droughts. Sea level rise complicates efforts in managing salinity levels and preserving water quality in the Delta to ensure a suitable water supply for urban and agricultural use. Furthermore, other challenges include continued subsidence of Delta islands, many of which are below sea level, and the related threat of a catastrophic levee failure as the water pressure increases, or as a result of a major seismic event. Current Conditions and Supply “Table A” water is the maximum entitlement of SWP water for each water contracting agency. Currently, the combined maximum Table A amount is 4.17 million AFY. Of this amount, 4.13 million AFY is the maximum Table A water available for delivery from the Delta. On average, deliveries are approximately 60% of the maximum Table A amount (DWR, 2020b). SWP contractors may receive Article 21 water on a short-term basis in addition to Table A water if requested. Article 21 of SWP contracts allows contractors to receive additional water deliveries only under specific conditions, generally during wet months of the year (December through March). Because a SWP contractor must have an immediate use for Article 21 supply or a place to store it outside of the SWP, there are few contractors like MET that can access such supplies. Carryover water is SWP water allocated to an SWP contractor and approved for delivery to the contractor in a given year, but not used by the end of the year. The unused water is stored in the SWP’s share of San Luis Reservoir, when space is available, for the contractor to use in the following year. Turnback pool water is Table A water that has been allocated to SWP contractors that has exceeded their demands. This water can then be purchased by another contractor depending on its availability. SWP Delta exports are the water supplies that are transferred directly to SWP contractors or to San Luis Reservoir storage south of the Delta via the Harvey O. Banks pumping plant. Estimated average annual Delta exports and SWP Table A water deliveries have generally decreased since 2005, when Delta export regulations affecting SWP pumping operations became more restrictive due to federal biological opinions (Biops). The Biops protect species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts (ESAs) and affect the SWP’s water delivery capability because they restrict SWP exports in the Delta and include Delta outflow requirements during certain times of the year, thus reducing the available supply for export or storage. Before being updated by the 2019 Long-Term Operations Plan, the prior 2008 and 2009 Biops resulted in an estimated reduction in SWP deliveries of 0.3 MAF during critically dry years to 1.3 MAF in above normal water years as compared to the previous baseline. However, the 2019 Long-Term Operations Plan and Biops are expected to increase SWP deliveries by an annual average of 20,000 AF as compared to the previous Biops (MET, 2021). Average Table A deliveries decreased in the 2019 SWP Final Delivery Capability Report compared to 2017, mainly due to the 2018 Coordinated Operation Agreement (COA) Addendum and the increase in the end of September storage target for Lake Oroville. Other factors that also affected deliveries included changes in regulations associated with the Incidental Take Permit (ITP) and the Reinitiation of Consultation for Long-Term Operations (RoC on LTO), a shift in Table A to Article 21 deliveries which occurred due to higher storage in SWP San Luis, and other Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-9 operational updates to the SWP and federal Central Valley Project (CVP) (DWR, 2020b). Since 2005, there are similar decreasing trends for both the average annual Delta exports and the average annual Table A deliveries (Table 6-3). Table 6-3: MET SWP Program Capabilities Year Average Annual Delta Exports (MAF) Average Annual Table A Deliveries (MAF) 2005 2.96 2.82 2013 2.61 2.55 2019 2.52 2.41 Percent Change* -14.8% -14.3% *Percent change is between the years 2019 and 2005. Ongoing regulatory restrictions, such as those imposed by the Biops on the effects of SWP and the CVP operations on certain marine life, also contribute to the challenge of determining the SWP’s water delivery reliability. In dry, below-normal conditions, MET has increased the supplies delivered through the California Aqueduct by developing flexible CVP/SWP storage and transfer programs. The goal of the storage/transfer programs is to develop additional dry-year supplies that can be conveyed through the available Harvey O. Banks pumping plant capacity to maximize deliveries through the California Aqueduct during dry hydrologic conditions and regulatory restrictions. In addition, the SWRCB has set water quality objectives that must be met by the SWP including minimum Delta outflows, limits on SWP and CVP Delta exports, and maximum allowable salinity level. The following factors affect the ability to estimate existing and future water delivery reliability: • Water availability at the source: Availability can be highly variable and depends on the amount and timing of rain and snow that fall in any given year. Generally, during a single-dry year or two, surface and groundwater storage can supply most water deliveries, but multiple-dry years can result in critically low water reserves. Fisheries issues can also restrict the operations of the export pumps even when water supplies are available. • Water rights with priority over the SWP: Water users with prior water rights are assigned higher priority in DWR’s modeling of the SWP’s water delivery reliability, even ahead of SWP Table A water. • Climate change: Mean temperatures are predicted to vary more significantly than previously expected. This change in climate is anticipated to bring warmer winter storms that result in less snowfall at lower elevations, reducing total snowpack. From historical data, DWR projects that by 2050, the Sierra snowpack will be reduced from its historical average by 25 to 40%. Increased precipitation as rain could result in a larger number of “rain-on-snow” events, causing snow to melt earlier in the year and over fewer days than historically, affecting the availability of water for pumping by the SWP during summer. Furthermore, water quality may be adversely affected due Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-10 to the anticipated increase in wildfires. Rising sea levels may result in potential pumping cutbacks on the SWP and CVP. • Regulatory restrictions on SWP Delta exports: The Biops protect special-status species such as delta smelt and spring- and winter-run Chinook salmon and imposed substantial constraints on Delta water supply operations through requirements for Delta inflow and outflow and export pumping restrictions. Restrictions on SWP operations imposed by state and federal agencies contribute substantially to the challenge of accurately determining the SWP’s water delivery reliability in any given year (DWR, 2020b). • Ongoing environmental and policy planning efforts: Governor Gavin Newsom ended California WaterFix in May 2019 and announced a new approach to modernize Delta Conveyance through a single tunnel alternative. The EcoRestore Program aims to restore at least 30,000 acres of Delta habitat, with the near-term goal of making significant strides toward that objective by 2020 (DWR, 2020b). • Delta levee failure: The levees are vulnerable to failure because most original levees were simply built with soils dredged from nearby channels and were not engineered. A breach of one or more levees and island flooding could affect Delta water quality and SWP operations for several months. When islands are flooded, DWR may need to drastically decrease or even cease SWP Delta exports to evaluate damage caused by salinity in the Delta. Operational constraints will likely continue until a long-term solution to the problems in the Bay-Delta is identified and implemented. New Biops for listed species under the Federal ESA or by the California Department of Fish and Game’s issuance of incidental take authorizations under the Federal ESA and California ESA might further adversely affect SWP and CVP operations. Additionally, new litigation, listings of additional species or new regulatory requirements could further adversely affect SWP operations in the future by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. Future Programs / Plans MET’s Board approved a Delta Action Plan in June 2007 that provides a framework for staff to pursue actions with other agencies and stakeholders to build a sustainable Delta and reduce conflicts between water supply conveyance and the environment. The Delta Action Plan aims to prioritize immediate short-term actions to stabilize the Delta while an ultimate solution is selected, and mid-term steps to maintain the Delta while a long-term solution is implemented. Currently, MET is working towards addressing four elements: Delta ecosystem restoration, water supply conveyance, flood control protection, and storage development. In May 2019, Governor Newsom ended California WaterFix, announced a new approach to modernize Delta Conveyance through a single tunnel alternative, and released Executive Order 10-19 that directed state agencies to inventory and assess new planning for the project. DWR then withdrew all project approvals and permit applications for California WaterFix, effectively ending the project. The purpose of the Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) gives rise to several project objectives (MET, 2021). In proposing to make physical improvements to the SWP Delta conveyance system, the project objectives are: Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-11 • To address anticipated rising sea levels and other reasonably foreseeable consequences of climate change and extreme weather events. • To minimize the potential for public health and safety impacts from reduced quantity and quality of SWP water deliveries, and potentially CVP water deliveries, south of the Delta resulting from a major earthquake that causes breaching of Delta levees and the inundation of brackish water into the areas in which existing pumping plants operate. • To protect the ability of the SWP, and potentially the CVP, to deliver water when hydrologic conditions result in the availability of sufficient amounts, consistent with the requirements of state and federal law. • To provide operational flexibility to improve aquatic conditions in the Delta and better manage risks of further regulatory constraints on project operations. 6.2.3 Storage Storage is a major component of MET’s dry year resource management strategy. MET’s likelihood of having adequate supply capability to meet projected demands, without implementing its Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP), is dependent on its storage resources. Due to the pattern of generally drier hydrology, the groundwater basins and local reservoirs have dropped to low operating levels and remain below healthy storage levels. For example, the Colorado River Basin’s system storage at the close of 2020, was at or near its lowest since 2000, so there is very little buffer to avoid a shortage from any future period of reduced precipitation and runoff (MET, 2021). MET stores water in both DWR and MET surface water reservoirs. MET’s surface water reservoirs are Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner, and Diamond Valley Lake (DVL), which have a combined storage capacity of over 1 MAF. Approximately 650,000 AF are stored for seasonal, regulatory, and drought use, while approximately 370,000 AF are stored for emergency use. MET also has contractual rights to DWR surface Reservoirs, such as 65 thousand acre-feet (TAF) of flexible storage at Lake Perris (East Branch terminal reservoir) and 154 TAF of flexible storage at Castaic Lake (West Branch terminal reservoir) that provides MET with additional options for managing SWP deliveries to maximize the yield from the project. This storage can provide MET with up to 44 TAF of additional supply over multiple dry years, or up to 219 TAF to Southern California in a single dry year (MET, 2021). MET endeavors to increase the reliability of water supplies through the development of flexible storage and transfer programs including groundwater storage (MET, 2021). These include: • Lake Mead Storage Program: Executed in 2006, this program allows MET to leave excessively conserved water in Lake Mead, for exclusive use by MET in later years. MET created “Intentionally Created Surplus” (ICS) water in 2006-2007, 2009-2012, and 2016-2019, and withdrew ICS water in 2008 and 2013-2015. As of January 1, 2021, MET had a total of 1.3 MAF of Extraordinary Conservation ICS water. • Semitropic Storage Program: The maximum storage capacity of the program is 350 TAF, and the minimum and maximum annual yields available to MET are 34.7 TAF and 236.2 TAF, respectively. The specific amount of water MET can expect to store in and subsequently receive from the program depends on hydrologic conditions, any regulatory requirements restricting Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-12 MET’s ability to export water for storage and demands placed by other program participants. During wet years, MET has the discretion to use the program to store portions of its SWP supplies which are in excess, and during dry years, the Semitropic Water Storage District returns MET’s previously stored water to MET by direct groundwater pump-in or by exchange of surface water supplies. • Arvin-Edison Storage Program: The storage program is estimated to deliver 75 TAF, and the specific amount of water MET can expect to store in and subsequently receive from the program depends on hydrologic conditions and any regulatory requirements restricting MET’s ability to export water for storage. During wet years, MET has the discretion to use to program to store portions of its SWP supplies which are in excess, and during dry years, the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District returns MET’s previously stored water to MET by direct groundwater pump-in or by exchange of surface water supplies. • Antelope Valley-East Kern (AVEK) Water Agency Exchange and Storage Program: Under the exchange program, for every two AF MET receives, MET returns 1 AF back to AVEK, and MET will also be able to store up to 30 TAF in the AVEK’s groundwater basin, with a dry-year return capability of 10 TAF. • High Desert Water Bank Program: Under this program, MET will have the ability to store up to 280 TAF of its SWP Table A or other supplies in the Antelope Valley groundwater basin, and in exchange will provide funding for the construction of monitoring and production wells, turnouts from the California Aqueduct, pipelines, recharge basins, water storage, and booster pump facilities. The project is anticipated to be in operation by 2025. • Kern-Delta Water District Storage Program: This groundwater storage program has 250 TAF of storage capacity, and water for storage can either be directly recharged into the groundwater basin or delivered to Kern-Delta Water District farmers in lieu of pumping groundwater. During dry years, the Kern-Delta Water District returns MET’s previously stored water to MET by direct groundwater pump-in return or by exchange of surface water supplies. • Mojave Storage Program: MET entered into a groundwater banking and exchange transfer agreement with Mojave Water Agency that allows for the cumulative storage of up to 390 TAF. The agreement allows for MET to store water in an exchange account for later return. 6.2.4 Planned Future Sources Beyond the programs highlighted in Sections 6.2.1 through 6.2.3, MET continues to invest in efforts to meet its goal of long-term regional water supply reliability, focusing on the following: • Continuing water conservation • Developing water supply management programs outside of the region • Developing storage programs related to the Colorado River and the SWP • Developing storage and groundwater management programs within the Southern California region • Increasing water recycling, groundwater recovery, stormwater and seawater desalination • Pursuing long-term solutions for the ecosystem, regulatory and water supply issues in the California Bay-Delta (MET, 2021). Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-13 Groundwater Historically, local groundwater has been the cheapest and most reliable source of supply for the City. The City has four active wells that draw water from the OC Basin. In FY 2019-20, the City relied on 10,237 AFY – approximately 68% of the City’s water supply portfolio for FY 2019-20 – from the OC Basin to meet its demands. This section describes the OC Basin and the management measures taken by OCWD, the basin manager to optimize local supply and minimize overdraft. This section also provides information on historical groundwater production as well as a 25-year projection of the City's groundwater supply. The OCWD was formed in 1933 by a special legislative act of the California State Legislature to protect and manage the County's vast, natural, groundwater supply using the best available technology and defend its water rights to the OC Basin. This legislation is found in the State of California Statutes, Water – Uncodified Acts, Act 5683, as amended. The OC Basin is managed by OCWD under the Act, which functions as a statutorily-imposed physical solution. The OCWD Management Area includes approximately 89% of the land area of the OC Basin, and 98% of all groundwater production occurs within the area. OCWD monitors the basin by collecting groundwater elevation and quality data from wells and manages an electronic database that stores water elevation, water quality, production, recharge, and other data on over 2,000 wells and facilities within and outside OCWD boundaries (City of La Habra et al., 2017). Groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long-term sustainability of the OC Basin and to protect against land subsidence. OCWD regulates groundwater levels in the OC Basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping and setting the basin production percentage (BPP) for the water year. As defined in the District Act, the BPP is the ratio of water produced from groundwater supplies within the district to all water produced within the district from both supplemental sources and groundwater within the district (OCWD, 2020). On a per agency basis including the City, the BPP is the total percentage amount of groundwater allowed to be produced towards that agency’s or city’s demand. For the City, the remaining percentage of potable water demand is achieved through MET water. 6.3.1 Historical Groundwater Extraction The City pumps groundwater through its four wells. Pumping limitations set by the BPP and the pumping capacity of the wells are the only constraints affecting the groundwater supply to the City. Aside from a decrease in groundwater volume pumped in FY 2017-18, the City has experienced relative stability in groundwater volume pumped for the last five years (Table 6-4). 6.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-14 Table 6-4: Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped DWR Submittal Table 6-1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped Supplier does not pump groundwater. The supplier will not complete the table below. All or part of the groundwater described below is desalinated. Groundwater Type Location or Basin Name 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Alluvial Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin 9,616 10,004 8,200 10,877 10,237 TOTAL 9,616 10,004 8,200 10,877 10,237 NOTES: Source - MWDOC, 2020 6.3.2 Basin Characteristics The OC Basin underlies the northerly half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The OC Basin, managed by OCWD, covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The OC Basin boundary extends to the Orange County-Los Angeles Line to the northwest, where groundwater flows across the county line into the Central Groundwater Basin of Los Angeles County. A map of the OC Basin is shown in Figure 6-2. The total thickness of sedimentary rocks in the OC Basin is over 20,000 feet, with only the upper 2,000 to 4,000 feet containing fresh water. The OC Basin’s full volume is approximately 66 MAF. There are three major aquifer systems that have been subdivided by OCWD, the Shallow Aquifer System, the Principal Aquifer System, and the Deep Aquifer System. These three aquifer systems are hydraulically connected as groundwater is able to flow between each other through intervening aquitards or discontinuities in the aquitards. The Shallow Aquifer system occurs from the surface to approximately 250 feet below ground surface. Most of the groundwater from this aquifer system is pumped by small water systems for industrial and agricultural use. The Principal Aquifer system occurs at depths between 200 and 1,300 feet below ground surface. Over 90% of groundwater production is from wells that are screened within the Principal Aquifer system. Only a minor amount of groundwater is pumped from the Deep Aquifer system, which underlies the Principal Aquifer system and is up to 2,000 feet deep in the center of the OC Basin. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of thousands of manmade chemicals that includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). PFAS compounds were once commonly used in many products including, among many others, stain- and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick products (e.g., Teflon), polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning products, and fire-fighting foams. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-15 Beginning in the summer of 2019, the California State Division of Drinking Water (DDW) began requiring testing for PFAS compounds in some groundwater production wells in the OCWD area. Groundwater production in FY 2019-20 was expected to be approximately 325,000 AF but declined to 286,550 AF primarily due to PFAS impacted wells being turned off around February 2020. OCWD expects groundwater production to be in the area of 245,000 AF in FY 2020-21 due to the currently idled wells and additional wells being impacted by PFAS and turned off. As PFAS treatment systems are constructed, OCWD expects total annual groundwater production to slowly increase back to normal levels (310,000 to 330,000 AF) (OCWD, 2020). Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-16 Figure 6-2: Map of the OC Basin I Mid-Basin Injection .. i 't~,c,.:e •" ! / ~ ~ J\ ;; £ Sources: Es ri, us~s. &•L.._ __________________________________ ..,,_ _______ ....1.......£. _ _, ■ Injection Well I C ity Boundaries (COR 2020) ______ J --■■-■1111, OCWD Surface Water Recharge Facilities i._ .. _J OCWD Service Boondary ---F aults --Newport -Inglewood System LJ Coastal Plain of Orange County Groun dwater Basin 8-001 (DWR 2017) DWR Basin 8 -1 Groundwater Management Areas 0 10,000 20,000 Feet Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-17 6.3.3 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act In 2014, the State of California adopted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to help manage its groundwater sustainably, and limit adverse effects such as significant groundwater-level declines, land subsidence, and water quality degradation. SGMA requires all high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by DWR, be sustainably managed. DWR designated the non-adjudicated Coastal Plain of OC Basin (“Basin 8-1” or “Basin”) as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply. Compliance with SGMA can be achieved in one of two ways: 1) A Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) is formed and a GSP is adopted, or 2) Special Act Districts created by statute, such as OCWD, and other agencies may prepare and submit an Alternative to a GSP (City of La Habra et al., 2017). The agencies within Basin 8-1, led by OCWD collaborated to submit an Alternative to a GSP in 2017, titled the “Basin 8-1 Alternative” to meet SGMA compliance. This document will be updated every five years. The current (2017) version is included in Appendix G. 6.3.4 Basin Production Percentage Background The OC Basin is not adjudicated and as such, pumping from the OC Basin is managed through a process that uses financial incentives to encourage groundwater producers to pump a sustainable amount of water. The framework for the financial incentives is based on establishing the BPP, the percentage of each Producer’s total water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the OC Basin. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed the Replenishment Assessment (RA). While there is no legal limit as to how much an agency pumps from the OC Basin, there is a financial disincentive to pump above the BPP. The BPP is set uniformly for all Producers by OCWD on an annual basis. Agencies that pump above the BPP are charged the RA plus the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA). The BEA is presently calculated so that the cost of groundwater production is equivalent to the cost of importing potable water supplies. This approach serves to discourage, but not eliminate, production above the BPP, and the BEA can be increased to discourage production above the BPP if necessary. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, and Basin management objectives. The supplies available for recharge must be estimated for a given year. The supplies of recharge water that are estimated are: 1) Santa Ana River stormflow, 2) Natural incidental recharge, 3) Santa Ana River baseflow, 4) GWRS supplies, and 5) other supplies such as imported water and recycled water purchased for the Alamitos Barrier. The BPP is a major factor in determining the cost of groundwater production from the OC Basin for that year. The BPP set for Water Year 2021-22 is 77%. BPP Adjustments for Basin Management OCWD has established management guidelines that are used to establish future BPPs, as seen in Table 6-5. Raising or lowering the BPP allows OCWD to manage the amount of pumping from the basin. OCWD has a policy to manage the groundwater basin within a sustainable range to avoid adverse impacts to the Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-18 basin. OCWD seeks to maintain some available storage space in the basin to maximize surface water recharge when such supplies are available, especially in relatively wet years. By keeping the basin relatively full during wet years, and for as long as possible in years with near-normal recharge, the maximum amount of groundwater could be maintained in storage to support pumping in future drought conditions. During dry hydrologic years when less water would be available for recharge, the BPP could be lowered to maintain groundwater storage levels. A component of OCWD’s BPP policy is to manage the groundwater basin so that the BPP will not fluctuate more that 5 percent from year to year. Based on most recent modeling of water supplies available for groundwater recharge and water demand forecasts, OCWD anticipates being able to sustain the BPP at 85% starting in 2025. The primary reasons for the higher BPP are the expected completion of the GWRS Final Expansion (GWRSFE) in 2023 and the relatively low water demands of approximately 400,000 AFY. Modeling and forecasts generate estimates based on historical averages. Consequently, forecasts use average hydrologic conditions which smooth the dynamic and unpredictable local hydrology. Variations in local hydrology are the most significant impact to supplies of water available to recharge the groundwater basin. The BPP projection of 85% is provided based upon average annual rainfall weather patterns. If the City were to experience a relatively dry period, the BPP could be reduced to maintain water storage levels, by as much as five percent. Table 6-5: Management Actions Based on Changes in Groundwater Storage Available Storage Space (amount below full basin condition, AF) Considered Basin Management Action Less than 100,000 Raise BPP 100,000 to 300,000 Maintain and / or raise BPP towards 75% goal 300,000 to 350,000 Seek additional supplies to refill basin and / or lower the BPP Greater than 350,000 Seek additional supplies to refill basin and lower the BPP BPP Exemptions In some cases, OCWD encourages pumping and treating groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality. This is achieved by using a financial incentive called the BEA Exemption. A BEA Exemption is used to promote beneficial uses of poor-quality groundwater and reduce or prevent the spread of poor-quality groundwater into non-degraded aquifer zones. OCWD uses a partial or total exemption of the BEA to compensate a qualified participating agency or Producer for the costs of treating poor quality groundwater, which typically include capital, interest and operations and maintenance costs for treatment facilities. When OCWD authorizes a BEA exemption for a project, it is obligated to provide the replenishment water for the production above the BPP and forgo the BEA revenue that OCWD would otherwise receive from the producer (City of La Habra et al., 2017). Similarly, for proactive water quality management, OCWD exempts a portion of the BEA for their Coastal Pumping Transfer Program (CPTP). The CPTP encourages inland groundwater producers to increase Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-19 pumping and coastal producers to decrease pumping in order to reduce the groundwater basin drawdown at the coast and protect against seawater intrusion. Inland pumpers can pump above the BPP without having to pay the full BEA for the amount pumped above the BPP (OCWD, 2015). Coastal pumpers receive BEA revenue from OCWD to assist in offsetting their additional water supply cost from taking less groundwater. 2020 OCWD Groundwater Reliability Plan In order to adapt to the substantial growth in water demands in OCWD’s management area, it is paramount to anticipate and understand future water demands and develop projects to increase future water supplies proactively to match demands. The GRP is a continuation of these planning efforts that estimates the OC Basin’s sustainable average annual production and extrapolates water needs of the OC Basin by combining recently completed water demand projections and modeling of Santa Ana River flows available for recharge. These data will be used to evaluate future water supply projects and guide management of the OC Basin. OCWD is currently developing the GRP, and the first public draft is expected to be available May 2021. Current water demand projections show a relatively slow increase over the 25-year planning horizon, which is generally of similar magnitude as the additional production from the GWRSFE in early 2023. Once complete, the GWRSFE will increase capacity from 100,000 to 134,000 AFY of high-quality recycled water. This locally controlled, drought proof supply of water reduces the region’s dependance on imported water. Historically, the Santa Ana River has served as the primary source of water to recharge the OC Basin. To determine the availability of future Santa Ana River flows, OCWD utilized surface water flow modeling of the upper watershed. Modeling was developed to predict the impacts future stormwater capture and wastewater recycling projects in the upper watershed would have on future Santa Ana River flow rates at Prado Dam. Santa Ana River base flows are expected to decrease as more water recycling projects are built in the upper watershed. OCWD continues to work closely with the US Army Corps of Engineers to temporarily impound and slowly release up to approximately 20,000 AF of stormwater in the Prado Dam Conservation Pool. To some extent, the losses in baseflow are partially offset through the capture of additional stormwater held in the Prado Dam Conservation Pool. When available, OCWD will continue to augment groundwater recharge through the purchase of imported water through MET. OCWD will diligently monitor and evaluate future water supply projects to sustainably manage and protect the OC Basin for future generations. OCWD Engineer’s Report The OCWD Engineer’s Report reports on the groundwater conditions and investigates information related to water supply and groundwater basin usage within OCWD’s service area. The overall BPP achieved in the 2019 to 2020 water year within OCWD for non-irrigation use was 75.9%. The achieved pumping was less than the BPP established for the 2019 to 2020 water year primarily due to the water quality impacts of PFAS. As indicated in Section 6.3.4, a BPP of 77% was established for water year 2021-22. Analysis of the groundwater basin’s projected accumulated overdraft, the available 6.3.4.1 6.3.4.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-20 supplies to the OC Basin (assuming average hydrology) and the projected pumping demands indicate that this level of pumping can be sustained for 2021-22 without detriment to the OC Basin (OCWD, 2021). In FY 2021-22 additional production of approximately 22,000 AF above the BPP will be undertaken by the City of Tustin, City of Garden Grove, City of Huntington Beach, Mesa Water District, and IRWD. These agencies use the additional pumping allowance in order to accommodate groundwater quality improvement projects. As in prior years, production above the BPP from these projects would be partially or fully exempt from the BEA as a result of the benefit provided to the OC Basin by removing poor-quality groundwater and treating it for beneficial use (OCWD, 2021). 6.3.5 Recharge Management Recharging water into the OC Basin through natural and artificial means is essential to support pumping from the OC Basin. Active recharge of groundwater began in 1949, in response to increasing drawdown of the OC Basin and, consequently, the threat of seawater intrusion. The OC Basin’s primary source of recharge is flow from the Santa Ana River, which is diverted into recharge basins and its main Orange County tributary, Santiago Creek. Other sources of recharge water include natural infiltration, recycled water, and imported water. Natural recharge consists of subsurface inflow from local hills and mountains, infiltration of precipitation and irrigation water, recharge in small flood control channels, and groundwater underflow to and from Los Angeles County and the ocean. Recycled water for the OC Basin recharge is from two sources. The main source of recycled water is from the GWRS, which is injected into the Talbert Seawater Barrier and recharged in the Kraemer, Miller and Miraloma Basins (City of La Habra et al., 2017). The second source of recycled water is water purified at the Water Replenishment District’s Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility, which supplies water to the Alamitos Seawater Barrier (owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works). OCWD’s share of the Alamitos Barrier injection total for water year 2018-19 was less than half of the total injection, based on barrier wells located within Orange County. The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) also works closely with OCWD to ensure that the water demands at the Alamitos Barrier are fulfilled through the use of recycled water as opposed to imported water, however the recycled portion was less than 33% for the last six years due to operational issues and wastewater supply interruptions (OCWD, 2020a). Injection of recycled water into these barriers is an effort by OCWD to control seawater intrusion into the OC Basin. Operation of the injection wells forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater intrusion. OCWD purchases imported water for recharge from MWDOC. Untreated imported water can be used to recharge the OC Basin through the surface water recharge system in multiple locations, such as Anaheim Lake, Santa Ana River, Irvine Lake, and San Antonio Creek. Treated imported water can be used for in-lieu recharge, as was performed extensively from 1977 to 2007 (City of La Habra et al., 2017). For detailed recharge management efforts from OCWD, refer to OCWD’s 2017 “Basin 8-1 Alternative” (Appendix G). 6.3.6 MET Groundwater Replenishment Program In the past, OCWD, MWDOC, and MET have coordinated water management to increase storage in the OC Basin when imported supplies are available for this purpose. MET’s groundwater replenishment Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-21 program was discontinued on January 1, 2013, and currently MET via MWDOC sells replenishment water to OCWD at the full-service untreated MET rate. MWDOC’s imported water sales to OCWD since FY 1990-91 averages approximately 31,200 AF per year. Recently, due to low Santa Ana River flows as a result of low precipitation and increased use along the river, OCWD has needed to purchase more imported replenishment water per year than the average of 31,200 AFY over the last 25 years (this does not include water amounts from MET’s Conjunctive Use Program (CUP) or its Cyclic Storage Account). However, with the emergence of PFAS affecting groundwater production, the need to purchase imported water has been temporary suspended. Until PFAS treatment is in place for most groundwater producers in the region, imported replenishment water will be significantly reduced. 6.3.7 MET Conjunctive Use Program / Cyclic Storage Program with OCWD Since 2004, OCWD, MWDOC, and certain groundwater producers have participated in MET’s CUP. This program allows for the storage of MET water in the OC Basin. The existing MET program provides storage up to 66,000 AF of water in the OC Basin to be pumped by participating producers in place of receiving imported supplies during water shortage events in exchange for MET’s contribution to improvements in basin management facilities and an annual administrative fee. These improvements include eight new groundwater production wells, improvements to the seawater intrusion barrier, and construction of the Diemer Bypass Pipeline. The water is accounted for via the CUP program administered by the wholesale agencies and is controlled by MET such that it can be withdrawn over a three-year time period (OCWD, 2020). As of 2021, the CUP has not been in use since 2014. The CUP contract ends in 2028. The Cyclic Storage account is an alternative storage account with MET. However, unlike the CUP program, OCWD controls when the water is used. The Cyclic Water Storage Program allows MET to store water in a local groundwater basin during surplus conditions, where MET has limited space in its regional storage locations. Once the water is stored via direct delivery or In-lieu the groundwater agency has the ability to purchase this water at a future date or over a 5-year period. 6.3.8 Overdraft Conditions Annual groundwater basin overdraft, as defined in OCWD's Act, is the quantity by which production of groundwater supplies exceeds natural replenishment of groundwater supplies during a water year. This difference between extraction and replenishment can be estimated by determining the change in volume of groundwater in storage that would have occurred had supplemental water not been used for any groundwater recharge purpose, including seawater intrusion protection, advanced water reclamation, and the in-Lieu Program. The annual analysis of basin storage change and accumulated overdraft for water year 2019-20 has been completed. Based on the three-layer methodology, an accumulated overdraft of 200,000 AF was calculated for the water year ending June 30, 2020. The accumulated overdraft for the water year ending June 30, 2019 was 236,000 AF, which was also calculated using the three-layer storage method. Therefore, an annual increase of 36,000 AF in stored groundwater was calculated as the difference between the June 2019 and June 2020 accumulated overdrafts (OCWD, 2021). Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-22 6.3.9 Planned Future Sources The City plans to construct new wells in Fountain Valley, including a pipeline transmission to the existing well transmission main to provide redundancy for the wells providing water to the City. This project is further described in Section 6.9. On a regional scale, OCWD regularly evaluates potential projects and conducts studies to improve the existing facilities and build new facilities to include in their Long-Term Facilities Plans (LTFP). OCWD’s 2014 LTFP evaluated 65 potential projects for water supply, basin management, recharge facilities, operational improvements, and operational efficiency. Some of OCWD’s planned water projects that would increase supply are listed below. For a more detailed list of projects, refer to the 2014 LTFP (OCWD). • GWRSFE – The Final Expansion of the GWRS is currently underway and is the third and final phase of the project. When the Final Expansion is completed in early 2023, the plant’s treatment capacity will increase from 100 to 130 MGD. To produce 130 MGD, additional treated wastewater from Orange County Sanitation District (OC San)’s Treatment Plant 2 is required. This recycled water represents a high quality, drought-proof source of water to protect and enhance the OC Basin. The Final Expansion project will include expanding the existing GWRS treatment facilities, constructing new conveyance facilities at OC San Plant 2, and rehabilitating an existing pipeline between OC San Plant 2 and the GWRS. Once completed, the GWRS plant will recycle 100% of OC San’s reclaimable sources and produce enough water to meet the needs of over one million people. • Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) at Prado Dam – Stormwater represents a significant source of water used by OCWD to recharge the OC Basin. Much of this recharge is made possible by the capture of Santa Ana River stormflows behind Prado Dam in the Conservation Pool. FIRO represents the next generation of operating water reservoirs using the best available technology. Advances in weather and stormwater runoff forecasting hold promise to allow USACE to safety impound more stormwater while maintaining equivalent flood risk management capability behind Prado Dam. Preliminary modeling show that by expanding the Conservation Pool from elevation 505 to 512 ft msl, annual recharge to the groundwater basin could increase by as much as 4,500 to 7,000 AFY. Surface Water 6.4.1 Existing Sources There are, currently, no direct surface water uses in the City’s service area. 6.4.2 Planned Future Sources As of 2021, there are no planned direct uses of surface water in the City’s service area. 6.4 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-23 Stormwater 6.5.1 Existing Sources The City has over 3,200 catch basins and over 95 miles of storm drain pipe that divert stormwater to the wastewater system (City of Newport Beach, 2021). A portion of the combined stormwater and wastewater are treated at OCWD’s Green Acres Project (GAP) and / or GWRS to produce recycled water that is used for irrigation purposes, as further described in Section 6.6. 6.5.2 Planned Future Sources The City will continue to divert stormwater. Otherwise, there are no planned direct uses of stormwater in the City’s service area as of early 2021. Wastewater and Recycled Water The City is directly involved in wastewater services through its ownership and operation of the wastewater collection system in its service area. However, the City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities. The City's sewer system includes over 200 miles of sewer lines and 21 wastewater lift stations and serves a population of approximately 66,000 residents. Recycled water is wastewater that is treated through primary, secondary, and tertiary processes and is acceptable for most non-potable water purposes such as irrigation, and commercial and industrial process water per Title 22 requirements. Recycled water opportunities have continued to grow in Southern California as public acceptance and the need to expand local water resources continues to be a priority. Recycled water also provides a degree of flexibility and added reliability during drought conditions when imported water supplies are restricted. The City is indirectly involved in recycled water production, through its supply of wastewater IPR. The following sections expand on the existing agency collaboration involved in these efforts as well as the City’s projected recycled water use over the next 25 years. 6.6.1 Agency Coordination The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities and sends all collected wastewater to OC San for treatment and disposal. OC San provides treated water to OCWD, the manager of the OC Basin. OCWD strives to maintain and increase the reliability of the OC Basin through replenishment with imported water, stormwater, and advanced treated wastewater. A full description of the OC Basin is available in Section 6.3.2. OCWD and OC San have jointly constructed and expanded two water recycling projects to meet this goal including: 1) OCWD GAP, and 2) OCWD GWRS. OCWD Green Acres Project OCWD owns and operates the GAP, a water recycling system that provides up to 8,400 AFY of recycled water for irrigation and industrial uses. GAP provides an alternate source of water that is mainly delivered to parks, golf courses, greenbelts, cemeteries, and nurseries in the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana. OCWD produces and distributes GAP water for purchase by the City, which sells and distributes the water to recycled water customers. Approximately 100 sites use GAP 6.5 6.6 6 .6.1 .1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-24 water, current recycled water users include the Newport Beach County Club, the Big Canyon Country Club, median strips, a City-owned park, and the recently added Eastbluff Village. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD’s GWRS allows Southern California to decrease its dependency on imported water and creates a local and reliable source of water. OCWD’s GWRS purifies secondary treated wastewater from OC San to levels that meet and exceed all state and federal drinking water standards. The GWRS Phase 1 plant has been operational since January 2008 and uses a three-step advanced treatment process consisting of microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and ultraviolet (UV) light with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). A portion of the treated water is injected into the seawater barrier to prevent seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin. The other portion of the water is pumped to ponds where the water percolates into deep aquifers and becomes part of OC’s water supply. The GWRS first began operating in 2008 producing 70 MGD and in 2015, it underwent a 30 MGD expansion. Approximately 39,200 AFY of the highly purified water is pumped into the injection wells and 72,900 AFY is pumped to the percolation ponds in the City of Anaheim where the water is naturally filtered through sand and gravel to deep aquifers of the groundwater basin. The OC Basin provides approximately 72% of the potable water supply for north and central Orange County. The design and construction of the first phase (78,500 AFY) of the GWRS project was jointly funded by OCWD and OC San; Phase 2 expansion (33,600 AFY) was funded solely by OCWD. The Final Expansion of the GWRS is currently underway and is the third and final phase of the project. When the Final Expansion is completed in 2023, the plant will produce 130 MGD. To produce 130 MGD, additional treated wastewater from OC San is required. This additional water will come from OC San’s Treatment Plant 2, which is in the City of Huntington Beach approximately 3.5 miles south of the GWRS. The Final Expansion project will include expanding the existing GWRS treatment facilities, constructing new conveyance facilities at OC San Plant 2 and rehabilitating an existing pipeline between OC San Plant 2 and the GWRS. Once completed, the GWRS plant will recycle 100% of OC San’s reclaimable sources and produce enough water to meet the needs of over one million people. 6.6.2 Wastewater Description and Disposal The City operates and maintains the local sewer collection pipes that feed into the OC San's trunk sewer system to convey wastewater to OC San's treatment plants. The City's sewer system includes 202.4 miles of sewer lines and 21 wastewater lift stations. The wastewater collected in the City’s system is conveyed to OC San’s extensive system of gravity flow sewers, pump stations, and pressurized sewers. Ultimately, the wastewater is treated at OC San treatment plants in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2). Plant No. 1 has a total rated primary capacity of 108 MGD and a secondary treatment capacity of 80 MGD. Plant No. 2 has a rated primary capacity of 168 MGD and secondary treatment capacity of 90 MGD. Both plants share a common ocean outfall, but Plant No. 1 currently provides all its secondary treated wastewater to OCWD’s GWRS for beneficial reuse. The 120-inch diameter ocean outfall extends 4 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. A 78-inch diameter emergency outfall also extends 1.3 miles off the coast. Table 6-6 summarizes the wastewater collected by the City and transported to OC San's system in 2020. 6 .6 .1.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-25 Table 6-6: Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2020 DWR Submittal Table 6-2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2020 There is no wastewater collection system. The supplier will not complete the table below. Percentage of 2020 service area covered by wastewater collection system (optional) Percentage of 2020 service area population covered by wastewater collection system (optional) Wastewater Collection Recipient of Collected Wastewater Name of Wastewater Collection Agency Wastewater Volume Metered or Estimated? Volume of Wastewater Collected from UWMP Service Area 2020 Name of Wastewater Treatment Agency Receiving Collected Wastewater Treatment Plant Name Is WWTP Located Within UWMP Area? Is WWTP Operation Contracted to a Third Party? (optional) Add additional rows as needed Newport Beach Estimated 10,015 OC San Plant No. 1 / Plant No. 2 No No Total Wastewater Collected from Service Area in 2020: 10,015 NOTES: Used a 65% return rate (City of Newport Beach, 2015) Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-26 6.6.3 Current Recycled Water Uses The City currently uses recycled water from OCWD’s GAP for direct non-potable reuse such as landscape irrigation. The City owns approximately ten miles of recycled water distribution pipe that supplies eight sites. The sites served with recycled water for irrigation include the Newport Beach County Club, the Big Canyon Country Club, median strips, a City-owned park, and the recently added Eastbluff Village. In FY 2020, approximately 85 AFY of recycled water was used in the City’s service area for landscape irrigation and 428 AFY for golf course irrigation, about 3.5% of the City’s annual water demand. For indirect use, the City also benefits from OCWD’s GWRS system that provides IPR through replenishment of OC Basin with water that meets state and federal drinking water standards. 6.6.4 Projected Recycled Water Uses The City will continue to receive recycled water from GAP and supply it to the various landscape irrigation sites mentioned in Section 6.6.3. The City will continue to supply wastewater to support the region’s IPR via GWRS. Current and projected recycled water use through 2045 are shown in Table 6-8 and are expected to increase. Although the 2015 UWMP acknowledged IPR of wastewater, it did not quantify projections. These projections will be prepared moving forward. The projected 2020 recycled water use from the City's 2015 UWMP are compared to the 2020 actual use in Table 6-8, where the actual use is slightly less than the projected. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-27 Table 6-7: Retail: Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area DWR Submittal Table 6-4 Retail: Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area Name of Supplier Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water: OCWD Name of Supplier Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System: OCWD Beneficial Use Type Potential Beneficial Uses of Recycled Water (Describe) Amount of Potential Uses of Recycled Water (Quantity) General Description of 2020 Uses Level of Treatment 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (opt) Landscape irrigation (excludes golf courses) Parks, Country Clubs, medians See projections Parks, Country Clubs, medians Tertiary 85 92 92 92 92 92 Golf course irrigation Golf course See projections Golf course Tertiary 428 450 450 450 450 450 Total: 513 542 542 542 542 542 *IPR - Indirect Potable Reuse NOTES: Table does not include groundwater recharge (IPR) numbers as they are not separate from OCWD's supply Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-28 Table 6-8: Retail: 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual DWR Submittal Table 6-5 Retail: 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual Recycled water was not used in 2015 nor projected for use in 2020. The Supplier will not complete the table below. Use Type 2015 Projection for 2020 2020 Actual Use Landscape irrigation (excludes golf courses) 95 85 Golf course irrigation 450 428 Groundwater recharge (IPR) N/A 3,411 Total 545 3,924 NOTES: Groundwater recharge (IPR) estimated based on OCWD Groundwater Basin Production and Percent of Total Basin Production for FY 2019-20 (33.3%) 6.6.5 Potential Recycled Water Uses Potential recycled water users are locations where recycled water could replace potable water use. These potential users are typically landscape or agricultural systems, or possibly water users. The City does not currently have any potential recycled water uses. 6.6.6 Optimization Plan Studies of water recycling opportunities within Southern California provide a context for promoting the development of water recycling plans. It is recognized that broad public acceptance of recycled water requires continued education and public involvement. Currently, most of the recycled water available is being directed toward replenishment of the groundwater basin and improvements in groundwater quality. As a user of groundwater, the City supports the efforts of OCWD and OC San to use recycled water as a primary resource for groundwater recharge in Orange County. Public Education The City participates in the MWDOC public education and school education programs, which include extensive sections on water recycling. MWDOC's water use efficiency public information programs are a partnership with agencies throughout the county. The City also contracts with Inside the Outdoors Foundation (ITOF) administered by the Orange County Department of Education. Through ITOF the City conducts effective environmental education programs promoting studies of environmental Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Through a variety of public information programs, MWDOC and ITOF reach the public, including those in the City, with information regarding present and future water supplies, the demands for a suitable quantity and quality of water, including recycled water, and the importance of implementing water efficiency Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-29 rebates, techniques and behaviors. Through ITOF, water education programs have reached thousands of students in the City with grade-specific programs that include information on recycled water. Financial Incentives Recycled water users benefit from a lower unit water cost than potable water, the difference depending primarily on the amount of imported water included in the potable supply. The City maintains water rates for each recycled water user that are on average 80% of the City’s domestic water rates. Each recycled water user increases their cost savings the more recycled water they use. The implementation of recycled water projects involves a substantial upfront capital investment for planning studies, Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), engineering design and construction before there recycled water is available to the market. The establishment of new supplemental funding sources through federal, state and regional programs now provides significant financial incentives for water agencies to develop and make use of recycled water locally. Potential sources of funding include federal, state and local funding opportunities. These funding sources include the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), California Proposition 13 Water Bond, Proposition 84 and MET Local Resources Program (LRP). These funding opportunities may be sought by the City or possibly more appropriately by regional agencies. The City will continue to support seeking funding for regional water recycling projects and programs. Optimizing Recycled Water Use In Orange County, recycled water is used for irrigating golf courses, parks, schools, businesses, and communal landscapes, as well as for groundwater recharge. Recycled water users in the City receive their water from OCWD’s GAP. Future recycled water use can be increased by requiring dual piping in new developments, retrofitting existing landscaped areas and constructing recycled water pump stations and transmission pipelines to reach areas that are further from treatment plants. Gains in implementing some of these projects have been made throughout the county; however, the additional costs, large energy requirements, and facilities make such projects very expensive to pursue. The City will continue to conduct feasibility studies for recycled water and seek out creative solutions such as funding, regulatory requirements, institutional arrangement, and public acceptance for recycled water use with OCWD, MET, and other cooperative agencies. Desalination Opportunities In 2001, MET developed a Seawater Desalination Program (SDP) to provide incentives for developing new seawater desalination projects in MET’s service area. In 2014, MET modified the provisions of their LRP to include incentives for locally produced seawater desalination projects that reduce the need for imported supplies. To qualify for the incentive, proposed projects must replace an existing demand or prevent new demand on MET’s imported water supplies. In return, MET offers three incentive formulas under the program: • Sliding scale incentive up to $340 per AF for a 25-year agreement term, depending on the unit cost of seawater produced compared to the cost of MET supplies. • Sliding scale incentive up to $475 per AF for a 15-year agreement term, depending on the unit cost of seawater produced compared to the cost of MET supplies. 6.7 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-30 • Fixed incentive up to $305 per AF for a 25-year agreement term. Developing local supplies within MET's service area is part of their IRP goal of improving water supply reliability in the region. Creating new local supplies reduce pressure on imported supplies from the SWP and Colorado River. On May 6th, 2015, the SWRCB approved an amendment to the state’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California (California Ocean Plan) to address effects associated with the construction and operation of seawater desalination facilities (Desalination Amendment). The amendment supports the use of ocean water as a reliable supplement to traditional water supplies while protecting marine life and water quality. The California Ocean Plan now formally acknowledges seawater desalination as a beneficial use of the Pacific Ocean and the Desalination Amendment provides a uniform, consistent process for permitting seawater desalination facilities statewide. If the following projects are developed, MET's imported water deliveries to Orange County could be reduced. These projects include the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project and the Doheny Desalination Project. As for City-led initiatives, the City has not investigated seawater desalination as a result of economic and physical impediments. Brackish groundwater is groundwater with a salinity higher than freshwater, but lower than seawater. Brackish groundwater typically requires treatment using desalters. 6.7.1 Ocean Water Desalination Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project – Poseidon Resources LLC (Poseidon), a private company, is developing the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project to be co-located at the AES Power Plant in the City of Huntington Beach along Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street. The proposed project would produce up to 50 MGD (56,000 AFY) of drinking water to provide approximately 10% of Orange County’s water supply needs. Over the past several years, Poseidon has been working with OCWD on the general terms and conditions for selling the water to OCWD. OCWD and MWDOC have proposed a few distribution options to agencies in Orange County. The northern option proposes the water be distributed to the northern agencies closer to the plant within OCWD’s service area with the possibility of recharging/injecting a portion of the product water into the OC Basin. The southern option builds on the northern option by delivering a portion of the product water through the existing OC-44 pipeline for conveyance to the South Orange County water agencies. A third option is also being explored, which includes all of the product water to be recharged into the OC Basin. Currently, a combination of these options could be pursued. The Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination project plant capacity of 56,000 AFY would be the single largest source of new, local drinking water available to the region. In addition to offsetting imported demand, water from this project could provide OCWD with management flexibility in the OC Basin by augmenting supplies into the Talbert Seawater Barrier to prevent seawater intrusion. In May 2015, OCWD and Poseidon entered into a non-binding Term Sheet that provided the overall partner structure in order to advance the project. Based on the initial Term Sheet, which was updated in 2018, Poseidon would be responsible for permitting, financing, design, construction, and operations of the Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-31 treatment plant while OCWD would purchase the production volume, assuming the product water quality and quantity meet specific contract parameters and criteria. Furthermore, OCWD would then distribute the water in Orange County using one of the proposed distribution options described above. Currently, the project is in the regulatory permit approval process with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Coastal Commission. Once all of the required permits are approved, Poseidon will then work with OCWD and interested member agencies in developing a plan to distribute the water. Subsequent to the regulatory permit approval process, and agreement with interested parties, Poseidon estimates that the project could be online as early as 2027. Under guidance provided by DWR, the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Plant’s projected water supplies are not included in the supply projections due to its current status within the criteria established by State guidelines (DWR, 2020c). Doheny Desalination Project – South Coast Water District (SCWD) is proposing to develop an ocean water desalination facility in Dana Point. SCWD intends to construct a facility with an initial capacity of up to 5 million gallons per day (MGD). The initial up to 5 MGD capacity would be available for SCWD and potential partnering water agencies to provide a high quality, locally-controlled, drought-proof water supply. The desalination facility would also provide emergency backup water supplies, should an earthquake, system shutdown, or other event disrupt the delivery of imported water to the area. The Project would consist of a subsurface slant well intake system (constructed within Doheny Beach State Park), raw (sea) water conveyance to the desalination facility site (located on SCWD owned property), a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination facility, brine disposal through an existing wastewater ocean outfall, solids handling facilities, storage, and potable water conveyance interties to adjacent local and regional distribution infrastructure. The Doheny Ocean Desalination Project has been determined as the best water supply option to meet reliability needs of SCWD and south Orange County. SCWD is pursuing the Project to ensure it meets the water use needs of its customers and the region by providing a drought-proof potable water supply, which diversifies SCWD’s supply portfolio and protects against long-term imported water emergency outages and supply shortfalls that could have significant impact to our coastal communities, public health, and local economy. Phase I of the Project (aka, the “Local” Project) will provide SCWD and the region with up to 5 MGD of critical potable water supply that, together with recycled water, groundwater, and conservation, will provide the majority of SCWD’s water supply through local reliable sources. An up to 15 MGD capacity project has been identified as a potential future “regional” project that could be phased incrementally, depending on regional needs. On June 27, 2019, SCWD certified the final EIR and approved the Project. The Final EIR included considerable additional information provided at the request of the Coastal Commission and the Regional Board, including an updated coastal hazard analysis, updated brine discharge modeling, and updated groundwater modeling, updated hydrology analysis. The approval of the Project also included a commitment to 100 percent carbon neutrality through a 100 percent offset of emissions through the expansion of Project mitigation and use of renewable energy sources. SCWD is currently in the permitting process and finalizing additional due diligence studies. If implemented, SCWD anticipates an online date of 2025. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-32 Under guidance provided by DWR, the Doheny Seawater Desalination Project’s projected water supplies are not included in the supply projections due to its current status within the criteria established by State guidelines (DWR, 2020c). 6.7.2 Groundwater Desalination There are currently no brackish groundwater opportunities within the City’s service area. Water Exchanges and Transfers Interconnections with other agencies result in the ability to share water supplies during short term emergency situations or planned shutdowns of major imported water systems. However, beyond -short term outages, transfers can also be involved with longer term water exchanges to deal with droughts or water allocation situations. The following subsections describe the City’s existing and planned exchanges and transfers. 6.8.1 Existing Exchanges and Transfers The City has multiple inter-agency emergency interconnections with IRWD and Mesa Water. The City does not routinely use these interconnections; however, the interconnections are included as fixed-grade reservoirs for future use if needed. 6.8.2 Planned and Potential Exchanges and Transfers The City does not currently have plans to introduce new exchanges and transfers. However, MWDOC continues to help its retail agencies develop transfer and exchange opportunities that promote reliability within their systems. Therefore, MWDOC will look to help its retail agencies navigate the operational and administrative issues of transfers within the MET distribution system. On a regional scale, the Santa Ana River Conservation and Conjunctive Use Project (SARCCUP) is a joint project established by five regional water agencies within the Santa Ana River Watershed (Eastern Municipal Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Western Municipal Water District, OCWD, and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District). In 2016, SARCCUP was successful in receiving $55 million in grant funds from Proposition 84 through DWR. The overall SARCCUP program awarded by Proposition 84, consists of three main program elements: • Watershed-Scale Cooperative Water Banking Program • Water Use Efficiency: Landscape Design and Irrigation Improvements and Water Budget Assistance for Agencies • Habitat Creation and Arundo Donax Removal from the Santa Ana River The Watershed-Scale Cooperative Water Banking Program is the largest component of SARCCUP and since 2016, Valley, MET, and the four SARCCUP-MWD Member Agencies, with MWDOC representing OCWD, have been discussing terms and conditions for the ability to purchase surplus water from Valley to be stored in the Santa Ana River watershed. With the Valley and MET surplus water purchase 6.8 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-33 agreement due for renewal, it was the desire of Valley to establish a new agreement with MET that allows a portion of its surplus water to be stored within the Santa Ana River watershed. An agreement between MET and four SARCCUP-MWD Member Agencies was approved earlier this year that gives the SARCCUP agencies the ability to purchase a portion (up to 50%) of the surplus water that San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley), a SWP Contractor, sells to MET. Such water will be stored in local groundwater basins throughout the Santa Ana River watershed and extract during dry years to reduce the impacts from multiyear droughts. In Orange County, 36,000 AF can be stored in the OC Basin for use during dry years. More importantly, this stored SARCCUP water can be categorized as “extraordinary supplies”, if used during a MET allocation, and can enhance a participating agencies’ reliability during a drought. Moreover, if excess water is available MWDOC can purchase additional water for its service area. Further details remain to be developed between OCWD, retail agencies, and MWDOC in how the water will be distributed in Orange County and who participates. Summary of Future Water Supply Projects The City continually reviews practices that will provide its customers with adequate and reliable supplies. Trained staff continue to ensure the water quality is safe and the water supply will meet present and future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible manner. Although the City has various projects planned to maintain and improve the water system, there are currently no City-specific planned projects that have both a concrete timeline and a quantifiable increase in supply. 6.9.1 City Initiatives The City anticipates water demand in the City to increase slightly over the next 25 years. Any new water supply sources will be developed primarily to better manage the Basin and to replace or upgrade inefficient wells, rather than to support population growth and new development. The projects that have been identified by the City to improve the City’s water supply reliability and enhance the operations of the City include facilities projects such as pump station upgrades and rehabilitation, pressure reducing system upgrades, and pipeline replacement and relining projects. Projects identified in the Thirty-year Capital Improvement Program include the below. For the full list of projects, refer to the City’s 2019 Water Master Plan (Arcadis, 2019). New Wells – Construction of new wells in Fountain Valley, including a pipeline connection to the existing well transmission main, would provide redundancy for the wells providing water to the City. Facilities Projects – Projects such as facility improvements, well rehabilitation, and distribution system upgrades. Pressure Reducing Station Projects – Replacement and installation projects throughout the distribution system. Pipeline Projects – Pipe renewal or replacement projects that ensure reliable water conveyance. 6.9 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-34 6.9.2 Regional Initiatives Beyond City-specific projects, the City consistently coordinates its long-term water shortage planning with MWDOC and OCWD. MWDOC has identified the following future regional projects, some of which can indirectly benefit the City to further increase local supplies and offset imported supplies (CDM Smith, 2019): Poseidon Huntington Beach Ocean Desalination Project – Poseidon proposes to construct and operate the Huntington Beach Ocean Desalination Plant on a 12-acre parcel adjacent to the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station. The facility would have a capacity of 50 MGD and 56,000 AFY, with its main components consisting of a water intake system, a desalination facility, a concentrate disposal system, and a product water storage tank. This project would provide both system and supply reliability benefits to South Orange County (SOC), the OC Basin, and Huntington Beach. The capital cost in the initial year for the plant is $1.22 billion. Doheny Ocean Desalination Project – SCWD is proposing to construct an ocean water desalination facility in Dana Point at Doheny State Beach. The facility would have an initial up to 5 MGD capacity, with the potential for future expansions up to 15 MGD. The project’s main components are a subsurface water intake system, a raw ocean water conveyance pipeline, a desalination facility, a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination facility, a brine disposal system, and a product water storage tank. San Juan Watershed Project – Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) and other project partners have proposed a multi-phased project within the San Juan Creek Watershed to capture local stormwater and develop, convey, and recharge recycled water into the San Juan Groundwater Basin and treat the water upon pumping it out of the basin. The first phase includes the installation of three rubber dams within San Juan Creek to promote in-stream recharge of the basin, with an anticipated production of 700 AFY on average. The second phase would develop additional surface water and groundwater management practices by using stormwater and introducing recycled water for infiltration into the basin and has an anticipated production of 2,660 to 4,920 AFY. The third phase will introduce recycled water directly into San Juan Creek through live stream recharge, with an anticipated production of up to 2,660 AFY (SMWD, 2021). Cadiz Water Bank – SMWD and Cadiz, Inc. are developing this project to create a new water supply by conserving groundwater that is currently being lost to evaporation and recovering the conserved water by pumping it out of the Fenner Valley Groundwater Basin to convey to MET’s CRA. The project consists of a groundwater pumping component that includes an average of 50 TAFY of groundwater that can be pumped from the basin over a 50-year period, and a water storage component that allows participants to send surplus water supplies to be recharged in spreading basins and held in storage. South Orange County Emergency Interconnection Expansion – MWDOC has been working with the SOC agencies on improvements for system reliability primarily due to the risk of earthquakes causing outages of the MET imported water system as well as extended grid outages. Existing regional interconnection agreements between IRWD and SOC agencies provides for the delivery of water through the IRWWD system to participating SOC agencies in times of emergency. MWDOC and IRWD are currently studying an expansion of the program, including the potential East Orange County Feeder No. 2 pipeline and an expanded and scalable emergency groundwater program, with a capital cost of $867,451. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-35 SARCCUP – SARCCUP is a joint project established between MET, MWDOC, Eastern MWD, Western MWD, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and OCWD that can provide significant benefits in the form of additional supplies during dry years for Orange County. Surplus SWP water from San Bernardino Valley Water District (SBVMWD) can be purchased and stored for use during dry years. This water can even be considered an extraordinary supply under MET allocation Plan, if qualified under MET’s extraordinary supply guidelines. OCWD has the ability to store 36,000 AF of SARCCUP water and if excess water is available MWDOC has the ability to purchase additional water. Further details remain to be developed between OCWD, retail agencies, and MWDOC in how the water will be distributed in Orange County and who participates. Moulton Niquel Water District (MNWD) / OCWD Pilot Storage Program - OCWD entered into an agreement with MNWD to develop a pilot program to explore the opportunity to store water in the OC Basin. The purpose of such a storage account would provide MNWD water during emergencies and/or provide additional water during dry periods. As part of the agreement, OCWD hired consultants to evaluate where and how to extract groundwater from the OC Basin with several options to pump the water to MNWD via the East Orange County Feeder No. 2; as well as a review of existing banking/exchange programs in California to determine what compensation methodologies could OCWD assess for a storage/banking program. Energy Intensity A new requirement for this 2020 UWMP is an energy intensity analysis of the Supplier’s water, wastewater, and recycled water systems, where applicable for a 12-month period. The City owns and operates a water distribution system and a wastewater collection system. This section reports the energy intensity for each system using data from FY 2019-2020. The recycled water system within the City is owned and operated by OCWD, therefore it is outside of the City’s operational control. Water and energy resources are inextricably connected. Known as the "water-energy nexus", the California Energy Commission estimates the transport and treatment of water, treatment and disposal of wastewater, and the energy used to heat and consume water account for nearly 20% of the total electricity and 30% of non-power plant related natural gas consumed in California. In 2015, California issued new rules requiring 50% of its power to come from renewables, along with a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Consistent with energy and water conservation, renewable energy production, and GHG mitigation initiatives, the City reports the energy intensity of its water and wastewater operations. The methodology for calculating water energy intensity outlined in Appendix O of the UWMP Guidebook was adapted from the California Institute for Energy Efficiency exploratory research study titled “Methodology for Analysis of the Energy Intensity of California’s Water Systems” (Wilkinson 2000). The study defines water energy intensity as the total amount of energy, calculated on a whole‐system basis, required for the use of a given amount of water in a specific location. UWMP reporting is limited to available energy intensity information associated with water processes occurring within an urban water supplier’s direct operational control. Operational control is defined as authority over normal business operations at the operational level. Any energy embedded in water supplies imparted by an upstream water supplier (e.g., water wholesaler) or consequently by a 6.10 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-36 downstream water purveyor (e.g., retail water provider) is not included in the UWMP energy intensity tables. The City’s calculations conform to methodologies outlined in the UWMP Guidebook and Wilkinson study. Although the standard reporting cycle for GHG emissions is calendar years (CYs), the data the follows is for the 12 month period from July 2019 to June 2020 which was the most up-to-date data at the time this report was written. 6.10.1 Water Supply Energy Intensity In CY2019, the City consumed 817 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per AF for water services (Table 6-9). The basis for calculations is provided in more detail in the following subsections. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-37 Table 6-9: Recommended Energy Intensity – Multiple Water Delivery Products Urban Water Supplier: Water Delivery Product (If delivering more than one type of product use Table O-1C) Retail Potable Deliveries Table O-1A: Recommended Energy Reporting - Water Supply Process Approach Enter Start Date for Reporting Period 7/1/2019 End Date 6/29/2020 Water Volume Units Used Extract and Divert Place into Storage Conveyance Treatment Distribution Total Utility Hydropower Net Utility Volume of Water Entering Process AF 10236.78 0 0 0 14492 14492 0 14492 Energy Consumed (kWh)N/A 5413351.69 0 0 0 6420371.31 11833723 0 11833723 Energy Intensity (kWh/vol.)N/A 528.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 443.0 816.6 0.0 816.6 Quantity of Self-Generated Renewable Energy 0 kWh Data Quality (Estimate, Metered Data, Combination of Estimates and Metered Data) Combination of Estimates and Metered Data Data Quality Narrative: Narrative: Newport Beach relies on imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to meet their customers' water needs. Operational control is limited to groundwater wells and potable water booster stations and two recycled water pump stations. This table does not include upstream embedded energy consumed prior to Newport Beach taking control. All numbers were calculated for July 2019-June 2020. Newport Beach Urban Water Supplier Operational Control Water Management Process Non-Consequential Hydropower (if applicable) All energy information comes from Southern California Edison energy bills. Volume of water extracted and diverted and distributed water is based on MWDOC records for groundwater withdrawals and MET deliveries. Is upstream embedded in the values reported?□ Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-38 Operational Control and Reporting Period As described throughout the report, the City is a retail agency that relies on groundwater and imported water. Water supply energy intensity was calculated for the 2019FY. CY reporting is standard for energy and GHG reporting to the Climate Registry, California Air Resources Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency it provides consistency when assessing direct and indirect energy consumption within a larger geographical context, versus FY starting dates which can vary between utilities and organizations. FY data was used for this report because it was the most recent data available. Volume of Water Entering Processes According to the MWDOC water audit records, the City extracted 10,237 AF of groundwater from the OC Basin and received 4,255 AF of MET water. This is based on a combination of metered data and estimates. Energy Consumption and Generation According to Southern California Edison Electricity Bills, groundwater wells consumed 5,413,351 kwH of electricity and pump stations along the distribution system consumed 6,420,371 kWh of electricity. Currently, the City does not generate renewable energy. Energy consumption is based on metered data. 6.10.2 Wastewater and Recycled Water Energy Intensity In FY2019, the City consumed 30.4 KWh per AF for wastewater services and 2,008 kWh per AF for recycled water services (Table 6-10). The basis for calculations is provided in more detail in the following subsections. 6.10.1 .1 6.10.1.2 6.10.1.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-39 Table 6-10: Recommended Energy Intensity – Wastewater & Recycled Water Urban Water Supplier: Enter Start Date for Reporting Period 7/1/2019 End Date 6/29/2020 Is upstream embedded in the values reported? Volume of Water Units Used AF Volume of Wastewater Entering Process (volume units selected above)10015 0 0 0 Wastewater Energy Consumed (kWh)304209 0 0 304209 Wastewater Energy Intensity (kWh/volume)30.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume of Recycled Water Entering Process (volume units selected above)0 0 513 513 Recycled Water Energy Consumed (kWh)0 0 1030045.69 1030045.7 Recycled Water Energy Intensity (kWh/volume)0.0 0.0 2007.9 2007.9 Quantity of Self-Generated Renewable Energy related to recycled water and wastewater operations 0 kWh Data Quality (Estimate, Metered Data, Combination of Estimates and Metered Data) Combination of Estimates and Metered Data Data Quality Narrative: Narrative: Newport Beach operates the local wastewater and recycled water collection system but does not operate treatment facilities. Operational control is limited to wastewater and recycled water lift stations in the local collection system. This table does not include downstream energy consumed to treat the wastewater, after Newport Beach's control. Newport Beach Table O-2: Recommended Energy Reporting - Wastewater & Recycled Water Urban Water Supplier Operational Control Water Management Process Volume of Water Entering Process: Estimated based potable water consumption in the service area Wastewater Energy Consumed: Based on metered data 513 AF of recycled water was purchased through OCWD's GAP based on metered data. Collection / Conveyance Treatment Discharge / Distribution Total □ Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-40 Operational Control and Reporting Period The City’s existing sewer system is made up of a network of gravity sewers and twenty booster stations. As explained in Section 6.6, the City owns and operates wastewater lift stations but no treatment facilities. Similar to the water supply energy intensity, wastewater energy intensity was calculated for the 2019 financial year. Volume of Wastewater Entering Processes In CY2019, the City collected and conveyed 10,015 AF of wastewater to OC San. Water volumes are based on estimates as a portion of the total potable water delivered in the service area. 513 AF of recycled water was purchased through OC San’s GAP for use in irrigation. Energy Consumption and Generation According to Southern California Edison Electricity Bills, the City’s 20 wastewater lift stations consumed 304,209 kWh of electricity. There are no other wastewater facilities that are owned and operated by the City. Two pump stations that are used to deliver 513 AF of recycled water used 1,030,046 kWh. Currently, the City does not generate renewable energy. Energy consumption data was based on metered data from SCE. 6.10.3 Key Findings and Next Steps Calculating and disclosing direct operationally controlled energy intensities is another step towards understanding the water-energy nexus. However, much work is still needed to better understand upstream and downstream (indirect) water-energy impacts. When assessing water supply energy intensities or comparing intensities between providers, it is important to consider reporting boundaries as they do not convey the upstream embedded energy or impacts energy intensity has on downstream users. Engaging one’s upstream and downstream supply chain can guide more informed decisions that holistically benefit the environment and are mutually beneficial to engaged parties. Suggestions for further study include: • Supply-chain engagement – The City relies on a variety of water sources for their customers. While some studies have used life cycle assessment tools to estimate energy intensities, there is a need to confirm this data. The 2020 UWMP requirement for all agencies to calculate energy intensity will help the City and neighboring agencies make more informed decisions that would benefit the region as a whole regarding the energy and water nexus. A similar analysis could be performed with upstream supply chain energy, for example, with State Project Water. • Internal benchmarking and goal setting – With a focus on energy conservation and a projected increase in water demand despite energy conservation efforts, the City’s energy intensities will likely decrease with time. Conceivably, in a case where water demand decreases, energy intensities may rise as the energy required to pump or treat is not always proportional to water delivered. In the course of exploring the water-energy nexus and pursuing renewable energy goals, there is a need to assess whether energy intensity is a meaningful indicator or if it makes 6.10.2 .1 6.10.2.2 6.10.2 .3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 6-41 sense to use a different indicator to reflect the City’s commitment to energy and water conservation. • Regional sustainability – Water and energy efficiency are two components of a sustainable future. Efforts to conserve water and energy, however, may impact the social, environmental, and economic livelihood of the region. In addition to the relationship between water and energy, over time, it may also be important to consider and assess the connection these resources have on other aspects of a sustainable future. • Consistent reporting – as discussed in this report, GHG’s are typically reported on a CY cycle but this report used financial year data. In the future, Huntington Beach should consider evaluating CY energy intensities for better benchmarking and consistency with other agencies. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-1 7 WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY AND DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT Building upon the water supply identified and projected in Section 6, this key section of the UWMP examines the City’s projected water supplies, water demand, and the resulting water supply reliability. Water service reliability reflects the City’s ability to meet the water needs of its customers under varying conditions. For the UWMP, water supply reliability is evaluated in two assessments: 1) the Water Service Reliability Assessment and 2) the DRA. The Water Service reliability assessment compares projected supply to projected demand in 2025 through 2045 for three hydrological conditions: a normal year, a single dry year, and a drought period lasting five consecutive years. The DRA, a new UWMP requirement, assesses near-term water supply reliability. It compares projected water supply and demand assuming the City experiences a drought period for the next five consecutive years. Factors affecting reliability, such as climate change and regulatory impacts, are accounted for in the assessment. Water Service Reliability Overview Every urban water supplier is required to assess the reliability of their water service to their customers under normal, single-dry, and multiple dry water years. The City depends on a combination of imported and local supplies to meet its water demands and has taken numerous steps to ensure it has adequate supplies. Development of local supplies augments the reliability of the water system. There are various factors that may impact reliability of supplies such as legal, environmental, water quality and climatic which are discussed below. MET and MWDOC’s 2020 UWMPs conclude that they can meet full-service demands of their member agencies starting 2025 through 2045 during normal years, single-dry years, and multiple-dry years. Consequently, the City is projected to meet full-service demands through 2045 for the same scenarios. MET’s 2020 IRP update describes the core water resources that will be used to meet full-service demands at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions from 2025 through 2045. The foundation of MET’s resource strategy for achieving regional water supply reliability has been to develop and implement water resources programs and activities through its IRP preferred resource mix. This preferred resource mix includes conservation, local resources such as water recycling and groundwater recovery, Colorado River supplies and transfers, SWP supplies and transfers, in-region surface reservoir storage, in-region groundwater storage, out-of-region banking, treatment, conveyance, and infrastructure improvements. Table 7-1 shows the basis of water year data used to predict drought supply availability. The average (normal) hydrologic condition for the MWDOC service area, which the City is a part of, is represented by FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 and the single-dry year hydrologic condition by FY 2013-14. The five consecutive years of FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16 represent the driest five consecutive year historic sequence for MWDOC’s service area. Locally, Orange County rainfall for the five-year period totaled 36 inches, the driest on record. 7.1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-2 Table 7-1: Retail: Basis of Water Year Data (Reliability Assessment) DWR Submittal Table 7-1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data (Reliability Assessment) Year Type Base Year Available Supplies if Year Type Repeats Quantification of available supplies is not compatible with this table and is provided elsewhere in the UWMP. Location __________________________ Quantification of available supplies is provided in this table as either volume only, percent only, or both. Volume Available % of Average Supply Average Year 2018-2019 - 100% Single-Dry Year 2014 - 106% Consecutive Dry Years 1st Year 2012 - 106% Consecutive Dry Years 2nd Year 2013 - 106% Consecutive Dry Years 3rd Year 2014 - 106% Consecutive Dry Years 4th Year 2015 - 106% Consecutive Dry Years 5th Year 2016 - 106% NOTES: Assumes an increase of 6% above average year demands in dry and multiple dry years based on the Demand Forecast TM (CDM Smith, 2021). 106% represents the percent of average supply needed to meet demands of a single-dry and multiple-dry years. Since the City is able to meet all of its demand with imported water from MWDOC / MET (on top of local supplies), the percent of average supply value reported is equivalent to the percent of average demand under the corresponding hydrologic condition. The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the City’s water source reliability. Additionally, the following sections compare the City’s projected supply and demand under various hydrological conditions, to determine the City’s supply reliability for the 25-year planning horizon. □ Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-3 Factors Affecting Reliability In order to prepare realistic water supply reliability assessments, various factors affecting reliability were considered. These include climate change and environmental requirements, regulatory changes, water quality impacts, and locally applicable criteria. 7.2.1 Climate Change and the Environment Changing climate patterns are expected to shift precipitation patterns and affect water supply availability. Unpredictable weather patterns will make water supply planning more challenging. Although climate change impacts are associated with exact timing, magnitude, and regional impacts of these temperature and precipitation changes, researchers have identified several areas of concern for California water planners (MET, 2021). These areas include: • A reduction in Sierra Nevada Mountain snowpack. • Increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. • Prolonged drought periods. • Water quality issues associated with increase in wildfires. • Changes in runoff pattern and amount. • Rising sea levels resulting in: o Impacts to coastal groundwater basins due to seawater intrusion. o Increased risk of damage from storms, high-tide events, and the erosion of levees. o Potential pumping cutbacks to the SWP and CVP. Other important issues of concern due to global climate change include: • Effects on local supplies such as groundwater. • Changes in urban and agricultural demand levels and patterns. • Increased evapotranspiration from higher temperatures. • Impacts to human health from water-borne pathogens and water quality degradation. • Declines in ecosystem health and function. • Alterations to power generation and pumping regime. • Increases in ocean algal blooms affected seawater desalination supplies. The major impact in California is that without additional surface storage, the earlier and heavier runoff (rather than snowpack retaining water in storage in the mountains), will result in more water being lost to the oceans. A heavy emphasis on storage is needed in California. In addition, the Colorado River Basin supplies have been inconsistent since about the year 2000, with precipitation near normal while runoff has been less than average in two out of every three years. Climate models are predicting a continuation of this pattern whereby hotter and drier weather conditions will result in continuing lower runoff, pushing the system toward a drying trend that is often characterized as long term drought. Dramatic swings in annual hydrologic conditions have impacted water supplies available from the SWP over the last decade. The declining ecosystem in the Delta has also led to a reduction in water supply 7.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-4 deliveries, and operational constraints, which will likely continue until a long-term solution to these problems is identified and implemented (MET, 2021). Legal, environmental, and water quality issues may have impacts on MET supplies. It is felt, however, that climatic factors would have more of an impact than legal, water quality, and environmental factors. Climatic conditions have been projected based on historical patterns, but severe pattern changes are still a possibility in the future (MET, 2021). 7.2.2 Regulatory and Legal Ongoing regulatory restrictions, such as those imposed by the Biops on the effects of SWP and the federal CVP operations on certain marine life, also contributes to the challenge of determining water delivery reliability. Endangered species protection and conveyance needs in the Delta have resulted in operational constraints that are particularly important because pumping restrictions impact many water resources programs – SWP supplies and additional voluntary transfers, Central Valley storage and transfers, and in-region groundwater and surface water storage. Biops protect special-status species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESAs and imposed substantial constraints on Delta water supply operations through requirements for Delta inflow and outflow and export pumping restrictions. In addition, the SWRCB has set water quality objectives that must be met by the SWP including minimum Delta outflows, limits on SWP and CVP Delta exports, and maximum allowable salinity level. SWRCB plans to fully implement the new Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) flow objectives from the Phase 1 Delta Plan amendments through adjudicatory (water rights) and regulatory (water quality) processes by 2022. These LSJR flow objectives are estimated to reduce water available for human consumptive use. New litigation, listings of additional species under the ESAs, or regulatory requirements imposed by the SWRCB could further adversely affect SWP operations in the future by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage, or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. The difficulty and implications of environmental review, documentation, and permitting pose challenges for multi-year transfer agreements, recycled water projects, and seawater desalination plants. The timeline and roadmap for getting a permit for recycled water projects are challenging and inconsistently implemented in different regions of the state. IPR projects face regulatory restraints such as treatment, blend water, retention time, and Basin Plan Objectives, which may limit how much recycled water can feasibly be recharged into the groundwater basins. New regulations and permitting uncertainty are also barriers to seawater desalination supplies, including updated Ocean Plan Regulations, Marine Life Protected Areas, and Once-Through Cooling Regulations (MET, 2021). 7.2.3 Water Quality The following sub-sections include narratives on water quality issues experienced in various water supplies, if any, and the measures being taken to improve the water quality of these sources. Imported Water MET is responsible for providing high quality potable water throughout its service area. Over 300,000 water quality tests are performed per year on MET’s water to test for regulated contaminants and 7.2.3 .1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-5 additional contaminants of concern to ensure the safety of its waters. MET’s supplies originate primarily from the CRA and from the SWP. A blend of these two sources, proportional to each year’s availability of the source, is then delivered throughout MET’s service area. MET’s primary water sources face individual water quality issues of concern. The CRA water source contains higher total dissolved solids (TDS) and the SWP contains higher levels of organic matter, lending to the formation of disinfection byproducts. To remediate the CRA’s high level of salinity and the SWP’s high level of organic matter, MET blends CRA and SWP supplies and has upgraded all of its treatment facilities to include ozone treatment processes. In addition, MET has been engaged in efforts to protect its Colorado River supplies from threats of uranium, perchlorate, and chromium VI while also investigating the potential water quality impact of the following emerging contaminants: N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCP), microplastics, PFAS, and 1,4-dioxane (MET, 2021). While unforeseeable water quality issues could alter reliability, MET’s current strategies ensure the delivery of high-quality water. The presence of quagga mussels in water sources is a water quality concern. Quagga mussels are an invasive species that was first discovered in 2007 at Lake Mead, on the Colorado River. This species of mussels forms massive colonies in short periods of time, disrupting ecosystems and blocking water intakes. They can cause significant disruption and damage to water distribution systems. MET has had success in controlling the spread and impacts of the quagga mussels within the CRA, however the future could require more extensive maintenance and reduced operational flexibility than current operations allow. It also resulted in MET eliminating deliveries of CRA water into DVL to keep the reservoir free from quagga mussels (MET, 2021). Groundwater OCWD is responsible for managing the OC Basin. To maintain groundwater quality, OCWD conducts an extensive monitoring program that serves to manage the OC Basin’s groundwater production, control groundwater contamination, and comply with all required laws and regulations. A network of nearly 700 wells provides OCWD a source for samples, which are tested for a variety of purposes. OCWD collects samples each month to monitor Basin water quality. The total number of water samples analyzed varies year-to-year due to regulatory requirements, conditions in the basin, and applied research and/or special study demands. These samples are collected and tested according to approved federal and state procedures as well as industry-recognized quality assurance and control protocols (City of La Habra et al., 2017). Although PFAS have not been detected in the City’s wells, PFAS are of particular concern for groundwater quality, and since the summer of 2019, DDW requires testing for PFAS compounds in some groundwater production wells in the OCWD area. In February 2020, the DDW lowered its Response Levels (RL) for PFOA and PFOS to 10 and 40 parts per trillion (ppt) respectively. The DDW recommends Producers not serve any water exceeding the RL – effectively making the RL an interim Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) while DDW undertakes administrative action to set a MCL. In response to DDW’s issuance of the revised RL, as of December 2020, approximately 45 wells in the OCWD service area have been temporarily turned off until treatment systems can be constructed. As additional wells are tested, OCWD expects this figure may increase to at least 70 to 80 wells. The state has begun the 7.2.3.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-6 process of establishing MCLs for PFOA and PFOS and anticipates these MCLs to be in effect by the Fall of 2023. OCWD anticipates the MCLs will be set at or below the RLs. In April 2020, OCWD as the groundwater basin manager, executed an agreement with the impacted Producers to fund and construct the necessary treatment systems for production wells impacted by PFAS compounds. The PFAS treatment projects includes the design, permitting, construction, and operation of PFAS removal systems for impacted Producer production wells. Each well treatment system will be evaluated for use with either granular activated carbon (GAC) or ion exchange (IX) for the removal of PFAS compounds. These treatment systems utilize vessels in a lead-lag configuration to remove PFOA and PFOS to less than 2 ppt (the current non-detect limit). Use of these PFAS treatment systems are designed to ensure the groundwater supplied by Producer wells can be served in compliance with current and future PFAS regulations. With financial assistance from OCWD, the Producers will operate and maintain the new treatment systems once they are constructed. To minimize expenses and provide maximum protection to the public water supply, OCWD initiated design, permitting, and construction of the PFAS treatment projects on a schedule that allows rapid deployment of treatment systems. Construction contracts were awarded for treatment systems for production wells in the City of Fullerton and Serrano Water District in Year 2020. Additional construction contracts will likely be awarded in the first and second quarters of 2021. OCWD expects the treatment systems to be constructed for most of the initial 45 wells above the RL within the next 2 to 3 years. As additional data are collected and new wells experience PFAS detections at or near the current RL, and/or above a future MCL, and are turned off, OCWD will continue to partner with the affected Producers and take action to design and construct necessary treatment systems to bring the impacted wells back online as quickly as possible. Groundwater production in FY 2019-20 was expected to be approximately 325,000 AF but declined to 286,550 AF primarily due to PFAS impacted wells being turned off around February 2020. OCWD expects groundwater production to be in the area of 245,000 AF in FY 2020-21 due to the currently idled wells and additional wells being impacted by PFAS and turned off. As PFAS treatment systems are constructed, OCWD expects total annual groundwater production to slowly increase back to normal levels (310,000 to 330,000 AF) (OCWD, 2020). Salinity is a significant water quality problem in many parts of Southern California, including Orange County. Salinity is a measure of the dissolved minerals in water including both TDS and nitrates. OCWD continuously monitors the levels of TDS in wells throughout the OC Basin. TDS currently has a California Secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. The portions of the OC Basin with the highest levels are generally located in the cities of Irvine, Tustin, Yorba Linda, Anaheim, and Fullerton. There is also a broad area in the central portion of the OC Basin where TDS ranges from 500 to 700 mg/L. Sources of TDS include the water supplies used to recharge the OC Basin and from onsite wastewater treatment systems, also known as septic systems. The TDS concentration in the OC Basin is expected to decrease over time as the TDS concentration of GWRS water used to recharge the OC Basin is approximately 50 mg/L (City of La Habra et al., 2017). Nitrates are one of the most common and widespread contaminants in groundwater supplies, originating from fertilizer use, animal feedlots, wastewater disposal systems, and other sources. The MCL for nitrate in drinking water is set at 10 mg/L. OCWD regularly monitors nitrate levels in groundwater and works with Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-7 producers to treat wells that have exceeded safe levels of nitrate concentrations. OCWD manages the nitrate concentration of water recharged by its facilities to reduce nitrate concentrations in groundwater. This includes the operation of the Prado Wetlands, which was designed to remove nitrogen and other pollutants from the Santa Ana River before the water is diverted to be percolated into OCWD’s surface water recharge system. Although water from the Deep Aquifer System is of very high quality, it is amber-colored and contains a sulfuric odor due to buried natural organic material. These negative aesthetic qualities require treatment before use as a source of drinking water. The total volume of the amber-colored groundwater is estimated to be approximately 1 MAF. There are other potential contaminants that are of concern to and are monitored by OCWD. These include: • Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) – MTBE is an additive to gasoline that increases octane ratings but became a widespread contaminant in groundwater supplies. The greatest source of MTBE contamination comes from underground fuel tank releases. The primary MCL for MTBE in drinking water is 13 µg/L. • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) – VOCs come from a variety of sources including industrial degreasers, paint thinners, and dry cleaning solvents. Locations of VOC contamination within the OC Basin include the former El Toro marine Corps Air Station, the Shallow Aquifer System, and portions of the Principal Aquifer System in the Cities of Fullerton and Anaheim. • NDMA – NDMA is a compound that can occur in wastewater that contains its precursors and is disinfected via chlorination and/or chloramination. It is also found in food products such as cured meat, fish, beer, milk, and tobacco smoke. The California Notification Level for NDMA is 10 ng/L and the RL is 300 ng/L. In the past, NDMA has been found in groundwater near the Talbert Barrier, which was traced to industrial wastewater dischargers. • 1,4-Dioxane – 1,4-Dioxane is a suspected human carcinogen. It is used as a solvent in various industrial processes such as the manufacture of adhesive products and membranes. • Perchlorate – Perchlorate enters groundwater through application of fertilizer containing perchlorate, water imported from the Colorado River, industrial or military sites that have perchlorate, and natural occurrence. Perchlorate was not detected in 84% of the 219 production wells tested between the years 2010 through 2014. • Selenium – Selenium is a naturally occurring micronutrient found in soils and groundwater in the Newport Bay watershed. The bio-accumulation of selenium in the food chain may result in deformities, stunted growth, reduced hatching success, and suppression of immune systems in fish and wildlife. Management of selenium is difficult as there is no off-the-shelf treatment technology available. • Constituents of Emerging Concern (CEC) – CECs are either synthetic or naturally occurring substances that are not currently regulated in water supplies or wastewater discharged but can be detected using very sensitive analytical techniques. The newest group of CECs include pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disruptors. OCWD’s laboratory is one of a Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-8 few in the state of California that continuously develops capabilities to analyze for new compounds (City of La Habra et al., 2017). 7.2.4 Locally Applicable Criteria Within Orange County, there are no significant local applicable criteria that directly affect reliability. Through the years, the water agencies in Orange County have made tremendous efforts to integrate their systems to provide flexibility to interchange with different sources of supplies. There are emergency agreements in place to ensure all parts of the County have an adequate supply of water. In the northern part of the County, agencies are able to meet a majority of their demands through groundwater with very little limitation, except for the OCWD BPP. For the agencies in southern Orange County, most of their demands are met with imported water where their limitation is based on the capacity of their system, which is very robust. However, if a major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault occurs, it will be damaging to all three key regional water aqueducts and disrupt imported supplies for up to six months. The region would likely impose a water use reduction ranging from 10-25% until the system is repaired. However, MET has taken proactive steps to handle such disruption, such as constructing DVL, which mitigates potential impacts. DVL, along with other local reservoirs, can store a six to twelve-month supply of emergency water (MET, 2021). Water Service Reliability Assessment This Section assesses the City’s reliability to provide water services to its customers under various hydrological conditions. This is completed by comparing the projected long-term water demand (Section 4) to the projected water supply sources available to the City (Section 6), in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. 7.3.1 Normal Year Reliability The water demand forecasting model developed for the Demand Forecast TM (described in Section 4.3), to project the 25-year demand for Orange County water agencies, also isolated the impacts that weather and future climate can have on water demand through the use of a statistical model. The explanatory variables of population, temperature, precipitation, unemployment rate, drought restrictions, and conservation measures were used to create the statistical model. The impacts of hot/dry weather condition are reflected as a percentage increase in water demands from the average condition. The average (normal) demand is represented by the average water demand of FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 (CDM Smith, 2021). The City is 100 percent reliable for normal year demands from 2025 through 2045 (Table 7-2) due to diversified supply and conservation measures. For simplicity, the table shows supply to balance demand in the table. However, the City can purchase more MET water through MWDOC, should the need arise. The City has entitlements to receive imported water from MET through MWDOC via connections to MET's regional distribution system. All imported water supplies are assumed available to the City from existing water transmission facilities, as per MET and MWDOC’s 2020 UWMPs. The demand and supplies listed 7.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-9 in Table 7-2 also include local groundwater supplies that are available to the City through OCWD by an assumed BPP of 85%, per Section 6.3.4. Table 7-2: Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison DWR Submittal Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Supply totals (AF) 14,866 15,371 15,517 15,682 15,645 Demand totals (AF) 14,866 15,371 15,517 15,682 15,645 Difference (AF) 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: This table compares the projected demand and supply volumes determined in Sections 4.3.2 and 6.1, respectively. 7.3.2 Single Dry Year Reliability A single dry year is defined as a single year of minimal to no rainfall within a period where average precipitation is expected to occur. The water demand forecasting model developed for the Demand Forecast TM (described in Section 4.3) isolated the impacts that weather and future climate can have on water demand through the use of a statistical model. The impacts of hot/dry weather condition are reflected as a percentage increase in water demands from the normal year condition (average of FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19). For a single dry year condition (FY 2013-14), the model projects a six percent increase in demand for the OC Basin area where the City’s service area is located (CDM Smith, 2021). Detailed information of the model is included in Appendix E. The City has documented that it is 100 percent reliable for single dry year demands from 2025 through 2045 with a demand increase of 6% from normal demand with significant reserves held by MET, local groundwater supplies, and conservation. A comparison between the supply and the demand in a single dry year is shown in Table 7-3. For simplicity, the table shows supply to balance demand in the table. However, the City can purchase more MET water through MWDOC, should the need arise. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-10 Table 7-3: Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison DWR Submittal Table 7-3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Supply totals (AF) 15,758 16,293 16,448 16,623 16,584 Demand totals (AF) 15,758 16,293 16,448 16,623 16,584 Difference (AF) 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: It is conservatively assumed that a single dry year demand is 6% greater than each respective year's normally projected total water demand. Groundwater is sustainably managed through the BPP and robust management measures (Section 6.3.4 and Appendix G); direct and indirect recycled water uses provide additional local supply (Section 6.6); and based on MET’s and MWDOC's UWMP, imported water is available to close any potable water supply gap that local sources cannot meet (Section 7.5.1). 7.3.3 Multiple Dry Year Reliability Assessing the reliability to meet demand for five consecutive dry years is a new requirement for the 2020 UWMP, as compared to the previous requirement of assessing three or more consecutive dry years. Multiple dry years are defined as five or more consecutive dry years with minimal rainfall within a period of average precipitation. The water demand forecasting model developed for the Demand Forecast TM (described in Section 4.3) isolated the impacts that weather and future climate can have on water demand through the use of a statistical model. The impacts of hot/dry weather condition are reflected as a percentage increase in water demands from the normal year condition (average of FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19). For a single dry year condition (FY 2013-14), the model projects a 6% increase in demand for the OC Basin area where the City’s service area is located (CDM Smith, 2021). It is conservatively assumed that a five consecutive dry year scenario is a repeat of the single dry year over five consecutive years. Even with a conservative demand increase of 6% each year for five consecutive years, the City is capable of meeting all customers’ demands from 2025 through 2045 (Table 7-4), with significant reserves held by MET and conservation. For simplicity, the table shows supply to balance demand in the table. However, the City can purchase more MET water through MWDOC, should the need arise. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-11 Table 7-4: Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison DWR Submittal Table 7-4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 First year Supply totals 15,876 15,865 16,324 16,483 16,615 Demand totals 15,876 15,865 16,324 16,483 16,615 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Second year Supply totals 15,846 15,972 16,355 16,518 16,607 Demand totals 15,846 15,972 16,355 16,518 16,607 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Third year Supply totals 15,817 16,079 16,386 16,553 16,599 Demand totals 15,817 16,079 16,386 16,553 16,599 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Fourth year Supply totals 15,787 16,186 16,417 16,588 16,592 Demand totals 15,787 16,186 16,417 16,588 16,592 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Fifth year Supply totals 15,758 16,293 16,448 16,623 16,584 Demand totals 15,758 16,293 16,448 16,623 16,584 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: It is conservatively assumed that a five consecutive dry year scenario is a repeat of the single dry year (106% of projected normal year values) over five consecutive years. The 2025 column assesses supply and demand for FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25; the 2030 column assesses FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30 and so forth, in order to end the water service reliability assessment in FY 2044-45. Groundwater is sustainably managed through the BPP and robust management measures (Section 6.3.4 and Appendix G); direct and indirect recycled water uses provide additional local supply (Section 6.6); and based on MET and MWDOC's UWMP, imported water is available to close any potable water supply gap that local sources cannot meet (Section 7.5.1). Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-12 Management Tools and Options Existing and planned water management tools and options for the City and MWDOC’s service area that seek to maximize local resources and result in minimizing the need to import water are described below. • Reduced Delta Reliance: MET has demonstrated consistency with Reduced Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (Delta Plan policy WR P1) by reporting the expected outcomes for measurable reductions in supplies from the Delta. MET has improved its self-reliance through methods including water use efficiency, water recycling, stormwater capture and reuse, advanced water technologies, conjunctive use projects, local and regional water supply and storage programs, and other programs and projects. In 2020, MET had a 602,000 AF change in supplies contributing to regional-self-reliance, corresponding to a 15.3% change, and this amount is projected to increase through 2045 (MET, 2021). For detailed information on the Delta Plan Policy WR P1, refer to Appendix C. • The continued and planned use of groundwater: The water supply resources within MWDOC’s service area are enhanced by the existence of groundwater basins that account for the majority of local supplies available and are used as reservoirs to store water during wet years and draw from storage during dry years, subsequently minimizing MWDOC’s reliance on imported water. Groundwater basins are managed within a safe basin operating range so that groundwater wells are only pumped as needed to meet water use. Although MWDOC does not produce or manage recycled water, MWDOC supports and partners in recycled water efforts, including groundwater recharge. The City is currently planning a water well rehabilitation project and construction of new wells in Fountain Valley (Section 6.9). • Groundwater storage and transfer programs: MWDOC and OCWD’s involvement in SARCCUP includes participation in a CUP that improves water supply resiliency and increases available dry-year yield from local groundwater basins. The groundwater bank has 137,000 AF of storage (OCWD, 2020b). Additionally, MET has numerous groundwater storage and transfer programs in which MET endeavors to increase the reliability of water supplies, including the AVEK Waster Agency Exchange and Storage Program and the High Desert Water Bank Program. The IRWD Strand Ranch Water Banking Program has approximately 23,000 AF stored for IRWD’s benefit, and by agreement, the water is defined to be an "Extraordinary Supply" by MET and counts essentially 1:1 during a drought/water shortage condition under MET’s WSAP In addition, MET has encouraged storage through its cyclic and conjunctive use programs that allow MET to deliver water into a groundwater basin in advance of agency demands, such as the Cyclic Storage Agreements under the Main San Gabriel Basin Judgement. • Water Loss Program: The water loss audit program reduces MWDOC’s dependency on imported water from the Delta by implementing water loss control technologies after assessing audit data and leak detection. • Increased use of recycled water: MWDOC partners with local agencies in recycled water efforts, including OCWD to identify opportunities for the use of recycled water for irrigation purposes, groundwater recharge and some non-irrigation applications. OCWD’s GWRS and 7.4 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-13 GAP allow Southern California to decrease its dependency on imported water and create a local and reliable source of water that meet or exceed all federal and state drinking level standards. Expansion of the GWRS is currently underway to increase the plant’s production to 130 MGD, and further reduce reliance on imported water. • Implementation of demand management measures (DMMs) during dry periods: During dry periods, water reduction methods to be applied to the public through the retail agencies, will in turn reduce MWDOC’s overall demands on MET and reliance on imported water. MWDOC is assisting its retail agencies by leading the coordination of Orange County Regional Alliance for all of the retail agencies in Orange County. MWDOC assists each retail water supplier in Orange County in analyzing the requirements of and establishing their baseline and target water use, as guided by DWR. The City’s specific DMMs are further discussed in Section 9. Drought Risk Assessment Water Code Section 10635(b) requires every urban water supplier include, as part of its UWMP, a DRA for its water service as part of information considered in developing its DMMs and water supply projects and programs. The DRA is a specific planning action that assumes the City is experiencing a drought over the next five years and addresses the City’s water supply reliability in the context of presumed drought conditions. Together, the water service reliability assessment (Sections 7.1 through 7.3), DRA, and WSCP (Section 8 and Appendix H) allow the City to have a comprehensive picture of its short-term and long-term water service reliability and to identify the tools to address any perceived or actual shortage conditions. Water Code Section 10612 requires the DRA to be based on the driest five-year historic sequence of the City’s water supply. However, Water Code Section 10635 also requires that the analysis consider plausible changes on projected supplies and demands due to climate change, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. The following sections describe the City’s methodology and results of its DRA. 7.5.1 DRA Methodology The water demand forecasting model developed for the Demand Forecast TM (described in Section 4.3 isolated the impacts that weather and future climate can have on water demand through the use of a statistical model. The impacts of hot/dry weather condition are reflected as a percentage increase in water demands from the average condition (average of FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19). For a single dry year condition (FY 2013-14), the model projects a 6% increase in demand for the region encompassing the City’s service area (CDM Smith, 2021). Locally, the five-consecutive years of FY 2011-12 through FY 2015-16 represent the driest five consecutive year historic sequence for the City’s water supply. This period that spanned water years 2012 through 2016 included the driest four-year statewide precipitation on record (2012-2015) and the smallest Sierra Cascades snowpack on record (2015, with 5% of average). It was marked by extraordinary heat: 2014, 2015 and 2016 were California’s first, second and third warmest year in terms of statewide average temperatures. Locally, Orange County rainfall for the five-year period totaled 36 inches, the driest on record. 7.5 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-14 As explained in Section 6, the City currently relies on, and will continue to rely on, three main water sources: local groundwater, local recycled water, and imported water supply from MWDOC / MET. The City maximizes local water supply use before the purchase of imported water. The difference between total forecasted potable demands and local groundwater supply projections is the demand on MWDOC’s imported water supplies, which are supplied by MET. Local groundwater supply for the City comes from the OC Basin and is dictated by the BPP set annually by OCWD. Therefore, the City’s DRA focuses on the assessment of imported water from MWDOC / MET, which will be used to close any local water supply gap. This assessment aligns with the DRA presented in MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP. Water Demand Characterization All of MWDOC’s water supplies are purchased from MET, regardless of hydrologic conditions. As described in Section 6.2, MET’s supplies are from the Colorado River, SWP, and in-region storage. In its 2020 UWMP, MET’s DRA concluded that even without activating WSCP actions, MET can reliably provide water to all of their member agencies, including MWDOC, and in effect the City, assuming a five-year drought from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. Beyond this, MET’s DRA indicated a surplus of supplies that would be available to all of its member agencies, including MWDOC, should the need arise. Therefore, any increase in demand that is experienced in MWDOC's service area, which includes the City, will be met by MET's water supplies. Based on the Demand Forecast TM, in a single dry year, demand is expected to increase by 6% above a normal year. Both MWDOC and the City’s DRA conservatively assumes a drought from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25 is a repeat of the single dry year over five consecutive years. The City’s demand projections were developed as part of the Demand Forecast TM, led by MWDOC. As part of the study, MWDOC first estimated total retail demands for its service area. This was based on estimated future demands using historical water use trends, future expected water use efficiency measures, additional projected land-use development, and changes in population. The City’s projected water use, linearly interpolated per the demand forecast, is presented annually for the next five years in in Table 4-2. Next, MWDOC estimated the projections of local supplies derived from current and expected local supply programs from their member agencies. Finally, the demand model calculated the difference between total forecasted demands and local supply projections. The resulting difference between total demands net of savings from conservation and local supplies is the expected regional demands on MWDOC from their member agencies, such as the City. Water Supply Characterization MWDOC’s assumptions for its supply capabilities are discussed and presented in 5-year increments under its 2020 UWMP water reliability assessment. For MWDOC’s DRA, these supply capabilities are further refined and presented annually for the years 2021 to 2025 by assuming a repeat of historic conditions from FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16. For its DRA, MWDOC assessed the reliability of supplies available to MWDOC through MET using historical supply availability under dry-year conditions. MET’s supply sources under the Colorado River, SWP, and in-region supply categories are individually listed and discussed in detail in MET’s UWMP. Future supply capabilities for each of these supply sources are also individually tabulated in Appendix 3 of MET’s UWMP, with consideration for plausible changes on projected supplies under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other factors. MWDOC’s supplies are used to meet consumptive use, surface water and groundwater Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-15 recharge needs that are in excess of locally available supplies. In addition, MWDOC has access to supply augmentation actions through MET. MET may exercise these actions based on regional need, and in accordance with their WSCP, and may include the use of supplies and storage programs within the Colorado River, SWP, and in-region storage. 7.5.2 Total Water Supply and Use Comparison The City’s DRA reveals that its supply capabilities are expected to balance anticipated total water use and supply, assuming a five-year consecutive drought from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25 (Table 7-5). For simplicity, the table shows supply to balance the modeled demand in the table. However, the City can purchase more MET water from MWDOC, should the need arise. Table 7-5: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to Address Water Code Section 10635(b) DWR Submittal Table 7-5: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to address Water Code Section 10635(b) 2021 Total Total Water Use 15,876 Total Supplies 15,876 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 0 WSCP - use reduction savings benefit 0 Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0 Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0% 2022 Total Total Water Use 15,846 Total Supplies 15,846 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 0 WSCP - use reduction savings benefit 0 Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0 Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0% Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-16 DWR Submittal Table 7-5: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to address Water Code Section 10635(b) 2023 Total Total Water Use 15,817 Total Supplies 15,817 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 0 WSCP - use reduction savings benefit 0 Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0 Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0% 2024 Total Total Water Use 15,787 Total Supplies 15,787 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 0 WSCP - use reduction savings benefit 0 Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0 Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0% 2025 Total Total Water Use 15,758 Total Supplies 15,758 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 0 WSCP - use reduction savings benefit 0 Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0 Resulting % Use Reduction from WSCP action 0% Note: Groundwater is sustainably managed through the BPP and robust management measures (Section 6.3.4 and Appendix G); direct and indirect recycled water uses provide additional local supply (Section 6.6); and based on MET and MWDOC's UWMP, imported water is available to close any potable water supply gap that local sources cannot meet (Section 7.5.1). Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 7-17 7.5.3 Water Source Reliability Locally, approximately 77% (BPP for Water Year 2021-22) of the City’s total water supply can rely on OC Basin groundwater through FY 2024-25. The BPP is projected to increase to 85% starting in FY 2024-25. Based on various storage thresholds and hydrologic conditions, OCWD, who manages the OC Basin, has numerous management measures that can be taken, such as adjusting the BPP or seeking additional supplies to refill the basin, to ensure the reliability of the Basin. For more information on the OC Basin’s management efforts, refer to Section 6.3. Additionally, the City’s use of direct (OCWD GAP) and indirect recycled water (OCWD GWRS) should also be considered. The ability to continue producing water locally greatly improves the City’s water reliability. More detail on these programs is available in Sections 6.6.3 and 6.6.4. Moreover, although they would not normally be considered part of the City’s water portfolio, the emergency interconnections the City has with IRWD and Mesa Water could help mitigate any water supply shortages, though shortages are not expected. Emergency interconnections are described in Section 6.8. The City’s DRA concludes that its water supplies meet total water demand, assuming a five-year consecutive drought from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25 (Table 7-5). For simplicity, the table shows supply to balance the modeled demand in the table. However, the City can purchase more MET water from MWDOC, should the need arise. As detailed in Section 8, the City has in place a robust WSCP and comprehensive shortage response planning efforts that include demand reduction measures and supply augmentation actions. However, since the City’s DRA shows a balance between water supply and demand, no water service reliability concern is anticipated and no shortfall mitigation measures are expected to be exercised over the next five years. The City and its wholesale supplier, MWDOC, will periodically revisit its representation of the supply sources and of the gross water use estimated for each year, and will revise its DRA if needed. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 8-1 8 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING Layperson Description Water shortage contingency planning is a strategic planning process that the City engages to prepare for and respond to water shortages. A water shortage, when water supply available is insufficient to meet the normally expected customer water use at a given point in time, may occur due to a number of reasons, such as water supply quality changes, climate change, drought, and catastrophic events (e.g., earthquake). The City’s WSCP provides real-time water supply availability assessment and structured steps designed to respond to actual conditions. This level of detailed planning and preparation will help maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions. Water Code Section 10632 requires that every urban water supplier that serves more than 3,000 AFY or have more than 3,000 connections prepare and adopt a standalone WSCP as part of its UWMP. The WSCP is required to plan for a greater than 50% supply shortage. This WSCP due to be updated based on new requirements every five years and will be adopted as a current update for submission to DWR by July 1, 2021. Overview of the WSCP The WSCP serves as the operating manual that the City will use to prevent catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, mitigation of water shortages. The WSCP contains processes and procedures documented in the WSCP, which are given legal authority through the WSCP Response Ordinance. This way, when shortage conditions arise, the City’s governing body, its staff, and the public can easily identify and efficiently implement pre-determined steps to mitigate a water shortage to the level appropriate to the degree of water shortfall anticipated. Figure 8-1 illustrates the interdependent relationship between the three procedural documents related to planning for and responding to water shortages. 8.1 8.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 8-2 Figure 8-1: UWMP Overview A copy of the City’s WSCP is provided in Appendix H and includes the steps to assess if a water shortage is occurring, and what level of shortage drought actions to trigger the best response as appropriate to the water shortage conditions. WSCP has prescriptive elements, including an analysis of water supply reliability; the drought shortage actions for each of the six standard water shortage levels, that correspond to water shortage percentages ranging from 10% to greater than 50%; an estimate of potential to close supply gap for each measure; protocols and procedures to communicate identified actions for any current or predicted water shortage conditions; procedures for an annual water supply and demand assessment; monitoring and reporting requirements to determine customer compliance; reevaluation and improvement procedures for evaluating the WSCP. Summary of Water Shortage Response Strategy and Required DWR Tables This WSCP is organized into three main sections with Section 3 aligned with the Water Code Section 16032 requirements. Section 1 Introduction and WSCP Overview gives an overview of the WSCP fundamentals. Section 2 Background provides a background on the City’s water service area. Section 3.1 Water Supply Reliability Analysis provides a summary of the water supply analysis and water reliability findings from the 2020 UWMP. Section 3.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures provide a description of procedures to conduct and approve the Annual Assessment. Section 3.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Stages explains the WSCP’s six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and more than 50% shortages. Urban Water Management Plan 8.3 •• •• •• •• ••• ••• A comprehensive water management action plan to assess water supply reliability. A detailed plan to predict and mitigate a water shortage condition. Provides the legal authority to enforce the Water Shortage Contingency Plan Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 8-3 Section 3.4 Shortage Response Actions describes the WSCP’s shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels. Section 3.5 Communication Protocols addresses communication protocols and procedures to inform customers, the public, interested parties, and local, regional, and state governments, regarding any current or predicted shortages and any resulting shortage response actions. Section 3.6 Compliance and Enforcement describes customer compliance, enforcement, appeal, and exemption procedures for triggered shortage response actions. Section 3.7 Legal Authorities is a description of the legal authorities that enable the City to implement and enforce its shortage response actions. Section 3.8 Financial Consequences of the WSCP provides a description of the financial consequences of and responses for drought conditions. Section 3.9 Monitoring and Reporting describes monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance and to meet state reporting requirements. Section 3.10 WSCP Refinement Procedures addresses reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluating the functionality of the WSCP. Section 3.11 Special Water Feature Distinction a required definition for inclusion in a WSCP per the Water Code. Section 3.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation provides a record of the process the City followed to adopt and implement its WSCP. The WSCP is based on adequate details of demand reduction and supply augmentation measures that are structured to match varying degrees of shortage will ensure the relevant stakeholders understand what to expect during a water shortage situation. The City has adopted water shortage levels consistent with the requirements identified in Water Code Section 10632 (a)(3)(A) (Table 8-1). A crosswalk table showing the relationship between the City’s Water Shortage Levels and the Mandated Six Shortage Levels are shown on Table 32 of the WSCP in Appendix H. The supply augmentation actions that align with each shortage level are described in DWR Table 8-3 (Appendix B). These augmentations represent short-term management objectives triggered by the WSCP and do not overlap with the long-term new water supply development or supply reliability enhancement projects. The demand reduction measures that align with each shortage level are described in DWR Table 8-2 (Appendix B). This table also estimates the extent to which that action will reduce the gap between supplies and demands to demonstrate to the that choose suite of shortage response actions can be expected to deliver the expected outcomes necessary to meet the requirements of a given shortage level. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 8-4 Table 8-1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels Submittal Table 8-1 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels Shortage Level Percent Shortage Range Shortage Response Actions 0 0% Permanent Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements 1 >10% A Level 1 Water Shortage applies when the City determines that a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and, and it is necessary to impose mandatory conservation requirements to appropriately respond to conditions created by the water supply shortage. 2 10-25% A Level 2 Water Shortage applies when the City determines that a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and, and it is necessary to impose mandatory conservation requirements to appropriately respond to conditions created by the water supply shortage. 3 25-40% A Level 3 Water Shortage applies when the City determines that a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and, and it is necessary to impose mandatory conservation requirements to appropriately respond to conditions created by the water supply shortage. 4 >40% A Level 4 Water Shortage applies when the City determines that a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and, and it is necessary to impose mandatory conservation requirements to appropriately respond to conditions created by the water supply shortage. NOTES: A cross‐walk table to DWR six shortage levels is provided in Table 3‐2 of the WSCP in Appendix H. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 8-5 Water shortage contingency planning is a strategic planning process to prepare for and respond to water shortages. Detailed planning and preparation can help maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions. This chapter provides a structured plan for dealing with water shortages, incorporating prescriptive information and standardized action levels, along with implementation actions in the event of a catastrophic supply interruption. A well-structured WSCP allows real-time water supply availability assessment and structured steps designed to respond to actual conditions, to allow for efficient management of any shortage with predictability and accountability. A water shortage, when water supply available is insufficient to meet the normally expected customer water use at a given point in time, may occur due to a number of reasons, such as population growth, climate change, drought, and catastrophic events. The WSCP is the City’s operating manual that is used to prevent catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, management. This way, when shortage conditions arise, the City’s governing body, its staff, and the public can easily identify and efficiently implement pre-determined steps to manage a water shortage. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-1 9 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES The City, along with other Retail water agencies throughout Orange County, recognizes the need to use existing water supplies efficiently. This ethic of efficient use of water has evolved as a result of the development and implementation of water use efficiency programs that make good economic sense and reflect responsible stewardship of the region’s water resources. The City works closely with MWDOC to promote regional efficiency by participating in the regional water savings programs, leveraging MWDOC local program assistance, and applying the findings of MWDOCs research and evaluation efforts. This chapter communicates the City’s efforts to promote conservation and to reduce demand on water supplies. A detailed description of demand management measures is available in Appendix J. Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers The goal of the DMM section is to provide a comprehensive description of the water conservation programs that a supplier has implemented, is currently implementing, and plans to implement in order to meet its urban water use reduction targets. The reporting requirements for DMM has been significantly modified and streamlined in 2014 by Assembly Bill 2067. Additionally, this section of the UWMP will report on the role of MWDOC’s programs in meeting new state regulations for complying with the SWRCB’s new Conservation Framework. These categories of demand management measures are as follows: • Water waste prevention ordinances; • Metering; • Conservation pricing; • Public education and outreach; • Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss; • Water conservation program coordination and staffing support; • Other DMMs that have a significant impact on water use as measured in GPCD, including innovative measures, if implemented; • Programs to assist retailers with Conservation Framework Compliance. 9.1.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances Ordinance No. 2016-14 adopted in 2015 amended the City’s Municipal Code (NBMC 14.16) pertaining to Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations. The ordinance establishes permanent mandatory water conservation requirements as follows: • No customer shall use potable water to irrigate any lawn and/or ornamental landscape area using a landscape irrigation system or a watering device that is not continuously attended unless such irrigation is limited to no more than fifteen (15) minutes watering per day per station. • No person shall use water to irrigate any lawn and/or ornamental landscape area in a manner that causes or allows excessive flow or runoff onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch. • No person shall use water to wash down hard or paved surfaces. 9.1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-2 • No person shall permit excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions in the person's plumbing. • No customer shall use potable water to irrigate lawns, groundcover, shrubbery or other ornamental landscape material during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall event. • All landscape irrigation systems connected to dedicated landscape meters shall include rain sensors that automatically shut off. • No customer shall operate a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use a recirculating water system. • Commercial conveyor car wash systems shall be operational recirculating water systems. • Restaurants shall not provide drinking water to any person unless expressly requested by the person. • Commercial lodging establishments shall provide people with the option of not having towels and linen laundered daily. • Washing machines installed in commercial and/or coin-operated laundries shall be ENERGY STAR® and Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Tier Ill qualified. • No customer shall use water from any fire hydrant for any purpose other than fire suppression or emergency aid with exceptions. • No person shall water with potable water the landscapes outside of newly constructed homes and buildings in a manner inconsistent with regulations or other requirements established by the California Building Standards Commission. • Construction Site Requirements. • Commercial Kitchen Requirements. The ordinance also establishes four levels of mandatory water supply shortage response actions to be implemented during times of declared water shortage or declared water shortage emergency, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought or emergency conditions and decreasing supplies. The provisions and water conservation measures to be implemented in response to each shortage level are described in the WSCP located in Appendix H of this 2020 UWMP. The City’s water conservation ordinance is included in Appendix D of the WSCP. In November 2015, the City published the Water Conservation Implementation Plan to serve as a guideline for the implementation and enforcement of the Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations during water shortage conditions. 9.1.2 Metering The City’s water connections are fully metered for all customer sectors, including separate meters for single-family and multi-family residential, CII, dedicated landscape, and City-owned meters. In multi-family dwellings with one property owner, a master-meter is often used. However, for multi-family dwellings with more than one owner, separate water meters are installed. In July 2020, the City initiated an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Program. The City is currently replacing all meters under 2” with AMI meters with a target completion date of July 2022. Meters larger than 2” will be retrofitted to AMI capability. The City has an internal webpage real time the progress of the Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-3 meter replacement. In addition, since the 2015 UWMP, the City has implemented a meter calibration program to calibrate meters every 2 years, including wellhead meters. 9.1.3 Conservation Pricing The City has a uniform commodity pricing for all of its customer sectors plus a combined fixed charge based on meter size. The current commodity charges for single family, multi-family, and CII customers are $3.08 per HCF. The monthly fixed charges are based on the customer meter size as shown in Table 9-1. The City’s uniform commodity pricing is based off of best management practice (BMP) 13 that states 70% of revenue must be obtained from the variable or commodity rate, and 30% from the fixed rate. The commodity rate is in place to recover operational costs, while the fixed fee is in place to fund capital projects identified in the City’s Water Master Plan. The City completed a rate study in November 2019 which became effective on January 1, 2020 and will provide the rate structure until 2025. The rate study resulted in a rate increase of 7.4% every year for five years. All increases occur in the fixed charge for 2020 and then the 7.4% is spread across fixed and usage charge. Table 9-1: Newport Beach Residential Water Usage Rates The City’s current billing system does not support allocation-based rate structures; however, the new billing system will support allocation-based rate structures. Once the new system is in place, the City will investigate the allocation-based rate structures so it can report to the California Urban Water Conservation Council on the efficiency and staffing requirements to convert the new billing system to one that includes allocation-based rate pricing. 9.1.4 Public Education and Outreach The City’s public education and outreach program is administered by the City and MWDOC, its wholesale supplier. MWDOC develops, coordinates, and delivers a substantial number of public information, education, and outreach programs aimed at elevating water agency and consumer awareness and understanding of current water issues as well as efficient water use and water-saving practices, sound Water Servi ces Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Meter Size (Inch) Previous Rates JAN 1 2020 JAN 1, 2021 JAN 1 , 2022 JAN 1 , 2023 JAN 1, 2024 518th $17.27 $20.35 $21 .86 $23.48 $25.22 $27.09 314th $17.27 $20.35 $21 .86 $23.48 $25.22 $27.09 1 $28.79 $31 .541 $33.88 $36.39 $39.09 $41.99 1 112 $57.58 $59.47 $63.88 $68.61 $73.69 $79.15 2 $92.12 $93.00 $99.89 $107.29 $115.23 $123.76 3 $172.73 $246.68 $264.94 $284 .55 $305.61 $328.23 4 $287.88 $422 .71 $454.00 $487.60 $523.69 $562.45 6 $575.76 $897.73 $964 .17 $1 ,035.52 $1 ,112.15 $1 ,194 .45 8 $921.22 $1 ,568.33 $1 ,684.39 $1 ,809.04 $1 ,942.91 $2,086.69 10 $1 ,655.90 $2,350.70 $2,524 .66 $2,711.49 $2,912.15 $3,127 .65 12 $2 ,663.48 $2,965.44 $3,184.89 $3,420.58 $3,673.71 $3,945.57 Per Dwelling Unit $1 .00 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Charge Usage Charges Potable Water $3.08 $3.11 $3.35 $3.60 $3.87 $4.16 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-4 policy, and water reliability investments that are in the best interest of the region. These efforts encourage good water stewardship that benefits all City residents, businesses, and industries across all demographics. The City also contracts with Inside the Outdoors Foundation (ITOF) administered by the Orange County Department of Education. Through ITOF the City conducts effective environmental education programs promoting studies of environmental Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Through a variety of public information programs, MWDOC and ITOF reach the public with information regarding present and future water supplies, the demands for a suitable quantity and quality of water, including recycled water, and the importance of implementing water efficiency rebates, techniques and behaviors. Through ITOF, water education programs have reached thousands of students in the City with grade-specific programs focused on the above mentioned. Several examples are included below: Print and Electronic Materials MWDOC offers a variety of print and electronic materials that are designed to assist City water users of all ages in discovering where their water comes from, what the City and other water industry professionals are doing to address water challenges, how to use water most efficiently, and more. Through MWDOC’s robust social media presence, award-winning website, eCurrents newsletter, media tool kits, public service announcements (PSAs), flyers, brochures, and other outreach materials, MWDOC ensures that stakeholders are equipped with sufficient information and subject knowledge to assist them in making good behavioral and civic choices that ultimately affect the quality and quantity of the region’s water supply. Public Events Each year, MWDOC hosts an array of public events intended to engage a diverse range of water users in targeted discussions and actions that homes in on their specific interests or needs. Some of these public events include: • MWDOC Water Policy Forums and Orange County Water Summit are innovative and interactive symposiums that bring together hundreds of business professionals, elected officials, water industry stakeholders, and community leaders from throughout the state for a discussion on new and ongoing water supply challenges, water policy issues, and other important topics that impact our water supply, economy, and public health. • Inspection Trips of the state’s water supply systems are sponsored each year by MWDOC and MET. Orange County elected officials, residents, business owners, and community leaders are invited to tour key water facilities throughout the state and learn more about the critical planning, procurement, and management of Southern California’s water supply, as well as the issues surrounding delivery and management of our most precious natural resource – water. • Community Events and Events Featuring MWDOC Mascot Ricky the Rambunctious Raindrop provide opportunities to interact with Orange County water users in a fun and friendly way, offer useful water-related information or education, and engage them in important discussions about the value of water and how their decisions at home, at work, and as tax- or ratepayers may impact Orange County’s quality and quantity of water for generations to come. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-5 Education Programs and Initiatives Over the past several years, MWDOC and ITOF have amplified its efforts in water education programs and activities for Orange County’s youngest water users. This is accomplished by continuing to grow professional networks and partnerships that consist of leading education groups, advisors, and teachers, and by leading the way for the City and its 28 member agencies to be key contributors of both Southern California and Orange County water-centric learning. Several key water education programs and initiatives include: • Environmental Literacy is an individual’s awareness of the interconnectedness and interdependency between people and natural systems, being able to identify patterns and systems within their communities, while also gathering evidence to argue points and solve problems. By using the environment as the context for learning, K-12 students gain real-world knowledge by asking questions and solving problems that directly affect them, their families, and their communities. This approach to K-12 education builds critical thinking skills and promotes inquiry, and is the foundation for all MWDOC education programs, initiatives, and activities. • MWDOC Choice School Programs have provided Orange County K-12 students water-focused learning experiences for nearly five (5) decades. Interactive, grade-specific lessons invite students to connect with, and learn from, their local ecosystems, guiding them to identify and solve local water-related environmental challenges affecting their communities. Choice School Programs are aligned with state standards, and participation includes a dynamic in-class or virtual presentation, and pre- and post-activities that encourage and support Science Technology Engineering Arts and Mathematics (STEAM)-based learning and good water stewardship. • Water Energy Education Alliance (WEEA) is a coalition of education and water and energy industry professionals led by MWDOC that works together to build and bolster Career Technical Education programs (CTE) for Southern California high school students. These CTEs focus on workforce pathways in the Energy, Environment, and Utility Sectors, and connections established through this powerful Southern California alliance assist stakeholders as they thoughtfully step up their investment in the education and career success of California’s future workforce. • MWDOC Water Awareness Poster Contest is an annual activity developed to encourage Orange County’s K-12 students to investigate and explore their relationship to water, connect the importance of good water stewardship to their daily lives, and express their conclusions creatively through art. Each year, MWDOC receives hundreds of entries, and 40 winners from across Orange County are invited to attend a special awards ceremony with their parents and teachers, and Ricky the Rambunctious Raindrop. • Boy Scouts Soil and Water Conservation Merit Badge and Girl Scouts Water Resources and Conservation Patch Programs guide Orange County Scouts on a learning adventure of where their water comes from, the importance of Orange County water resources, and how to be water efficient. These STEAM-based clinics are hosted by MWDOC and include interactive learning stations, hands-on activities, and a guided tour of an Orange County water source, water treatment facility, or ecological reserve • ITOF - MLK Day of Service is an annual event held at the Peter and Mary Muth Center in the Upper Newport Bay - inviting students to perform a land based clean up and be recognized for their efforts throughout the year. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-6 • Partnerships are an integral part of achieving water-related goals that impact all Orange County water users. MWDOC’s partner list is extensive, and acts as a collective catalyst for all those involved to grow and prosper. Some of the MWDOC’s most recognized partners include local, regional, state, and federal legislators, educators, water and energy industry leaders, environmental groups, media, and business associations all focused on the common goals of water education, water use efficiency, and advocacy on behalf of the region. 9.1.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss The City records daily production and demand data and reads all meters on a bi-monthly basis in order to assess and manage distribution system real loss. All metered sales and other verifiable uses such as backwash, flush water, and operation and maintenance, are recorded. In 2020, the City completed a leak detection program with MWDOC to detect and repair distribution system leaks. The City is evaluating the possibility of developing a formal leak detection program in the next 2 to 5 years with MWDOC to audit the entire system. Leak detection on the customer-side will be supported through the AMI Program. Much of the City’ steel and ductile iron pipe is protected from early deterioration with a cathodic protection system. This system draws the negative current away from the pipe to a sacrificial anode that erodes instead of the piping. This prevents leakage on the piping and reduces water loss. Senate Bill 1420 signed into law in September 2014 requires urban water suppliers that submit UWMPs to calculate annual system water losses using the water audit methodology developed by the AWWA. SB 1420 requires the water loss audit be submitted to DWR every five years as part of the urban water supplier’s UWMP. Water auditing is the basis for effective water loss control. DWR’s UWMP Guidebook include a water audit manual intended to help water utilities complete the AWWA Water Audit on an annual basis. A Water Loss Audit was completed for the City which identified areas for improvement and quantified total loss. Based on the data presented, the three priority areas identified were volume from own sources, billed metered, and customer metering inaccuracies. Multiple criteria are a part of each validity score and a system wide approach will need to be implemented for the City’s improvement. Expressing water loss audit results in terms of Real Losses per Service Connection per Day allows for standardized comparison across MWDOC retailer agencies and is a metric consistent with the Water Board’s forthcoming economic model. The Real Losses per Service Connection per Day for CY2019 was 22.83 gal/connection/day. 9.1.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support The City has designated a Water Conservation Coordinator since November 2007 whose responsibilities include the following tasks: • Manage, oversee and coordinate the City’s water conservation program; implement specific projects to improve water conservation and water quality, and assist in the City's compliance with all storm water quality (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-7 • Perform professional level duties in the City’s residential, commercial and large landscape water conservation programs; develop programs to promote water conservation, conduct field audits and provide consultation on residential and landscape water conservation methods; • Establish an effective City-wide water conservation program; develop applicable procedures, standards and guidelines; • Respond to customer inquiries or complaints; make site visits, gather and analyze data, and make written reports to site owners and managers with recommendations for improving water use, irrigation efficiency and runoff reduction; contact property owners and other members of the public to explain code requirements and to answer questions related to code compliance; • Advise and assist the Water Division of the Utilities Department regarding rate structures and water conservation initiatives; • Develop and chair a water conservation committee to ensure the City is effectively managing water conservation efforts across departments and citywide; • Assist with the City's NPDES requirements and provide support in meeting reporting requirements; attend NPDES meetings as requested by the Division Manager; • Develop and submit applications for grant funding related to water conservation and water quality; administer and maintain grant contract requirements; • Manage a variety of projects related water conservation, water quality protection, and watershed management; • Assist, train, and advise Code and Water Quality Enforcement staff and other City personnel in the enforcement of water conservation and water quality rules, regulations, and ordinances; • Conduct field inspections and surveys to determine compliance with NPDES requirements; • Serve as liaison and educator to the community, including residents, visitors, and businesses; attend meetings and collaborate with stakeholders; provide public information and outreach on water conservation initiatives; develop public education materials on water conservation and water quality issues; conduct public presentations and classroom visits; • Provide technical expertise and advice on water conservation and water quality practices to managerial staff, the public, and other interested parties; • Issue Notices of Violation, Administrative Citations and letters to property owners/tenants and businesses whose properties are not in compliance with current water conservation and water quality regulations; • Conduct follow-up investigations and develop correspondence. An annual budget of $420,000 is provided for conservation support and initiatives. This budget does not include the AMI Program but does support the leak detection program and staffing. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-8 9.1.7 Other Demand Management Measures Residential Program MWDOC assists the City with the implementation of residential DMMs by making available the following programs aimed at increasing landscape and indoor water use efficiency for residential customers. High Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebate Program The High Efficiency Clothes Washer (HECW) Rebate Program provides residential customers with rebates for purchasing and installing HECWs that. Approximately 15% of home water use goes towards laundry, and HECWs use 35-50% less water than standard washer models, with savings of approximately 10,500 gallons per year, per device. Devices must meet or exceed the CEE 1 Standard, and a listing of qualified products can be found at ocwatersmart.com. There is a maximum of one rebate per home. Premium High Efficiency Toilet Rebate Program The largest amount of water used inside a home, 30%, goes toward flushing the toilet. The Premium High Efficiency Toilet (HET) Rebate Program offers incentives to residential customers for replacing their toilets using 1.6 gallons per flush or more. Premium HETs use just 1.1 gallons of water or less per flush, which is 20% less water than WaterSense standard toilets. In addition, Premium HETs save an average of 9 gallons of water per day while maintaining high performance standards. CII Programs MWDOC provides a variety of financial incentives to help City businesses, restaurants, institutions, hotels, hospitals, industrial facilities, and public sector sites achieve their efficiency goals. Water users in these sectors have options to choose from a standardized list of water efficient equipment/devices or may complete customized projects through a pay-for-performance where the incentive is proportional to the amount of water saved. Such projects include high efficiency commercial equipment installation and manufacturing process improvements. Water Savings Incentive Program The Water Savings Incentive Program (WSIP) is designed for non-residential customers to improve their water efficiency through upgraded equipment or services that do not qualify for standard rebates. WSIP is unique because it provides an incentive based on the amount of water customers actually save. This “pay-for-performance” design lets customers implement custom projects for their sites. Projects must save at least 10 million gallons (MGs) of water to qualify for the Program and are offered from $195 to $390 per acre foot of water saved. Examples of successfully projects include but are not limited to changing industrial process system water, capturing condensation and using it to supplement cooling tower supply, and replacing water-using equipment with more efficient products. On-site Retrofit Program The On-site Retrofit Program provides another pay-for-performance financial incentive to commercial, industrial and institutional property owners, including Homeowner Associations (HOAs), who convert potable water irrigation or industrial water systems to recycled water use. 9.1 .7 .1 9.1.7.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-9 Projects commonly include the conversion of mixed or dedicated irrigation meters using potable water to irrigate with reclaimed water, or convert industrial processes use to recycled water, such as a cooling towers. Financial incentives of up to $1,300 per AF of potable water saved are available for customer-side on the meter retrofits. Funding is provided by Metropolitan, USBR, and DWR. Multi-Family Premium High Efficiency Toilet Incentive Program MWDOC makes an effort to reach all water-users in Orange County. For the Multi-Family Premium HET Rebate Program, MWDOC targets multi-family buildings in both disadvantaged communities (DAC) and non-DAC communities, in addition to targeting all commercial buildings, and single-family residential homes through Premium HET device rebates. MWDOC offers the DAC Multi-Family HET Program, a special version of the HET Program, to ensure regardless of economic status all water-users in Orange County can benefit from the rebate. This Program targets 3.5 gallon per flush (gpf) or greater toilets to replace them with WaterSense Labeled 1.1 gpf or less. For this purpose, DAC are referenced as communities facing economic hardship. This is defined using criteria established by DWR and the County of Orange, which includes communities where the MHI is less than 85% of the Orange County MHI. The DAC Multi-Family Program is contractor-driven, where a contractor works with building owners to replace all of the toilets in the building(s). To avoid any cost to tenants, the rebate is $200 per toilet paid to the contractor, essentially covering the contractor’s cost; therefore, there is little to no charge to the building owners that may be passed through to tenants. This process was formed after consulting contractors and multi-family building owners in Orange County. To serve those in multi-family buildings outside of designated DAC locations, MWDOC offers $75 per toilet through the same contractor-driven format. An additional option is available through SoCal Water$mart, which offers up to $250 per toilet to multi-family buildings that were built before 1994, therefore targeting buildings built before legislation required low-flow plumbing fixtures in new construction. Device Retrofits MWDOC offers additional financial incentives under the SoCal Water$mart Rebate Program which offers rebates for various water efficient devices to CII customers. Core funding is provided by Metropolitan and supplemental funding is sourced from MWDOC via grant funds and/or retail water agencies. Landscape Programs One of the most active and exciting water use efficiency sectors MWDOC provides services for are those programs that target the reduction of outdoor water use. With close to 60% of water consumed outdoors, this sector has been and will continue to be a focus for MWDOC and the City. Turf Removal Program The Orange County Turf Removal Program offers incentives to remove turf grass from residential, commercial, and public properties throughout the County. This program is a partnership between MWDOC, Metropolitan, and local retail water agencies. The goals of this program are to increase water use efficiency through sustainable landscaping practices that result in multi-benefit projects across Orange County. Participants replace their turf grass with drought-tolerant, CA Friendly, or CA Native landscaping, and retrofit their irrigation systems to high efficiency equipment, such as drip, or remove it 9.1.7.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-10 entirely, and are encouraged to utilize smart irrigation timers. Furthermore, projects are required to include a stormwater capture feature, such as a rain garden or dry stream bed, and have a minimum of three plants per 100 square feet to increase plant density and promote healthy soils. These projects save water and also reduce dry and wet weather runoff, increase urban biomass, and sequester more carbon than turf landscapes. Landscape Design and Maintenance Plan Assistance Programs To maximize the water efficiency and quality of Orange County’s Turf Removal Program Projects, MWDOC offers free landscape designs and free landscape maintenance plans to participating residential customers. The Landscape Design Assistance Program is offered at the beginning stages of their turf removal project so that customers may receive a customized, professionally designed landscape to replace their turf. Landscape designs include plant selection, layout, irrigation plans, and a stormwater capture feature. These designs help ensure climate appropriate plants are chosen and planted by hydrozone, that appropriate high efficiency irrigation is properly utilized, that water savings are maximized as a result of the transformation. Landscape maintenance plans are offered after a project is complete to ensure that the new landscape is cared for properly and water savings are maximized. Smart Timer Rebate Program Smart Timers are irrigation clocks that are either weather-based irrigation controllers (WBICs) or soil moisture sensor systems. WBICs adjust automatically to reflect changes in local weather and site-specific landscape needs, such as soil type, slopes, and plant material. When WBICs are programmed properly, turf and plants receive the proper amount of water throughout the year. During the fall months, when property owners and landscape professionals often overwater, Smart Timers can save significant amounts of water. Rotating Nozzles Rebate Program The Rotating Nozzle Rebate Program provides incentives to residential and commercial properties for the replacement of high-precipitation rate spray nozzles with low-precipitation rate multi-stream, multi-trajectory rotating nozzles. The rebate offered through this Program aims to offset the cost of the device and installation. Spray-to-Drip Rebate Program The Spray to Drip Rebate Program offers residential, commercial, and public agency customers rebates for converting areas irrigated by traditional high-precipitation rate spray heads to low-precipitation rate drip irrigation. Drip irrigation systems are extremely water-efficient. Rather than spraying wide areas subject to wind drift, overspray and runoff, drip systems use point emitters to deliver water to specific locations at or near plant root zones. Water drips slowly from the emitters either onto the soil surface or below ground. As a result, less water is lost to wind, evaporation, and overspray, saving water and reducing irrigation runoff and non-point source pollution. SoCal Water$mart Rebate Program for Landscape The City through MWDOC also offers financial incentives under the SoCal Water$mart Rebate Program for a variety of water efficient landscape devices, such as Central Computer Irrigation Controllers, large rotary nozzles, and in-stem flow regulators. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-11 Landscape Training Classes The California Friendly and Native Landscape Training and the Turf Removal and Garden Transformation Workshops provide education to residential homeowners, property managers, and professional landscape contractors on a variety of landscape water efficiency practices that they can employ and use to help design a beautiful garden using California Friendly and native plant landscaping principles. The California Friendly and Native Landscape Class demonstrates how to: implement storm water capture features in the landscape; create a living soil sponge that holds water; treat rainwater by a resource; select and arrange plants to maximize biodiversity and minimize water use; and control irrigation to minimize water waste, runoff and non-point source pollution. The Turf Removal and Garden Transformation Workshop teaches participants how to transform thirsty turfgrass into a beautiful, climate-appropriate water efficient garden. This class teaches how to: evaluate the landscape’s potential; plan for garden transformation; identify the type of turfgrass in the yard; remove grass without chemicals; build healthy, living soils; select climate-appropriate plants that minimize water use and maximize beauty and biodiversity; and implement a maintenance schedule to maintain the garden. Qualified Water Efficient Landscape Certification (Commercial) Since 2018, MWDOC along with the City, has offered free Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper (QWEL) certification classes designed for landscape professionals. Classes are open to any city staff, professional landscaper, water district employee, or maintenance personnel that would like to become a Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper. The QWEL certification program provides 20 hours of instruction on water efficient areas of expertise such as local water supply, sustainable landscaping, soil types, irrigation systems and maintenance, as well as irrigation controller scheduling and programing. QWEL has received recognition from EPA WaterSense for continued promotion of water use efficiency. To earn the QWEL certification, class participants must demonstrate their ability to perform an irrigation audit as well as pass the QWEL exam. Successful graduates will be listed as a Certified Professional on the WaterSense website as well as on MWDOC’s landscape resources page, to encourage Turf Removal participants or those making any landscape improvements to hire a QWEL certified professional. Started in December 2020, a hybrid version of QWEL is available in conjunction with the California Landscape Contractors Association’s Water Management Certification Program. This joint effort allows landscape industry an opportunity to obtain two nationally recognized EPA WaterSense Professional Certifications with one course and one written test. This option is offered through MET. OC Water Smart Gardens Resource Page MWDOC’s OC Water Smart Gardens webpage provides a surplus of helpful guides and fact sheets, as well as an interactive photo gallery of water-saving landscape ideas. The purpose of this resource is to help Orange County residents find a broad variety of solutions for their water efficient landscaping needs. This includes a detailed plant database with advanced to search features; photo and/or video-based garden tours; garden gallery with images organized into helpful landscape categories such as back yards, hillsides, full sun, and/or shade with detailed plant information; and the ability to select and store plants in a list that the user can print for use when shopping. Additional technical resources are available such as a watering calculator calibrated for local evapotranspiration rates, and a garden resources section with fact sheets on sustainable landscape Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-12 fundamentals, water and soil management, composting, solving run-off, and other appropriate topics. Web page is accessible through mwdoc.com and directly at www.ocwatersmartgardens.com. Implementation over the Past Five Years During the past five years, FY 2015-16 to 2020-21, the City, with the assistance of MWDOC, has continued water use efficiency programs for its residential, CII, and landscape customers as described below. Implementation data is provided in Appendix I. The City will continue to implement all applicable programs in the next five years. 9.2 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-13 Table 9-2: City of Newport Beach Water Conservation Efficiency Program Participation Measure Unit FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 Central Computer Irrigation Controllers computer controllers - - - - - Flow Restrictor restrictors - - - - - HECW washers 71 61 52 41 28 HETs toilets 237 3 - - - Rain Barrels barrels 58 5 5 1 3 Cisterns cisterns - - - - - Premium HETs toilets 7 14 7 - - Rotating Nozzles nozzles 1,028 - 45 - - CII WBICs clocks 46 12 - - 32 Residential WBICs clocks 32 30 26 25 16 Zero Water Urinals urinals - - - - - Plumbing Flow Control valves - - - - - Soil Moisture Sensor controllers - - - - - Ice-Making Machine machines - - - - - Turf Removal sf 20,568 2,924 12,437 90,403 1,294 Spray-to-Drip sf - 1600 1495 301 Landscape Design Assistance - - - - - Water Savings Incentive Program - - 0 0 0 On Site Retrofit Program sites - 1* - - - *Saved 152 AFY of potable water; irrigated area covers 2090880 sq ft. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-14 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements) To support Orange County retailers with SB 606 and AB 1668 compliance (Conservation Framework), MWDOC is providing multi-level support to members agencies to ensure they meet the primary goals of the legislation including to Use Water More Wisely and to Eliminate Water Waste. Beginning in 2023, Urban water suppliers are required to calculate and report their annual urban water use objective (WUO), submit validated water audits annually, and to implement and report BMP CII performance measures. Urban Water Use Objective An Urban Water Supplier’s urban WUO is based on efficient water use of the following: • Aggregate estimated efficient indoor residential water use; • Aggregate estimated efficient outdoor residential water use; • Aggregate estimated efficient outdoor irrigation landscape areas with dedicated irrigation meters or equivalent technology in connection with CII water use; • Aggregate estimated efficient water losses; • Aggregate estimated water use for variances approved the State Water Board; • Allowable potable reuse water bonus incentive adjustments. MWDOC offers a large suite of programs, described in detail throughout section 1.3.6, that will assist Orange County retailers in meeting and calculating their WUO. Table 9-3 describes MWDOC’s programs that will assist agencies in meeting their WUO through both direct measures: programs/activities that result in directly quantifiable water savings; and indirectly: programs that provide resources promoting water efficiencies to the public that are impactful but not directly measurable. Table 9-3: MWDOC Programs to Assist in Meeting WUO WUO Component Calculation Program Impact Indoor Residential Population and GPCD standard Direct Impact • HECW • HET • Multi-Family HET (DAC/ non-DAC) Direct Impact: Increase of indoor residential efficiencies and reductions of GPCD use Outdoor Residential Irrigated/irrigable area measurement and a percent factor of local ETo Direct Impact • Turf Removal • Spray-to-Dip • Smart Timer • HEN • Rain Barrels/Cisterns Direct Impact: Increase outdoor residential efficiencies and reductions of gallons per ft2 of irrigated/ irrigable area used 9.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-15 WUO Component Calculation Program Impact Indirect Impact • Landscape Design and Maintenance Assistance • OC Friendly Gardens Webpage • CA Friendly/Turf Removal Classes • QWEL Indirect Impact: Provide information, resources, and education to promote efficiencies in the landscape Outdoor Dedicated Irrigation Meters Irrigated/irrigable area measurement and a percent factor of local ETo Direct Impact • Turf Removal • Spray-to-Dip • Smart Timer • HEN • Central Computer Irrigation Controllers • Large Rotary Nozzles • In-Stem Flow Regulators Indirect Impact • OC Friendly Gardens Webpage • CA Friendly/Turf Removal Classes • QWEL Direct Impact: Increase outdoor residential efficiencies and reductions of gallons per ft2 of irrigated/ irrigable area used Indirect Impact: Provide information, resources, and education to promote efficiencies in the landscape Water Loss Following the AWWA M36 Water Audits and Water Loss Control Program, Fourth Edition and AWWA Direct Impact • Water Balance Validation • Customer Meter Accuracy Testing • Distribution System Pressure Surveys Direct Impact: Identify areas of the distribution system that need repair, replacement, or other action Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-16 WUO Component Calculation Program Impact Water Audit Software V5 • Distribution System Leak Detection • No-Discharge Distribution System Flushing • Water Audit Compilation • Component Analysis Bonus Incentives One of the following: • Volume of potable reuse water from existing facilities, not to exceed 15% of WUO. • Volume of potable reuse water from new facilities, not to exceed 10% of WUO Direct Impact • GWRS Direct Impact: The GWRS (run by OCWD) significantly increases the availability of potable reuse water In addition, MWDOC is providing support to agencies to assist with the calculation of WUOs. DWR will provide residential outdoor landscape measurements; however, Urban Water Suppliers are responsible for measuring landscape that is irrigated/irrigable by dedicated irrigation meters. MWDOC is contracting for consultant services to assist agencies in obtaining these measurements. Services may include but are not limited to: Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 9-17 • Accounting/database clean up (e.g., data mining billing software to determine dedicated irrigation customers); • Geolocation of dedicated irrigation meters; • In-field measurements; • GIS/Aerial imagery measurements; • Transformation of static/paper maps to digital/GIS maps. These services will help agencies organize and/or update their databases to determine which accounts are dedicated irrigation meters and provide landscape area measurements for those accounts. These data points are integral when calculating the WUO. MWDOC is also exploring funding options to help reduce retail agencies’ costs of obtaining landscape area measurements for dedicated irrigation meters. CII Performance Measures Urban water supplies are expected to report BMPs and more for CII customers. MWDOC offers a broad variety of programs and incentives to help CII customers implement BMPs and increase their water efficiencies. Table 9-4: CII BMP Implementation Programs Offered Component Program Offered Impact CII Performance Measures • WSIP • On-Site Retrofit Program (ORP) • HETs • HE Urinals • Plumbing Flow Control Valves • Connectionless Food Steamers • Air-cooled Ice Machines • Cooling Tower Conductivity controllers • Cooling Tower pH Controllers • Dry Vacuum Pumps • Laminar Flow Restrictors WSIP incentivizes customized CII water efficiency projects that utilize BMPS. ORP incentivizes the conversion of potable to recycled water and is applicable to CII dedicated irrigation meters or CII mixed-use meters that may be split to utilize recycled water for irrigation. Additional CII rebates based on BMPS increase the economic feasibility of increasing water efficiencies. These efforts to assist OC retail agencies are only just beginning. Our plan is to ensure that all agencies are fully ready to begin complying with the new water use efficiency standards framework called for in SB 606 and SB 1668 by the start date of 2023. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 10-1 10 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION The Water Code requires the UWMP to be adopted by the Supplier’s governing body. Before the adoption of the UWMP, the Supplier has to notify the public and the cities and counties within its service area per the Water Code and hold a public hearing to receive input from the public on the UWMP. Post adoption, the Supplier submits the UWMP to DWR and the other key agencies and makes it available for public review. This section provides a record of the process the City followed to adopt and implement its UWMP. Overview Recognizing that close coordination among other relevant public agencies is key to the success of its UWMP, the City worked closely with many other entities, including representation from diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the City’s service area, to develop and update this planning document. The City also encouraged public involvement through its public hearing process, which provided residents with an opportunity to learn and ask questions about their water supply management and reliability. Through the public hearing, the public has an opportunity to comment and put forward any suggestions for revisions of the Plan. Table 10-1 summarizes external coordination and outreach activities carried out by the City and their corresponding dates. The UWMP checklist to confirm compliance with the Water Code is provided in Appendix A. Table 10-1: External Coordination and Outreach External Coordination and Outreach Date Reference Notified the cities and counties within the Supplier’s service area that Supplier is preparing an updated UWMP (at least 60 days prior to public hearing) 3/11/2021 Appendix K Public Hearing Notice 5/22/2021 Appendix K Held Public Hearing 5/25/2021 Appendix K Adopted UWMP 6/22/2021 Appendix L Submitted UWMP to DWR (no later than 30 days after adoption) 7/1/2021 - Submitted UWMP to the California State Library (no later than 30 days after adoption) 7/1/2021 - Submitted UWMP to the cities and counties within the Supplier’s service area (no later than 30 days after adoption) 7/1/2021 - Made UWMP available for public review (no later than 30 days after filing with DWR) 8/1/2021 - 10.1 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 10-2 This UWMP was adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2021. A copy of the adopted resolution is provided in Appendix L. Agency Coordination The Water Code requires the Suppliers preparing UWMPs to notify any city or county within their service area at least 60 days prior to the public hearing. As shown in Table 10-2, the City sent a Letter of Notification to the County of Orange on March 11, 2021 to state that it was in the process of preparing an updated UWMP (Appendix K). Table 10-2: Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties DWR Submittal Table 10-1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties County Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing Orange County The City's water supply planning relates to the policies, rules, and regulations of its regional and local water providers. The City is dependent on imported water from MET through MWDOC, its regional wholesaler. The City is also dependent on groundwater from OCWD, the agency that manages the OC Basin and provides recycled water in partnership with the OC San. As such, the City involved the relevant agencies in this 2020 UWMP at various levels of contribution as described below. MWDOC provided assistance to the City’s 2020 UWMP development by providing much of the data and analysis such as population projections from the CDR and the information quantifying water availability to meet the City’s projected demands for the next 25 years, in five-year increments. Additionally, MWDOC led the effort to develop a Model Water Shortage Ordinance that its retail suppliers can adopt as is or customize and adopt as part of developing their WSCPs. This 2020 UWMP was developed in collaboration with MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP to ensure consistency between the two documents. As a groundwater producer who relies on supplies from the OCWD-managed OC Basin, the City coordinated the preparation of this 2020 UWMP with OCWD. Several OCWD documents, such as the Groundwater Reliability Plan, Engineer’s Report, and 2017 Basin 8-1 Alternative were used to retrieve the required relevant information, including the projections of the amount of groundwater the City is allowed to extract in the 25-year planning horizon. The various planning documents of the key agencies that were used to develop this UWMP are listed in Section 2.2.1. Public Participation The City encouraged community and public interest involvement in the plan update through a public hearing and inspection of the draft document on May 25, 2021. As part of the public hearing, the City 10.2 10.3 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 10-3 discussed adoption of the UWMP, SBx7-7 baseline values, compliance with the water use targets (Section 5), implementation, and economic impacts of the water use targets (Section 9). Copies of the draft plan were made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s and Utilities Department offices. Public hearing notifications were published in local newspapers. A copy of the published Notice of Public Hearing is included in Appendix K. The hearing was conducted during a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. UWMP Submittal The City Council reviewed and approved the 2020 UWMP at its June 22, 2021 meeting after public hearing on May 25, 2021. See Appendix L for the resolution approving the Plan. By July 1, 2021, the City’s adopted 2020 UWMP was filed with DWR, California State Library, and the County of Orange. The submission to DWR was done electronically through the online submittal tool - WUE Data Portal. The City will make the Plan available for public review on its website no later than 30 days after filing with DWR. Amending the Adopted UWMP or WSCP Based on DWR’s review of the UWMP, the City will make any amendments in its adopted UWMP, as required, and directed by DWR and will follow each of the steps for notification, public hearing, adoption, and submittal for the amending the adopted UWMP. If the City revises its WSCP after UWMP is approved by DWR, then an electronic copy of the revised WSCP will be submitted to DWR within 30 days of its adoption. 10.4 10.5 Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 11-1 11 REFERENCES Arcadis. (2019, April). 2019 Water Master Plan. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=62782. Accessed on March 2, 2021. California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2020). Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy- research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml California Department of Water Resources (DWR). (2020a, January). California’s Most Significant Droughts: Comparing Historical and Recent Conditions. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR- Website/Web-Pages/What-We-Do/Drought-Mitigation/Files/Publications-And- Reports/a6022_CalSigDroughts19_v9_ay11.pdf. Accessed on October 12, 2020. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). (2020b, August 26). The Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report (DCR) 2019. https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/state-water-project- delivery-capability-report-dcr-2019. Accessed on December 28, 2020. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). (2020c, August). Draft Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2020. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water- Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Management-Plans/Draft-2020- UWMP-Guidebook.pdf?la=en&hash=266FE747760481ACF779F0F2AAEE615314693456. Accessed on December 28, 2020. CDM Smith. (2021, March 30). Orange County Water Demand Forecast for MWDOC and OCWD Technical Memorandum. City of La Habra, Irvine Ranch Water District, & Orange County Water District. (2017, January 1). Basin 8-1 Alternative. https://www.ocwd.com/media/4918/basin-8-1-alternative-final-report-1.pdf. Accessed on December 29, 2020. City of Newport Beach. (2021). Storm Drains. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/utilities/storm-drains. Accessed on April 13, 2021. City of Newport Beach. (2015). Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/utilities/administration/reports Accessed on December 31, 2020. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET). (2021, June). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (OC LAFCO). (2020, September). Municipal Service Review for the Municipal Water District of Orange County. Orange County Water District. (2021). 2019-2020 Engineer’s Report on the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District. Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan arcadis.com 11-2 Orange County Water District. (2020, February). 2018-2019 Engineer’s Report on the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District. https://www.ocwd.com/media/8791/2018-19-engineers-report-final.pdf. Accessed on December 30, 2020. Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD). (2021). San Juan Watershed Project. About the Project: Phases. http://sanjuanwatershed.com/about-the-project/eir/phases/. Accessed on April 20, 2021. The Metropolitan Water District Act. (1969). http://www.mwdh2o.com/Who%20We%20Are%20%20Fact%20Sheets/1.2_Metropolitan_Act.pdf United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). (2012, December). Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study: Study Report. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Study%20Report/CRBS_Study_Rep ort_FINAL.pdf. Accessed on December 29, 2020. University of California Berkeley. (2020). About Accessory Dwelling Units. https://www.aducalifornia.org/. Accessed on December 9, 2020. APPENDICES Appendix A. UWMP Water Code Checklist Appendix B. DWR Standardized Tables Appendix C. Reduced Delta Reliance Appendix D. SBx7-7 Verification and Compliance Forms Appendix E. 2021 OC Water Demand Forecast for MWDOC and OCWD Technical Memorandum Appendix F. AWWA Water Loss Audits Appendix G. 2017 Basin 8-1 Alternative Appendix H. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Appendix I. Water Use Efficiency Implementation Report Appendix J. Demand Management Measures Appendix K. Notice of Public Hearing Appendix L. Adopted UWMP Resolution Arcadis U.S., Inc. 320 Commerce Suite 200 Irvine, California 92602 Tel 714 730 9052 Fax 714 730 9345 www.arcadis.com Maddaus Water Management, Inc. 105 Zephyr Place Danville California 94526 www.maddauswater.com ~ARCADIS I Design & Consultancy for natural and built asset s City of Newport Beach, Snug Harbor Water Supply Evaluation April 7, 2025 34 APPENDIX D B ASIN 8-1 A LTERNATIVE Basin 8-1 Alternative 2022 Update Submitted by: Orange County Water District City of La Habra Irvine Ranch Water District Submitted to: California Department of Water Resources January 1, 2022 ~ul'-111Y••••••• 0~ ·• ••• •·. ti?~ ·~ J ... ~ --: ~ CITY OF LA HABRA 1 . . \W J / ••••••••·······•••••••• Irvine Ranch SINCE 1933 WATER DISTRICT Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents i I. Overview II. La Habra-Brea Management Area III. OCWD Management Area IV. South East Management Area V. Santa Ana Canyon Management Area Attachment One: DWR Comments on 2017 Alternative and Responses Overview BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Overview BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE OVERVIEW The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires all high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), be sustainably managed. DWR designated the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin (“Basin 8- 1” or “Basin”) as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply. The agencies within Basin 8-1 collaborated to prepare and submit an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) on December 22, 2016. Within this document, this Alternative to a GSP will be referred to herein as the “Basin 8-1 Alternative” or “Alternative”. In accordance with Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), the Alternative presented an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrated that Basin 8-1 had operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative satisfied SGMA objectives and was therefore approved. Approved alternatives are required to submit annual reports to DWR on April 1 of each year, and to resubmit the alternative by January 1 every five years. Annual reports were submitted to DWR as follows: • Water Year 2016-17 – March 29, 2018 • Water Year 2017-18 – March 29, 2019 • Water Year 2018-19 – March 30, 2020 • Water Year 2019-20 – March 30, 2021 This document represents the first five-year update, which is due January 1, 2022. This update has been jointly prepared by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD); and the City of La Habra Groundwater Sustainability Agency (collectively the “Submitting Agencies”); pursuant to this Alternative, the Submitting Agencies will ensure the entire Basin 8-1 continues to be sustainably managed and data reported as required by SGMA. Pursuant to Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), the Basin 8-1 Alternative has been prepared by or under the direction of a professional geologist or professional engineer. For purposes of this report, the Basin 8-1 Alternative approved by DWR on July 17, 2019, is referred to as the 2017 Alternative. The first five-year update will be referred to as the 2022 Update. The 2017 Alternative was a comprehensive document showing that Basin 8-1 had been managed sustainably for more than 10 years. For the 2022 Update, the focus is on documenting that the basin has continued to be operated sustainably during the five years since the 2017 Alternative was submitted and to present any new information. As such, background information, such as Basin Hydrogeology, and other sections with no new information are not repeated in the 2022 Update. Overview BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Overview As described in the 2017 Alternative, Basin 8-1 was sub-divided into four management areas: La Habra-Brea, OCWD, South East, and Santa Ana Canyon Management Areas (Figure 1-1). The 2022 Update contains four chapters, one for each management area. Figure 1-1: Basin 8-1 Management Area Boundaries In its evaluation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative, DWR provided four recommendations that they encouraged “be given due consideration and suggest incorporating any resulting changes to the Alternative in future updates.” The recommendations and responses to these recommendations are in Attachment 1 and incorporated into the 2022 Update where appropriate. LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOS ALAMTOS LJ DWR Basin 8-1 I BUENA PARK STANTON WESTMNSTER l'ULLERl0N ANAHEIM ORANGE COUNTY CARDEN GROVE " HUNTINGTON 1M BEACH ~ FOUNTAIN VALLEY COSTA MESA ORANGE TUSTIN County Boundary L N Mesas ~ OCWO Management Area 0 12,000 24 ,000 w "t . I! . Feet s • ~ Santa Ana Canyon Management Area !i South East Management Area ______ ___;__ _______ __::~___::£_.!:::::========::::di Abbreviations and Acronyms BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Abbreviations and Acronyms ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS afy acre-feet per year AWPF Advanced Water Purification Facility basin Orange County groundwater basin Basin Model OCWD groundwater model BEA Basin Equity Assessment BPP Basin Production Percentage CDPH California Department of Public Health cfs cubic feet per second DATS Deep Aquifer Treatment System DOC dissolved organic compound DWR Department of Water Resources DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection EDCs Endocrine Disrupting Compounds EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY fiscal year GAC granular activated carbon GIS geographic information system GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System IAP Independent Advisory Panel IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District LACPW Los Angeles County Public Works maf million acre feet MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MCL maximum contaminant level MF microfiltration MODFLOW Computer modeling program developed by USGS mgd million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter MTBE methyl tertiary-butyl ether MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NDMA n-Nitrosodimethylamine NF nanofiltration ng/L nanograms per liter NBGPP North Basin Groundwater Protection Program NO2 nitrite NO3- nitrate NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NWRI National Water Research Institute Abbreviations and Acronyms BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Abbreviations and Acronyms ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS O&M operations and maintenance OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OC Survey Orange County Survey OCWD Orange County Water District PCE perchloroethylene PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PPCPs pharmaceuticals and personal care products Producers Orange County groundwater producers RA replenishment assessment RO reverse osmosis Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board SARI Santa Ana River Interceptor SARMON Santa Ana River Monitoring Program SARWQH Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBGPP South Basin Groundwater Protection Program SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SOCs synthetic organic chemicals SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TCE trichloroethylene TDS total dissolved solids TIN total inorganic nitrogen µg/L micrograms per liter USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UV ultraviolet light VOCs volatile organic compounds WACO Water Advisory Committee of Orange County WEI Wildermuth Environmental Inc. WF-21 Water Factory 21 WLAM Waste Load Allocation Model WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WRMS Water Resources Management System Basin 8-1 Alternative La Habra-Brea Management Area 2022 UPDATE Submitted by: City of La Habra On behalf of: City of La Habra City of Brea January 1, 2022 \"TY **** i<i'i<'f)flf'flf-* * * * AB : i< i< 1C 1C 'f 'f ,.. Basin 8-1 Alternative La Habra-Brea Management Area 2022 UPDATE Jeffrey D. Helsley, P.E. Stetson Engineers, Inc. 861 S. Village Oaks Drive, Suite 100 Covina, CA 91724 Prepared for the Department of Water Resources, pursuant to Water Code §10733.6(b)(3) January 1, 2022 Table of Contents 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE iii Section Page SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1-1 SECTION 2. AGENCY INFORMATION ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1 HISTORY OF AGENCIES IN LA HABRA GROUNDWATER BASIN ....................... 2-1 2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ............................................. 2-2 2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY ............................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 BUDGET ................................................................................................................. 2-2 SECTION 3. MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION ........................................................ 3-1 3.1 LA HABRA GROUNDWATER BASIN SERVICE AREA .......................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Jurisdictional Boundaries ................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Existing Land Use Designations ...................................................................... 3-3 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 3-3 3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation .................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Regional Pumping Patterns ............................................................................. 3-3 3.2.3 Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph ............................................... 3-5 3.2.4 Groundwater Storage Data ............................................................................ 3-10 3.2.5 Groundwater Quality Conditions .................................................................... 3-10 3.2.6 Land Subsidence ........................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems ................................................................................................... 3-12 SECTION 4. WATER BUDGET......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 BUDGET COMPONENTS ...................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE .......................................................... 4-1 4.3 WATER YEAR TYPE .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.4 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD ................................................................... 4-1 4.5 ESTIMATED WATER BUDGET .............................................................................. 4-2 SECTION 5. WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS ...................................... 5-1 5.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 5-1 Table of Contents 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE iv 5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS ..................................................... 5-1 5.3 OTHER MONITORING PROGRAMS...................................................................... 5-2 SECTION 6. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................................... 6-1 6.1 LAND USE ELEMENTS RELATED TO BASIN MANAGEMENT ............................. 6-1 6.2 GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT .......... 6-2 6.3 GROUNDWATER EXPORT PROHIBITION............................................................ 6-4 SECTION 7. NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION ................................................................ 7-5 7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 7-5 7.2 GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS ........................................................................... 7-5 7.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................... 7-5 7.4 COMMUNICATION PLAN ....................................................................................... 7-5 SECTION 8. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT APPROACH .............................................. 8-1 SECTION 9. MANAGING GROUNDWATER LEVELS ...................................................... 9-2 9.1 HISTORY OF BASIN CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................... 9-2 9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS ....................................................... 9-2 9.3 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS .................................................................................... 9-3 9.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS .................................................. 9-3 SECTION 10. MANAGING BASIN STORAGE .................................................................. 10-1 10.1 HISTORY .............................................................................................................. 10-1 10.2 MONITORING STORAGE LEVELS ...................................................................... 10-1 10.3 MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS .............................................................................. 10-1 10.3.1 Establishment of Safe Yield ........................................................................... 10-1 10.3.2 Review and Evaluation of Groundwater Levels .............................................. 10-1 10.3.3 Groundwater Recharge or Storage Projects .................................................. 10-2 10.3.4 Potential Management Programs ................................................................... 10-3 10.4 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION IN STORAGE ............................................................................................................................. 10-4 10.5 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................................ 10-4 SECTION 11. MANAGING BASIN WATER QUALITY ...................................................... 11-1 Table of Contents 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE v 11.1 HISTORY .............................................................................................................. 11-1 11.2 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY ISSUES .......................................... 11-1 11.3 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY ................................................... 11-1 11.4 DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................ 11-2 11.5 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................................. 11-2 11.6 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THREHOLDS ................................................... 11-3 SECTION 12. MANAGING SEAWATER INTRUSION ....................................................... 12-1 SECTION 13. MANAGING LAND SUBSIDENCE ............................................................. 13-1 SECTION 14. MANAGING GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE WATER 14-1 SECTION 15. PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS .................. 15-1 15.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR WATER QUALITY ............................. 15-1 15.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR GROUNDWATER ELEVATION/STORAGE ............................................................................................................................. 15-1 SECTION 16. PROCESS TO EVALUATE NEW PROJECTS ........................................... 16-1 SECTION 17. LIST OF REFERENCES AND TECHNICAL STUDIES ............................... 17-1 Figure Figure 1-1. La Habra Groundwater Basin. ............................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2-1: Cities of La Habra and Brea within Basin 8-1. ....................................................... 2-1 Figure 3-1: Historical La Habra Groundwater Basin (DWR, 1934. DWR, 1937)....................... 3-2 Figure 3-2. La Habra Groundwater Basin. ............................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-3: Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells............................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-4: Early Well Hydrograph. 1922 Through 1975. ........................................................ 3-7 Figure 3-5: Groundwater Level Hydrographs. ......................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-6: Depth to Groundwater. .......................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-7: Recent Groundwater Level Hydrograph. ............................................................... 3-9 Table of Contents 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE vi Figure 3-8: Recent Depth to Groundwater. ............................................................................ 3-10 Figure 3-9: Coyote Creek Watershed. ................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-10: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. ............................................................ 3-14 Figure 10-1: Potential Groundwater Recharge Locations. ..................................................... 10-3 Table Table 3-1: Groundwater Production in La Habra Groundwater Basin. Acre-Feet per Year. ..... 3-4 Table 3-2: La Habra Groundwater Basin Wells ....................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-3: Historical Constituent Concentrations (1927-1977) .............................................. 3-11 Table 4-1: Estimated Water Budget ........................................................................................ 4-2 La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 1-1 LA HABRA-BREA MANAGEMENT AREA SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The agencies within Basin 8-1 collaborated to prepare and submit an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). In accordance with Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), the Alternative presented an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrated that the Basin had operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. The Alternative was submitted to DWR on December 22, 2016. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative satisfied SGMA objectives and was therefore approved. Approved alternatives are required to submit annual reports to DWR on April 1 of each year. Annual reports for Basin 8-1 were submitted to DWR as follows: • Water Year 2016-17, Submitted on March 29, 2018 • Water Year 2017-18, Submitted on March 29, 2019 • Water Year 2018-19, Submitted on March 30, 2020 • Water Year 2019-20, Submitted on March 30, 2021 According to Water Code §10733.8, “At least every five years after initial submission of a plan pursuant to Section 10733.4, the department shall review any available groundwater sustainability plan or alternative submitted in accordance with Section 10733.6, and the implementation of the corresponding groundwater sustainability program for consistency with this part, including achieving the sustainability goal. The department shall issue an assessment for each basin for which a plan or alternative has been submitted in accordance with this chapter, with an emphasis on assessing progress in achieving the sustainability goal within the basin. The assessment may include recommended corrective actions to address any deficiencies identified by the department.” The Basin 8-1 Alternative, submitted on December 22, 2016, will be referenced to as the 2017 Alternative. This document represents the first five-year update, herein referenced as the 2022 Update, which is due January 1, 2022. The 2017 Alternative was a comprehensive document showing that Basin 8-1 had been managed sustainably for more than 10 years. For the 2022 Update, the focus is on documenting that the basin has been continued to be sustainably management during the five years since the 2017 Alternative was submitted and to present any new information from the last five years. As such, the 2017 Alternative is considered a key reference document with background information that is not duplicated in the 2022 Update. The La Habra-Brea Management Area overlies the extents of the La Habra Groundwater Basin, referenced herein. Figure 1-1 shows the extent of the La Habra Groundwater Basin and the cities (La Habra and Brea) with jurisdiction in the La Habra-Brea Management Area. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 1-2 Figure 1-1. La Habra Groundwater Basin. Groundwater resources protection is considered a critical component for safeguarding the long- term sustainability of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. The La Habra GSA has continued to sustainably manage groundwater resources within the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Groundwater production over the past five years has been within the safe yield of the basin. Accordingly, no undesirable effects have been observed within the La Habra-Brea Management Area. As the City of La Habra (or City) currently depends on local groundwater to meet approximately 40 percent of its water consumption, preserving the sustainability of the La Habra Groundwater Basin is essential for the well-being of the City. Currently (and historically), the City of La Habra manages (and has managed) the La Habra Groundwater Basin through management plans and programs for groundwater levels, basin storage, and water quality. Propose-d Groundwater Basin Boundary ~ City and Community Boundary Groundwater Basin Coastal Plain of Orange Coun1y (Bulle tin 118. OWR 2003) _\ N 2 Pi es La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2-1 SECTION 2. AGENCY INFORMATION 2.1 HISTORY OF AGENCIES IN LA HABRA GROUNDWATER BASIN Historically, the Cities of La Habra and Brea have managed the groundwater resources in the La Habra Groundwater Basin. The history of the agencies can be found in the 2017 Alternative. Figure 2-1: Cities of La Habra and Brea within Basin 8-1. cJ C41y d ConvnlnityBounda,y Groundwater Basi n Coasta P in of O ange Comty (Bulle -118. OWR 2003) La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2-2 2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE See the 2017 Alternative for a discussion on governance and management structure. 2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY See the 2017 Alternative for a discussion on legal authority. 2.4 BUDGET See the 2017 Alternative for a discussion on the budget. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-1 SECTION 3. MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION 3.1 LA HABRA GROUNDWATER BASIN SERVICE AREA The La Habra-Brea Management Area refers to the northwestern portion of Basin 8-1, as defined by DWR Bulletin 118, overlying the La Habra Groundwater Basin. This management area is outside of the jurisdiction of OCWD. As discussed in Section 2.2, the City of La Habra adopted a resolution establishing it as a GSA, under a memorandum of agreement with the City of Brea, for management of the La Habra Groundwater Basin underlying the two cities. The City adopted a second resolution to establish the La Habra Basin as a separate basin from Basin 8- 1. OCWD adopted a resolution to support the City’s establishment of the La Habra Basin. 3.1.1 Jurisdictional Boundaries The historical La Habra Groundwater Basin as described in DWR Bulletin 45 (1934) and Bulletin 53 (1947) is located in both Los Angeles (western basin) and Orange Counties (eastern basin) (see Figure 3-1). The majority of the historical La Habra Basin located in Los Angeles County is within Basin 4-11, the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles, as depicted in DWR Bulletin 118 (2003 update); the entirety of the La Habra Basin located in Los Angeles County is within the area subject to the terms of the Central Basin Adjudication. The majority of the historical La Habra Basin located in Orange County is within Basin 8-1, the Coastal Plain of Orange County as depicted in DWR Bulletin 118. Only a small portion of the historical La Habra Basin in Orange County is within the boundaries of the Orange County Water District. The Cities of La Habra and Brea overlie a portion of the La Habra Groundwater Basin that is not within the area subject to the terms of the Central Basin Adjudication, nor within the boundaries of the Orange County Water District. The La Habra Groundwater Basin, referred to herein, includes all of the City of La Habra and the portion of the City of Brea within Basin 8-1 but not within the jurisdiction of Orange County Water District, overlying the historical La Habra Groundwater Basin (see Figure 3-2). La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-2 Figure 3-1: Historical La Habra Groundwater Basin (DWR, 1934. DWR, 1937). Figure 3-2. La Habra Groundwater Basin. , .. ; La Habra Groundwater Basm • • • (Buie 53. OWR 1047 ) L°"J Cour<y Boundary Proposed Groundwater Basin Boundary '3 City and Community Boundary Groundwater Basin Coasta l Pla i n of Orange County Los Angeles COUnty Orange COUnty (B ulletin 118. OWR 2003 ) .__ ________ ____. __________________ __.._~-------'-----_.;1 0 2 M ies La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-3 3.1.2 Existing Land Use Designations The major land use within the City of La Habra is low-density residential with pockets of medium-density residential areas. Portions of La Habra consist of commercial and light industrial land uses. Likewise, land use within the City of Brea is primarily residential with sections of commercial and industrial facilities. 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS The geologic structure of the La Habra Groundwater Basin is dominated by the La Habra Syncline, a northwest trending, U-shaped down-fold. The syncline is deepest in the Brea area and becomes increasingly shallower to the west and is bounded by the Whittier Fault within the Puente Hills to the north and the Coyote Hills to the south (Montgomery, 1977). The La Habra Syncline produces the La Habra Valley, a naturally-occurring valley, where significant amounts of groundwater have accumulated over the past 150,000 years (Malcolm Pirnie, 2011a). 3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation Groundwater within the La Habra Groundwater Basin generally flows from the Puente Hills in a south or southwesterly direction. Subsurface flow out of the basin occurs near Coyote and La Mirada Creeks into the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles and at the gap between the East and West Coyote Hills into the Coastal Plain of Orange County (Stetson, 2014). A groundwater level hydrograph for a well completed in the Alluvium shows water levels declining to their lowest level in the 1950s, and recovering during the 1970s. More recent data from a nearby well shows a leveling off of water levels through the 1990s. Two other wells completed in the alluvium also show relatively flat water levels from the 1970s through the 1990s (Stetson, 2014). Wells completed in the San Pedro Formation show rising groundwater levels. The lowest groundwater levels in this aquifer were observed during the 1930s and 1940s, with water levels recovering about 60 feet through 1972. This corresponds to DWR Bulletin No. 53 (1947) stating that the La Habra Groundwater Basin was in overdraft. More recent data show an overall rising trend of 50 to 60 feet in groundwater levels from 1970 through 2007 and a slight decline during more recent years. There were no water levels available for the La Habra Formation. See Section 3.2.3 for more information. 3.2.2 Regional Pumping Patterns The transmissivity of a groundwater basin is the rate at which groundwater flows horizontally through the aquifer. Based on Montgomery (1977), the following are the estimated transmissivities in gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) for each of the water-bearing zones of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-4 • Alluvium: 200 gpd/ft to 10,000 gpd/ft • La Habra Formation: 25,000 gpd/ft • San Pedro Formation: 60,000 gpd/ft Historically, all three water-bearing zones of the La Habra Groundwater Basin were developed for domestic and irrigation purposes, with most wells drilled between 1916 and 1940. The City of La Habra originally drilled three production wells in the deeper aquifers. Groundwater production in these wells ceased in 1968 (Montgomery, 1977). Based on Montgomery (1979), the Alluvium and La Habra Formations are not considered to have groundwater development potential for the following reasons: the Alluvium is limited in thickness and extent, has low permeability characteristics, and is of poor water quality while the La Habra Formation’s permeable sand and gravel zones are thin and discontinuous. Groundwater production in the San Pedro Formation continues to this day. Based on Montgomery (1977), the following are expected well yields for each of the water-bearing zones of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. • Alluvium: 200 gpm • La Habra Formation: 100 gpm to 400 gpm • San Pedro Formation: 300 gpm to 800 gpm The City of La Habra pumps local groundwater from the La Habra Groundwater Basin from three production wells: the Idaho Street Well, the La Bonita Well, and the Portola Well. The Idaho Street Well has a capacity of 2,000 gpm but is regulated at 1,500 gpm. Water pumped from the Idaho Street Well requires treatment before entering the distribution system. This treatment consists of chlorination, air-stripping to remove ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, and the addition of sodium hexametaphosphate to sequester iron and manganese (Malcolm Pirnie, 2011a). The capacities of the La Bonita Well and the Portola Well are 850 gpm and 1,200 gpm, respectively. The City of Brea owns and operates one non-potable groundwater well used for irrigation at the Brea Creek Golf Course (Brea, Water Master Plan Update, November 2009). The maximum capacity of this well is 450 gpm. Table 3-1: Groundwater Production in La Habra Groundwater Basin. Acre-Feet per Year. Year City of La Habra City of Brea1 Total 2011 1,849 76 1,925 2012 1,865 86 1,951 2013 3,073 82 3,155 2014 4,094 121 4,215 2015 3,630 50 3,680 2016 3,547 86 3,633 La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-5 Year City of La Habra City of Brea1 Total 2017 3,200 96 3,295 2018 2,653 111 2,763 2019 2,158 88 2,245 2020 2,493 108 2,600 AVERAGE 2,856 90 2,946 1 Does not include small additional pumping within the City of Brea by a privately owned groundwater production well. Sources: 2015 Urban Water Management Plans (Arcadis, 2016). City of La Habra. City of Brea. Table 3-2: La Habra Groundwater Basin Wells Well Owner Well Name Well Use Well Depth (ft) Well Capacity (gpm) City of La Habra Idaho Street Potable 970 2,000 City of La Habra La Bonita Potable 890 850 City of La Habra Portola Potable 1,010 1,200 City of Brea Irrigation Well Irrigation Unknown 450 Memory Garden Memorial Park -- Irrigation Unknown Unknown 3.2.3 Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph Groundwater level data were compiled from DWR’s Water Data Library for eight wells with sufficient data to analyze trends within the La Habra Groundwater Basin. The DWR groundwater data were available for 1970 through 2010. Montgomery’s hydrographs from 1922 through 1975 are also included to capture earlier groundwater trends when there was more agricultural groundwater pumping for crop irrigation. Five of the ten monitoring wells had accompanying well logs to determine which aquifer was represented by the data. Figure 3-3 shows the location of these wells and the inferred direction of groundwater flow based on the groundwater level data (Stetson, 2014). La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-6 Figure 3-3: Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells. The groundwater level hydrograph for a well completed in the alluvial aquifer (Figure 3-4; T3/R10-10N1) shows water levels declining to their lowest level in the 1950s, and recovering during the 1970s. More recent data from a nearby well (Figure 3-5; T3/R10-10N2) shows a leveling off of water levels through the 1990s. Two other wells completed in the alluvium (T3/R10-2N2 and -9M2) also show relatively flat water levels from the 1970s through the 1990s, (Stetson, 2014). Wells completed in the San Pedro aquifer show rising groundwater levels. The lowest groundwater levels in this aquifer were observed during the 1930s and 1940s. This corresponds to DWR Bulletin No. 53 (1947) stating that the La Habra Groundwater Basin was in overdraft. Groundwater levels recovered about 60 feet from the 1940s through 1972 at well T3/R10-14G1. More recent data from well T3/R10-18C1 show an overall rising trend of 50 to 60 feet in groundwater levels from 1970 through 2007 and a slight decline during the last three years of data. There were no water levels available for the La Habra aquifer (Stetson, 2014). Recent data showing the depth to groundwater are presented in Figure 3-6. Wells T3/R10-9G1 and -8B2 show a similar pattern of rising groundwater levels through 2007 as seen at well T3/R10-18C1 completed in the San Pedro aquifer. The alluvial aquifer well data present a relatively flat groundwater level from 10 to 40 feet below land surface. The depth to groundwater graph shows groundwater levels in the San Pedro Aquifer recovering to levels observed in the alluvial aquifer (Stetson, 2014). T ,o 111 .5 1 Pd le<s ~Bonita , Pottola Wen~ ld¥1oWfl • l!M2 • '1 22C2 • ........................ ••••• .......... . 2N2 ♦ (M2 ♦ 14G1 ♦ La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-7 Figure 3-4: Early Well Hydrograph. 1922 Through 1975. Source: Montgomery, 1977. I\ .... ._. i..--c-i\ I"\, f\.i. 1 • .. . 't---r--\ \ ,- ' tvl n nu I ·-... . ~ I... I I \ V i'-. ~ J L V I ! -• i ,. ! , .. - 1/\f\ ,~ \. t\ Ir~ I, '1 \ ., \ i\. \ 'll\ \ II ' ' nw, ,ou, W•ll H ydrogr.ph for 3/1 0-10]1."l 19 .! : tbrouth 19 ; '\ \ \ h ~ ~ ~ j"-r\...-\i , \.\J ..., \[\ \Y•ll Hydrograpb for 3il0-HCI 19 31 through 19 : IA ~ h I..~ ~i\ ', \ ... I\~ 1,-,..i-l ·v ' ... /I,~. ' ., I I .. L-.,- I/ [\. I\ I'-.... I\ ' n f-,,t"-..... \ .. ... ... "' -.. .. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-8 Figure 3-5: Groundwater Level Hydrographs. Source: Stetson, 2014. Figure 3-6: Depth to Groundwater. Source: Stetson, 2014. 4SO 400 - - --- ,=-3SO 1 e 300 ~ ~L---.... -.,_..... . -- E <;; 2SO . ,~ V l' " ' ---- - ---~ -C .2 ! _,,-v.,.. w 200 - ~ ~ -1 150 - --- 0 100 rt~/,-~ --....... ,r ,_-t.,.._, /' -.,., ,:'\" t ' 50 0 Ground wate r Leve l Da.ta f ro m Calrforn la Oe p.utme nt of Water Res;o1.ir.ce s; W otet Do·ta LJ.b rary LSD : L11 nd 5urfm:e Dntum "? 'If 50 '1J u 1 ~ C e ~ 100 u ~ ~ i ~ '1J 1 50 C ~ 0 .:, z -:[ u Cl 200 Groun dwt1tc r Li::vc:I D::i ti, from C.al iforni;i Dep.irt mc:nt of W-D tc:r Rc:ro rec~ Wo ·t-cr-Do·tJJ Librory LS-D : La nd .s urfac e Datum r ,, l -- - I I I ~ 0 0 0 - ~_,,.- - - - -... - ............... ~ ..,._ -- s u, ----.-3/10 -2 2 l SQ423 ,msl 3/10-11 M2 350 ft,iml ~3/10-10 2 LS03 15 • ,msl ~--3/10-9MZ LSD 305 • msl -o-3f10-9G l LS0305 ft,m,I -+-3/l O-a32 LSD 280 ·,m!:l -3/10-22C2 LSD 1 80 ft.im l ----3/L □-L8Cl SD211 ~3/10-2 2 L D 4 23 ft,ms l -o-3/10 -11M2 LSD 350 ft ,rru l ~3/10-1 0N2 LSD 3 1 5 ft,m,I -+-3/10-9M 2 LSD 305 ft ,rru l 3/10-9G1 LSD 30 5 ft,ms l -+-5/10-832 LS D 280 ft,ms l --3/10 -22C2 LSD 280 ft,ms l ~5/10-l 8Cl LSD 2 11 ft,rns l La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-9 The hydrograph for the monitoring well with both recent data and a long period of record is shown in the figure below. Recent groundwater level data suggest that groundwater levels are stable and the basin is in balance. Figure 3-7: Recent Groundwater Level Hydrograph. 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Groundwater Level Hydrograph -Well 3/10-9G1 Ground Surface Elevation Water Surface Elevation • • • • • -------- La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-10 Figure 3-8: Recent Depth to Groundwater. 3.2.4 Groundwater Storage Data According to the DWR Bulletin 45 (1934), the storage capacity of the historical La Habra Groundwater Basin is approximately 153,000 acre-feet. Approximately 57 percent of the historical La Habra Groundwater Basin is in the eastern portion of the basin which is now designated within Basin 8-1. The Cities of La Habra and Brea overlie approximately 60 percent of the eastern portion of the historical La Habra Groundwater Basin (Stetson, 2014). Accordingly, the storage capacity of the current La Habra Groundwater Basin is approximately 55,000 acre-feet. 3.2.5 Groundwater Quality Conditions Previous investigations of water quality within the La Habra Basin determined that the quality is extremely variable. It was shown that shallow regions within the central portion of the basin as well as areas recharged by surface water along the basin boundary are of a bicarbonate and chloride character. Sulfate concentration increased with depth in the La Habra and San Pedro water-bearing zones. The historical data also shows that total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations have remained relatively stable (Montgomery, 1977). The most recent 10-year average TDS concentrations in the La Bonita, Portola, and Idaho wells are 1,052 mg/l, 750 mg/l, and 802 mg/l, respectively. Overall, groundwater from the San Pedro Aquifer is considered to be of fair to good quality (Montgomery, 1979). However, groundwater produced from the La Habra Groundwater Basin is not currently used directly for potable purposes due to water quality concerns that predate SGMA legislation. Water from the La Bonita and Portola Wells is chlorinated and then blended 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 De p t h ( F e e t ) Depth to Groundwater -Well 3/10-9G1 La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-11 with water purchased from the California Domestic Water Company in a 250,000-gallon forebay to reduce the concentration of minerals prior to entering the City of La Habra’s distribution system (La Habra, 2014). Groundwater production wells in Brea are strictly used for irrigation purposes as the groundwater beneath the city has poor water quality and would require extensive treatment and blending with higher quality water to meet public health standards (Malcolm Pirnie, 2011). Table 3-3 below shows historical water quality for select constituents. Recent State database water quality results indicate reported exceedances in raw groundwater for nitrate, perchlorate, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and radioactivity, with the most recent violation occurring in 2014 (Safe Drinking Water Information System). Table 3-3: Historical Constituent Concentrations (1927-1977) Constituent Minimum Maximum Average Specific Conductance 255 2,235 1,324 Total Dissolved Solids 269 1,696 943 Sulfate 0 672 174 Chloride 18 460 161 Nitrate 0 185 44 Fluoride 0 1.6 0.44 Total Hardness 75 931 489 Source: Montgomery, 1977. 3.2.6 Land Subsidence Based on Orange County Water District’s 2015 Update to its Groundwater Management Plan, there is no evidence that the observed minimal land surface changes in portions of Orange County has caused, or are likely to cause, any structural damage within the area (OCWD, 2015). As long as groundwater elevations and storage within the basin are maintained within their historical operating ranges, the potential for problematic land subsidence is reduced. Additionally, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) does not show the La Habra Groundwater Basin as an area where there have been historical or current subsidence recorded due to either groundwater pumping, loss of peat, or oil extraction (USGS, 2021). There is also no evidence of land subsidence within the La Habra Groundwater Basin according to the Department of Water Resources’ SGMA Data Viewer. Vertical displacement estimates are La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-12 derived from Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data and show only a minimal positive vertical displacement within the area (DWR, 2021a). Accordingly, there are no known land subsidence undesirable results caused by depletion of groundwater resources. 3.2.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems The La Habra Groundwater Basin lies entirely within the Coyote Creek Watershed (see Figure 3-7). The Coyote Creek Watershed drains approximately 165 square miles of densely populated areas of residential, commercial, and industrial areas as well as areas of open space (Atkins, 2012). Coyote Creek is a tributary to the San Gabriel River. Major Creeks within the watershed are: Coyote Creek, Brea Creek, Fullerton Creek, Carbon Creek, Moody Creek, and Los Alamitos Channel, some of which are concrete lined. Coyote Creek, Brea Creek, and La Mirada Creek (a non-major creek) all flow into and drain out of the La Habra Valley. The total drainage area of these three creeks within the valley is approximately 12,950 acres (Stetson, 2013). Coyote Creek and La Mirada Creek are surface waters flowing through the boundaries of the City of La Habra. Montgomery (1977) determined that about 30% of the runoff available in an average rainfall year percolates to the aquifers underlying the La Habra Valley. The San Pedro Formation is naturally recharged directly through aquifer outcrops (exposed formation sediments) in the Los Coyote Hills (south of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway) and in the Puente Hills (along the foothills north of Whittier Boulevard) [Montgomery, 1977]. The San Pedro Formation could also be indirectly recharged through the uplifted and exposed San Pedro beds that lie just below a thin layer of alluvium along the Coyote Creek valley (Montgomery, 1977). Within the La Habra Valley, an estimated 15% of precipitation contributes to aquifer recharge as direct percolation of precipitation. The 40-year average rainfall (14 inches) results in a water supply from precipitation within the 10,160-acre drainage area of approximately 1,780 AFY (Stetson, 2013). La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-13 Figure 3-9: Coyote Creek Watershed. A review of available references was conducted to identify any potential presence of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) in the La Habra-Brea Management Area and to review potential impacts groundwater extraction may have on the ecosystems. DWR’s Natural Communities (NC) dataset includes two habitat classes which are associated with groundwater: wetland features and vegetation types. Small areas of GDEs such as Palustrine, scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded wetlands, have been found on the western portion of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Groundwater dependent vegetation, such as Coast Live Oak, Willow, and Riparian Mixed Hardwood have been found in small areas within the central and eastern portions of the La Habra Groundwater Basin (DWR, 2021b). As shown in Figure 3-10 below, groundwater extraction does not occur near groundwater dependent vegetation or wetlands. Likewise, potential groundwater recharge locations are not located near groundwater dependent vegetation; therefore, any future recharge project would not alter the current natural ecosystem. La Habra’s groundwater production wells extract groundwater from the San Pedro formation, the deepest aquifer unit that forms the La Habra Groundwater basin, which is significantly deeper than the than the perched alluvial (Yerkes, 1972). The areas of vegetation identified as groundwater dependent ecosystems are along the base of the surrounding hills at the limits of the basin and are also supported by surface water runoff and rainfall. Cross sections in the region indicate shallow groundwater in those areas. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-14 Figure 3-10: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. ,,. -,'-.-• ,' -~\ -----i., la Bonita We i . 882 Portola Well ... ··-·--r ------------------ 9M2 ♦ 9G1 ♦ ♦ ;'.luniwri~ v.~11 wit h h)·d rugr:aph f\J1 cnw.l Growxlw21cr ♦ l..a Habrd \X'd l M Rcclurgc (Momgom cr)'1977) N \'q,oet:uion (NCCAG) II& \X bl:mcls (NCCAG) 1~ t-1 :.ibr:a-Bn:a ~ ;-.urugcmro1 An:-:a 13oWl<hry [:] Tmmship/Rangc Polcls GCOKJgy -f-:mric linc. ccr1:1in Q.111 -t\ll u\ium -+-srnchnc, certain Q:io -Older Alluvium F,ml rs Q ls -L:ind Slide -Accur.udr l.ocucd Q.if -t\rrifi cial Fill -Approxtm:1.td ~· Locau::<l --·-Concc,.k<l lnf,..•rrt-<l / Qlh L:.ilb.bn. Qch -Coyflfe Hill s Fomution Qsp -San Ptd ro fonnauon Tf -f-ermndo l~rm.'ltion Tp -Pu cn rc Fomurion La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 4-1 SECTION 4. WATER BUDGET 4.1 BUDGET COMPONENTS The components of the water budget generally include recharge from precipitation and runoff, recharge from subsurface inflow, subsurface outflow, and groundwater production. Recharge components of the water budget consist of mountain front and streamflow recharge and deep percolation of precipitation. Various hydrogeologic studies show that annual natural recharge ranges from 3,300 AFY to 3,900 AFY. No measurable subsurface inflow occurs into the La Habra- Brea Management Area. Additionally, no artificial recharge occurs in the La Habra-Brea Management Area at this time. Outflow components of the water budget consist of groundwater production and subsurface outflow. Groundwater production in La Habra-Brea Management Area has ranged from approximately 2,000 AFY to 4,200 AFY in recent years (See Table 3-1). Subsurface flow out of the groundwater basin occurs westerly near Coyote and La Mirada Creeks into the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles (Central Basin), and southerly at the gap between the East and West Coyote Hills into the main Coastal Plain of Orange County (Stetson, 2014). Subsurface outflow ranges from 2,200 to 5,500 AFY (OCWD 2015). 4.2 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE Based on water level measurements the water budget appears to be in balance over the past ten years. Changes in groundwater storage are monitored through the monitoring of groundwater elevations which have shown rising trends since the 1970s. Available groundwater level data indicate groundwater levels have generally increased or remained stable over the last five years. See Section 3.2.3. These conditions indicate groundwater storage changes in the La Habra Groundwater Basin are within an acceptable range and undesirable results are not present. 4.3 WATER YEAR TYPE The estimated water budget is based on normal/average water year type. However, historical hydrographs indicate stable or rising groundwater levels, even during dry and prolonged drought years, indicating that the water year type has little impact on the water budget. 4.4 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD Groundwater production within the La Habra-Brea Management Area is managed by the establishment of a safe yield so that the groundwater levels and storage capacity in the La Habra Groundwater Basin will be maintained. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 4-2 In 1977, Montgomery Engineers completed a groundwater study for the City of La Habra and estimated the “probable long-term groundwater basin yield” of the La Habra Groundwater Basin based on the natural recharge and natural discharge methods. Stetson conducted a re- evaluation of Montgomery’s 1977 safe yield analysis in 2013 to re-determine the estimated safe yield based on the natural recharge method. The average of these two methods (natural discharge and natural recharge) results in an approximate safe yield of 4,500 AFY. The City of La Habra has been producing groundwater since the late 1990s and monitoring static and pumping groundwater elevations since 2008. Previous investigations into groundwater levels and the safe yield have been used to manage the La Habra Groundwater Basin for over 10 years. 4.5 ESTIMATED WATER BUDGET The estimated water budget is shown in Table 4-1 below. There is currently insufficient data to determine precise estimates of the water budget components; accordingly, the water budget is presented as ranges. Table 4-1: Estimated Water Budget Budget Component Estimated Range 1 Inflows Precipitation 1,600 - 1,800 Mountain Front Recharge 1,700 - 2,100 Incidental/Other Recharge Unknown Outflows Subsurface Outflow 2,200 – 5,500 Groundwater Extraction 2,000 – 4,000 BALANCE1 0 1 This water budget is based on previous historically estimated inflows and outflows in the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Available water level data show rising or stable groundwater levels indicating the Basin is in balance. Therefore, the historical estimates may not account for all of the recharge occurring in the Basin. Sources: Montgomery, 1977. OCWD, 2015. Stetson, 2013. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 5-1 SECTION 5. WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS 5.1 OVERVIEW The La Habra Groundwater Basin is currently monitored for groundwater elevations and for groundwater quality through productions wells and monitoring wells within the City of La Habra. Surface water is currently not monitored in the Cities of La Habra and Brea overlying the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Recycled water is not used within the La Habra-Brea Management Area. Imported surface water and groundwater is used within the La Habra-Brea Management Area for potable supply. These potable water sources are monitored prior to delivery and not directly monitored by the Cities of La Habra and Brea. 5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS Groundwater Elevations Since 2008, the City of La Habra has measured non-pumping and pumping groundwater elevations at its production wells to review general trends in groundwater elevations in the Basin. The City of La Habra will supplement its existing groundwater elevation monitoring program by including water level measurements reported by DWR for three monitoring wells in the La Habra Basin. Groundwater elevations have previously been reported by DWR for wells 3/10-9G1, 3/10-8B2, and 3/10-18C1; however, only well 3/10-9G1 is currently being reported. Currently, La Habra is working to expand its monitoring network. See Section 9.2 for additional information. Groundwater Quality Currently, the City samples for constituents at its production wells pursuant to Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 22). Under Title 22, the City monitors and reports groundwater quality for constituents that are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water pertaining to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The City of La Habra also monitors areas of contamination, as described in its Drinking Water Source Assessments provided to the Division of Drinking Water for its production wells. The City of La Habra plans to continue to review and comment on documents regarding these areas within the City limits as well as be aware of any areas outside of its jurisdiction that may affect the water quality of the Basin through surface or subsurface flow. The City of La Habra plans to continue its existing groundwater water quality monitoring program and will evaluate the need for additional monitoring above its current program in accordance with DWR GSP regulations. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 5-2 5.3 OTHER MONITORING PROGRAMS Currently the City of La Habra does not perform any surface water quality monitoring; however, the City of La Habra will investigate any existing programs for the Coyote Creek Watershed including monitoring programs being developed in response to regulations set forth for the watershed by the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (Coyote Creek is shown on the Clean Water Act’s 303(d) list of impaired waters). The City of La Habra will consider developing and implementing its own surface and subsurface inflow quality monitoring programs for the local watershed in accordance with DWR GSP regulations. Likewise, the City of La Habra does not monitor land subsidence within the La Habra-Brea Management Area. However, the City may develop a program to monitor and measure the rate of land surface subsidence in accordance with DWR GSP regulations in the future if a land subsidence is determined to be likely to cause undesirable results. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 6-1 SECTION 6. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Groundwater resources protection is considered a critical component for safeguarding the long- term sustainability of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Groundwater resources protection includes water resources planning and an ordinance to prohibit the extraction and exportation of groundwater underlying the City for use outside the City as well as groundwater protection programs including well construction, abandonment, and destruction policies, wellhead protection, and the control of the migration and remediation of contaminated, poor quality, or saline water. 6.1 LAND USE ELEMENTS RELATED TO BASIN MANAGEMENT The Cities of Brea and La Habra participate in two water resources management planning documents: the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, and the Urban Water Management Plan. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) is a collaborative approach of implementing water management solutions on a regional scale in order to address water resources needs. The Greater Los County Region has been designated as an IRWM region and is comprised of the following subregions: North Santa Monica Bay, South Bay, Upper Los Angeles River, Upper San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers, and Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers. The Coyote Creek watershed, which overlies the La Habra Groundwater Basin, is within the Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers IRWM subregion. The La Habra Groundwater Basin contributes a small portion of the groundwater produced within the subregion. Urban Water Management Plan Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act require every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually to prepare, adopt, and file an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Cities of Brea and La Habra both are required to file an UWMP every five years with DWR. The UWMP is a management tool that provides water planning and identifies water supplies needed to meet existing and future water demands. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 6-2 6.2 GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT Well Construction, Abandonment, and Destruction Policies The policies that govern well construction, abandonment, and destruction are designed specifically to protect groundwater quality. The administration of these policies has been delegated to individual counties by California legislature. As stated in Orange County Ordnance No. 2607, all well activity within Orange County will comply with the standards set in DWR Bulletin 74, Chapter 2. These standards are enforced by the Orange County Health Care Agency. The Cities of La Habra and Brea properly construct and abandon wells pursuant to Orange County Ordnance No. 2607. Wellhead Protection Measures Wellhead protection is a way to prevent drinking water from being contaminated by managing sources of potential contamination within the vicinity of a production well. Surface contaminants can enter a well through the outside edge of the well casing or directly through opening in the well head. These contaminants can travel in two directions: to the groundwater aquifer or to the distribution system. As defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, a wellhead protection area is “the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or well field supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach such water well or well field.” The Cities of La Habra and Brea design and construct wells in accordance with the measures described in DWR Bulletin 74 so that the wellhead is protected from contamination. Important wellhead protection measures described in Bulletin 74 include: methods for sealing the well from intrusion from surface contaminants, site grading to assure drainage is away from the wellhead, and set-back requirements from known pollution sources. Control of Migration and Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater Groundwater can become contaminated naturally or through human activity. Based on a 2010 drinking water assessment performed by the City of La Habra, sources of potential groundwater contamination to the La Habra Basin include: car repair and bodywork shops, gas stations, machine and metalwork shops, and sewer collection systems (La Habra, 2013). The City of La Habra has previously taken the position that oil and gas mining operations in or up gradient of the basin have the potential to release chemicals that could contaminate groundwater, particularly during fracking activities. The Cities of La Habra and Brea will monitor the migration of contaminants through its water quality monitoring program and will also monitor nearby oil and gas mining operations. This will allow the point and non-point pollution sources to be identified. If contamination becomes a concern in the future, an approach to address the problem will be developed. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 6-3 Control of Saline Water Intrusion Raised salinity is a significant water quality problem in many parts of the southwestern United States and southern California, including Orange County. Elevated salinity is of concern as it can limit the implementation of recycling water projects and potentially require water purveyors to perform additional treatment on their water supplies. The level of salinity is sometimes measured based on Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations. The TDS concentrations in the La Habra Basin are naturally occurring and it is not believed that current activities in the basin significantly contribute to the TDS loading in the basin. The TDS concentrations are not a result of saline water intrusion. The TDS concentrations in the City of La Habra’s wells are below the secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 1,000 mg/L. TDS is listed as a secondary constituent as it does not directly cause harm to consumers but can affect the aesthetic quality of the water, including taste. Stormwater Pollution Prevention The City of La Habra is under the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Order R8-2009-0030. The current adopted permit requires mandates for the implementation of water quality control programs including adopting development standards for existing and new development. Although the NPDES permitting program is intended to protect surface water quality by preventing unauthorized stormwater discharges and discharges to navigable water, groundwater quality is also protected through the NPDES program incidental percolation of surface water into the groundwater occurs. The City of La Habra implements additional best management practices to prevent pollutant discharges. To assist developers and owners with implementation of NPDES requirements and best management practices for construction projects, the City of La Habra has created a Construction Runoff Guidance Manual. Likewise, the Model Water Quality Management Plan has been developed to address urban runoff and pollution. A water quality ordinance has been adopted (La Habra Municipal Code Chapter 13.24) to locally enforce California stormwater regulations. Additionally, the City of La Habra conducts investigations, inspections, trainings, maintenance, and public education to reduce pollution and contamination. These management practices Blending Program As discussed in Section 3.2.5, groundwater contamination exists in portions of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. To manage groundwater quality concerns, the City of La Habra blends groundwater from the La Habra Groundwater Basin with imported water (both groundwater and surface water) in order to reduce contaminant levels prior to distribution. See also Section 11.4 discussion on management programs. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 6-4 6.3 GROUNDWATER EXPORT PROHIBITION The protection of the health, welfare, and safety of the residents and economy of the City of La Habra require that the groundwater resources of the City be protected for present and future municipal, industrial, and domestic beneficial uses within the City. The sustainable yield of the portion of the La Habra Basin underlying the City is not sufficient to serve beneficial uses in addition to the beneficial municipal, industrial and domestic uses currently served through the City municipal water system. The best interest of the present and future inhabitants of the City is served by the prohibition against the extraction and exportation of groundwater produced from within the City's jurisdictional boundaries. Accordingly, on December 21, 2015, the City of La Habra adopted Ordinance No. 1767 to prohibit the extraction and exportation of groundwater underlying the City for use outside of the City. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 7-5 SECTION 7. NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION The Cities of La Habra and Brea overlie the La Habra Groundwater Basin and are the only producers of groundwater within the basin. Potential agencies that may additionally have a stake in the successful management of the basin include: • Central Basin Watermaster (DWR): adjudicated Central Basin (Los Angeles) • OCWD: actively manages Orange County portion • City of Fullerton: included in OCWD’s service area 7.2 GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS As the City of Brea is a direct stakeholder in the Orange County portion of the La Habra Basin outside of OCWD’s service area, Brea was included in the preparation of this plan. While the Central Basin Watermaster, OCWD, and the City of Fullerton do not have a direct stake in the Orange County portion of the La Habra Basin outside of OCWD’s service area that is the focus of this Plan, the portions of the historical La Habra Basin underlying these entities are hydrologically connected to the portion of the basin that is the subject of this Plan. As such these entities were informed that OCWD was preparing this Plan and the planned management of the basin was discussed with them. 7.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City of La Habra has invited the public to participate in City Council meetings where management of the La Habra Basin and future actions have been discussed and presented. See the 2017 Alternative for additional information. The La Habra GSA will strive to involve the public in groundwater management decisions regarding the La Habra-Brea Management Area. In the future, the La Habra GSA plans to provide copies of the periodic groundwater reports that will be prepared to the public at their request and publish information on groundwater management accomplishments on the City’s website. The La Habra GSA will also comply with the public participation requirements under SGMA. 7.4 COMMUNICATION PLAN The La Habra GSA plans to prepare a summary report of the current conditions of the La Habra Groundwater Basin ideally every two to five years using the results from the monitoring program (see Section 5.0). These informative reports will be used to plan future groundwater projects, develop new groundwater policies, and identify any new concerns with the basin. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 8-1 SECTION 8. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT APPROACH As the City of La Habra currently depends on local groundwater to meet approximately 40 percent of its water consumption and the City of Brea uses groundwater to meet irrigation needs, preserving the sustainability of the La Habra Groundwater Basin is essential for the well- being of the two cities. Currently (and historically), the City of La Habra manages (and has managed) the La Habra Groundwater Basin through management plans and programs for groundwater levels, basin storage, and water quality, discussed below in Sections 9, 10, and 11, respectively. Seawater intrusion and land subsidence are not occurring in the La Habra-Brea Management Area, and are not anticipated to occur; therefore, they are not actively managed at this time. Likewise, groundwater-surface water interactions are not actively managed at this time. No undesirable results have been observed in the La Habra Groundwater Basin. As a key component of sustainable management, the Cities of La Habra and Brea strongly promote conservation as a means to preserve water supplies. Both cities have sections on their websites dedicated to water conservation in addition to including conservation guidance in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports distributed to residents. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 9-2 SECTION 9. MANAGING GROUNDWATER LEVELS A solid understanding of groundwater elevations, seasonal fluctuations and response to pumping, existing basin yield, and how groundwater is stored and transmitted through the basin is critical for sustainably managing the La Habra-Brea Management Area. 9.1 HISTORY OF BASIN CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS As shown on Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6, groundwater levels in the La Habra-Brea Management Area have recovered from lows in the 1930 to 1950s and have experienced a general rising trend and leveling off since the 1970s. Given consistent groundwater production within the estimated safe yield of the basin, groundwater levels are expected to remain steady in the future. 9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS The City of La Habra recognizes the great importance of monitoring groundwater levels and acknowledges the current data gaps in the monitoring network. Monitoring groundwater levels is critical to basin management because water levels impact other potential undesirable results: loss of groundwater in storage, degraded water quality, land subsidence, and depletion of interconnected surface water. Groundwater levels can serve as a proxy for identifying potential impacts related to other groundwater conditions. As discussed in Section 5.2, the City has measured non-pumping and pumping groundwater elevations at its production wells since 2008. At the time the Alternative was first being developed, there were several additional wells actively being monitored in the La Habra Basin by other agencies. These wells with water level data included wells 3/10-9G1, 3/10-8B2, and 3/10-18C1. Many of these wells are no longer being monitored which is causing data gaps. Accordingly, La Habra is currently evaluating potential groundwater wells for inclusion into an expanded monitoring program as part of compliance under SGMA. The need for standard and multi-level monitoring wells to monitor the three aquifers of the basin is being investigated. The La Habra GSA may potentially request State assistance through the Technical Services Support program to install additional monitoring wells. The proposed monitoring program will include wells located within the vicinity of the La Habra Basin. La Habra has been in coordination with the Department of Water Resources regarding wells located in the La Habra Basin that have previously been included in bulletins/reports published by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in order to acquire pertinent well information that is not publicly available. These wells and other existing monitoring wells are currently being screened and evaluated for available data and suitability for inclusion in the monitoring network for the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Updates and modifications to the monitoring network will be discussed in the next Annual Report. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 9-3 Characterization of the conditions of the basin using the City’s existing groundwater elevation data from its production wells may not reflect steady state conditions because the wells pump frequently and groundwater levels within the wells do not have enough time to fully recover to obtain a static elevation before the well is put into production once more. Static elevations may be recorded through the use of monitoring wells where no pumping is performed and the well is constantly in a static condition. 9.3 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS The definition of significant and unreasonable lowering of groundwater levels in the La Habra- Brea Management Area is a lowering of groundwater levels such that a significant loss of well production capacity or a significant degradation of water quality occurs which would impact the intended and current beneficial uses of the groundwater. Currently, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has designated the beneficial uses of groundwater in the La Habra- Brea Management Area to be Municipal and Domestic Supply and Agriculture. The La Habra Groundwater Basin is currently managed within the safe yield, and groundwater levels have shown rising or stable trends in recent years, as shown by the available groundwater level hydrographs (see Section 3.2). Likewise, no other potential impacts are occurring such as loss of capacity at groundwater production wells, water quality degradation, or land subsidence. Accordingly, there are currently no undesirable results occurring related to the chronic lowering of groundwater levels. 9.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS There are no minimum thresholds established for groundwater levels in the La Habra Groundwater Basin because the basin is currently not in overdraft and is managed within the safe yield of the basin. Accordingly, no undesirable results are occurring. General water levels trends have shown rising and recovering groundwater levels over the past several decades with water levels being relatively stable for the past several years. Additionally, the prolonged and significant regional drought between 2011-2017 did not cause water levels to lower significantly or unreasonably. See Section 3.2. Recognizing that historical water levels have been significantly lower in previous decades, the La Habra GSA will continue to monitor groundwater levels to determine if chronic or significant lowering of groundwater levels are observed. If declines are observed, the La Habra GSA will evaluate its groundwater management operations, re-evaluate the safe yield, and establish minimum thresholds, where appropriate, and in accordance with SGMA. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 10-1 SECTION 10. MANAGING BASIN STORAGE 10.1 HISTORY As discussed in Section 9.1, groundwater levels in the La Habra Groundwater Basin have recovered from lows in the 1930 to 1950s and have experienced a general rising trend and leveling off since the 1970s. Given steady groundwater production within the estimated safe yield of the basin, groundwater levels are expected to remain steady in the future; consequently, water in storage is similarly anticipated to remain steady. 10.2 MONITORING STORAGE LEVELS The monitoring of storage levels is indirectly monitored through the groundwater level monitoring program described in Section 9.2. 10.3 MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 10.3.1 Establishment of Safe Yield A “safe yield” is used for ongoing management and future planning of a groundwater basin for sustained beneficial use. It is generally defined as the volume of groundwater that can be pumped annually without depleting the aquifer beyond its ability to recover through natural recharge over a reasonable hydrologic period. As discussed in Section 4.4, the approximate safe yield of the basin is 4,500 AFY, determined by taking the average of two methods to determine the natural discharge and natural recharge of the basin. Based on a review of groundwater elevations performed in January 2014, groundwater elevations in the San Pedro aquifer of the La Habra Basin appear to have risen about 100 feet from the 1940s to the present with an overall rising trend of 50 to 60 feet between 1970 and 2007 (Stetson, 2014). Therefore, it appears that the basin is not currently in an overdraft condition. More recently, groundwater levels appear to be stable indicating no unreasonable loss of groundwater in storage. The City of La Habra maintains sustainable groundwater production by maintaining and coordinating groundwater production within the estimated safe yield of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. This results in no undesirable results caused by depletion of groundwater in storage. 10.3.2 Review and Evaluation of Groundwater Levels The condition of the basin can be verified through a periodic review of groundwater elevations within the basin. The City can utilize and supplement its existing groundwater elevation monitoring program to review general trends in groundwater elevations in the Basin. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 10-2 As discussed in Section 9.2, the City has evaluated the current monitoring network and has determined additional monitoring of groundwater elevations is required in the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Additional monitoring wells are currently being evaluated for inclusion into the monitoring program. When the City of La Habra chooses to expand its groundwater monitoring program in the future, the City will prepare basin management reports on a periodic basis (every two to five years) using the results of the monitoring program. These informative reports will be used to review whether groundwater production is within the safe yield of the basin, plan future groundwater projects, develop new groundwater policies, and identify any new concerns within the La Habra-Brea Management Area. 10.3.3 Groundwater Recharge or Storage Projects The City of La Habra currently does not operate any groundwater recharge or storage projects. In the future, the City may perform a basin replenishment study that identifies potential recharge areas and measures to protect these areas. Two areas where a groundwater recharge project could be studied for implementation are shown in Figure 10-1. The San Pedro Formation is naturally recharged directly through aquifer outcrops (exposed formation sediments) in the Los Coyote Hills (south of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway) and in the Puente Hills (along the foothills north of Whittier Boulevard) [Montgomery, 1977]. The San Pedro Formation could also be indirectly recharged through the uplifted and exposed San Pedro beds that lie just below a thin layer of alluvium along the Coyote Creek valley (Montgomery, 1977). La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 10-3 Figure 10-1: Potential Groundwater Recharge Locations. As discussed in Section 2.2, the City of La Habra is located in the Coyote Creek Watershed. The Coyote Creek Watershed is included in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for the Orange County Santa Ana Region. The City implements stormwater control practices as required by the NPDES permit. Stormwater recharge activities in compliance with the NPDES permit program may occur in the future. The City of La Habra currently does not operate any conjunctive use projects. The City may study the feasibility of conjunctive use projects in the future. 10.3.4 Potential Management Programs No known desktop flow model exists for the La Habra Basin. As such, the La Habra GSA will consider developing a desktop flow model for the La Habra-Brea Management Area in the future once a sufficient amount of data are collected (as additional monitoring wells are constructed and monitored, for example). Groundwater models are used to represent natural flow conditions of an aquifer and can predict the effects of hydrological changes (such as pumping and replenishment) on the behavior of the aquifer. 1 Pd lE'!i La Bonita Well ♦ ♦ t.tntmtg Rfe Qe-:togy ♦ H3tn ' +-~ct!ftl D S·A'.lM.m ... P!Dpz.:ed t--:.sn 4---~ .~ c::J030·0t:ler Wl.wn .. ~er Btnn:r.tl')' FXlt~ ETIJ~·Llnd a::s ~H~i~-'!rB32' -Acr.1.rn ,'y lOatle-:S CJo~-al AI Pr.ltenUS C".lcut0.111le' ---Aa:,rartr.11 Loc.J:fd ~ • l,1 HCB -~Loaaou -CGnc:t:.t:.td LJoct1 -CO!,'lk ~Form.1ttln Cl 'l:wl:ri=' -mt't:!fflt D q,• f'eml<"OffNCDn D i--•"'""""'°'"'...., □TP·r'VetteFcr-~ La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 10-4 10.4 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION IN STORAGE As with groundwater levels, the definition of significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage in the La Habra-Brea Management Area is a lowering of groundwater levels such that a significant loss of well production capacity or a significant degradation of water quality occurs which would impact the intended use of the groundwater. Currently, there are no observed undesirable results observed related to the chronic loss of groundwater in storage. Since the Basin is managed within the safe yield, no chronic loss of groundwater in storage is anticipated. 10.5 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS As with groundwater levels, minimum thresholds have not been established for changes in groundwater storage. If chronic or significant lowering of groundwater levels is observed through groundwater level monitoring, the La Habra GSA will evaluate its groundwater management operations, re-evaluate the safe yield, and establish minimum thresholds, where appropriate, and in accordance with SGMA. Groundwater levels would be used as a proxy to set thresholds for groundwater in storage. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 11-1 SECTION 11. MANAGING BASIN WATER QUALITY It is the intent of the La Habra GSA to protect and enhance the groundwater quality in the La Habra-Brea Management Area. This can be achieved through groundwater quality programs, understanding the quality of surface waters and subsurface water that naturally recharge the basin, and implementing measures to protect potential recharge areas. 11.1 HISTORY Previous investigations of water quality within the La Habra Groundwater Basin determined that the quality is extremely variable. Overall, groundwater from the San Pedro Aquifer is considered to be of fair to good quality (Montgomery, 1979). However, groundwater produced from the La Habra Groundwater Basin is currently blended with imported water prior to distribution in order to reduce certain contaminant levels. 11.2 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY ISSUES As discussed in Section 3.2.5, water from the La Bonita and Portola Wells is chlorinated and then blended with water purchased from the California Domestic Water Company in a 250,000- gallon forebay to reduce the concentration of minerals prior to entering the City of La Habra’s distribution system (La Habra, 2014). The City of Brea’s non-potable well is strictly used for irrigation purposes as the groundwater beneath the city has poor water quality and would require extensive treatment and blending with higher quality water to meet public health standards (Malcolm Pirnie, 2011). 11.3 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY The La Habra GSA will continue the City of La Habra’s existing water quality monitoring program, described in Section 5.2, and supplement the program as required by SGMA. If the La Habra GSA were to choose to construct monitoring wells for groundwater elevations, these wells can also be sampled for water quality. The La Habra Basin is recharged through surface runoff and streamflow recharge as well as mountain front recharge (Stetson, 2013). Understanding the quality of the surface and subsurface water that recharges the La Habra Basin is important in protecting and enhancing the water quality of the groundwater basin as the groundwater within the basin originates from these waters. Although the City currently does not have a surface water quality monitoring program for the Coyote Creek Watershed, the La Habra GSA will investigate any existing programs for the watershed including regulations set forth for the watershed by the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (Coyote Creek is shown on the Clean Water Act’s 303(d) list of impaired waters). The La Habra GSA will consider developing and implementing its own surface and subsurface inflow quality monitoring programs for the local watershed in the future. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 11-2 To protect the water quality of the Basin, the La Habra GSA will continue to monitor and review areas of contamination within the La Habra-Brea Management Area, as described in its Drinking Water Source Assessments provided to State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) for its production wells. The La Habra GSA will continue to review and comment on documents within the La Habra-Brea Management Area as well as be aware of any areas outside of its jurisdiction that may affect the water quality of the La Habra-Brea Management Area through surface or subsurface flow. 11.4 DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS The management programs intended to protect the groundwater quality of the La Habra-Brea Management Area and prevent groundwater quality degradation include well construction, abandonment, and destruction policies, wellhead protection measures, control of migration and remediation of contaminated water, and control of saline water. Indirectly, the City of La Habra’s Stormwater contamination protection programs help prevent groundwater quality degradation as well. See Section 6. As discussed in Section 3.2.5, groundwater contamination exists in portions of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. The contaminants in the local groundwater are primarily naturally occurring and are not caused by excess groundwater production. Consequently, the only effective management action to address groundwater with existing poor water quality is treatment. As discussed previously, the City of La Habra blends groundwater from the La Habra Groundwater Basin with imported water (both groundwater and surface water) in order to reduce contaminant levels prior to distribution. 11.5 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY The definition of significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality is a reduction of water quality in the La Habra-Brea Management Area such that the groundwater can no longer be used for the intended purposes even with the implementation of reasonable mitigation measures or management actions. Currently, the City of Brea only uses groundwater produced from the La Habra Groundwater Basin for irrigation; however, the City of La Habra uses groundwater for its potable supply, thus requiring a higher level of quality. Currently, groundwater produced from the La Habra Groundwater Basin is able to be put to beneficial use as a potable water supply. Historically, groundwater quality in the La Habra Groundwater Basin has been variable with areas with poor water quality; however, these historical water quality issues are not caused by groundwater management actions or current groundwater production (see Section 3.2.5). Thus, no undesirable results related to degraded water supply are occurring. See Section 11.6 below for further discussion. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 11-3 11.6 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THREHOLDS Because groundwater from the La Habra Groundwater Basin is used as a potable source, the minimum thresholds for groundwater quality are exceedances of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or other applicable regulatory limits that are directly attributable to groundwater management actions in the La Habra-Brea Management Area that prevents the use of groundwater for its intended purpose. As discussed previously, the current water quality concerns in the La Habra Groundwater Basin are naturally occurring and are not caused by over-production or other groundwater management actions. These concerns pre-date SGMA legislation and are currently being managed through a blending program. Drinking water distributed to residents in the cities of Brea and La Habra currently meet all regulatory requirements. Accordingly, undesirable results as defined above in Section 11.5 by the definition of “significant and unreasonable” are not occurring and are not anticipated to occur due to groundwater production being managed within the Basin sustainable yield. If groundwater water quality trends indicate declining water quality, additional management actions will be established. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 12-1 SECTION 12. MANAGING SEAWATER INTRUSION The La Habra Groundwater Basin is not located near the ocean. Accordingly, there is no need to manage or consider the potential impact of seawater intrusion in the La Habra-Brea Management Area. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 13-1 SECTION 13. MANAGING LAND SUBSIDENCE As discussed in Section 3.2.6, there is no evidence that land subsidence is, or will likely become, problematic within the La Habra-Brea Management Area. Accordingly, sustainable management criteria or active monitoring are not required at this time. However, the City of La Habra may develop a program to monitor and measure the rate of land surface subsidence within the La Habra-Brea Management Area in accordance with DWR GSP regulations if it is determined that there is a potential for significant or unreasonable land subsidence to occur. The need for land surface subsidence monitoring will be considered on an annual basis. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 14-1 SECTION 14. MANAGING GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE WATER As discussed in Section 3.2.7, the La Habra Groundwater Basin lies within the Coyote Creek Watershed with the major creeks in the watershed being Coyote Creek, Brea Creek, Fullerton Creek, Carbon Creek, Moody Creek, and Los Alamitos Channel. The watershed is highly urbanized with densely populated areas of residential, commercial, and industrial areas, as well as open space. Montgomery (1977) determined that about 30% of the runoff available in an average rainfall year percolates to the aquifers underlying the La Habra Valley. In recent years, the depth to groundwater from the ground surface is approximately 30 feet (see Figure 3-6. However, groundwater production occurs within the confined San Pedro aquifer which is significantly deeper than the perched alluvial aquifer with a depth to groundwater of approximately 140 feet in the year 2000 (see Figure 3-6). As discussed previously in Section 3.2.7, there are small areas overlying the La Habra Groundwater Basin identified as GDEs. The areas of vegetation identified as groundwater dependent ecosystems are along the base of the surrounding hills at the limits of the basin where groundwater is shallow. The vegetation is also supported by surface water runoff and rainfall. Additionally, these areas are not located near the groundwater production wells which produce from the confined San Pedro aquifer. Accordingly, groundwater production is not anticipated impact surface waters and local habitats Thus, there is no evidence that groundwater depletions will impact surface water or groundwater dependent ecosystems within the La Habra-Brea Management Area. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 15-1 SECTION 15. PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS Available data and groundwater management programs are reviewed annually. Additionally, data gaps are identified and evaluated. This plan will be amended to reflect any new policies or practices relevant to the management of the La Habra-Brea Management Area. It will also be updated to reflect changes in groundwater conditions as necessary. Monitoring protocols are necessary to ensure consistency and accuracy in monitoring efforts and are required for monitoring assessments to be valid. Consistency should be reflected in factors such as the locations of the sampling points, frequency and seasonality of measurements, sampling procedures, and testing procedures. Accordingly, the La Habra GSA will undertake uniform data gathering procedures to ensure comparable measurements of groundwater are taken. 15.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR WATER QUALITY The protocols for water quality sampling are discussed in the 2017 Alternative. 15.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR GROUNDWATER ELEVATION/STORAGE The protocols for groundwater level measurements are discussed in the 2017 Alternative. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 16-1 SECTION 16. PROCESS TO EVALUATE NEW PROJECTS The La Habra GSA will evaluate any proposed actions for the La Habra-Brea Management Area pursuant to this Basin 8-1 Alternative in cooperation with the City of Brea. Additionally, new projects would be evaluated through the CEQA process (i.e. by reviewing and commenting on draft CEQA documents). Likewise, OCWD would have an opportunity to comment on projects proposed within the La Habra-Brea Management Area, but OCWD has no authority under this Plan to obstruct any action taken by the La Habra GSA regarding the La Habra-Brea Management Area. La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 17-1 SECTION 17. LIST OF REFERENCES AND TECHNICAL STUDIES Arcadis. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, City of La Habra. Arcadis. 2016. Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, City of Brea. Atkins, 2012. City of La Habra General Plan Update. Technical Background Report. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1934. South Coastal Basin Investigation: Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill. Bulletin No. 45. Written while DWR was the California Department of Public Works. DWR. 1947. South Coastal Basin Investigation: Overdraft on Ground Water Basins. Bulletin No. 53. Written while DWR was the California Division of Water Resources. DWR, 2021a. DWR. SGMA Data Viewer. Accessed November 9, 2021. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#landsub DWR, 2021b. DWR. Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) Dataset Viewer. Accessed November 9, 2021. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/NCDatasetViewer/ Geoscience. 2009. Draft Preliminary Geohydrologic Evaluation of the La Habra Basin. Prepared for City of La Habra, April 2, 2009. Malcolm Pirnie, 2011. Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. City of La Habra. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers Inc. (Montgomery). 1977, November. La Habra Basin Groundwater Study. Montgomery, 1979, July. Exploratory Drilling in the La Habra Groundwater Basin, Summary Report and Evaluation. Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015. Groundwater Management Plan 2105 Update, Orange County Water District. Stetson Engineers Inc. August, 2013. Draft Technical Report: Task 1 Re-Evaluation of Basin Safe Yield. Stetson Engineers Inc. 2014. Task 3 Hydrogeologic Investigation of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Technical Memorandum. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2021. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Accessed November 9, 2021. http://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html Yerkes, R.F. 1972. Geology and Oil Resources of the Western Puente Hills Area, Southern California. Geology of the Eastern Los Angeles Basins, Southern California. Geological La Habra-Brea Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 17-2 Survey Professional Paper 420-C; A study of the stratigraphy, structure, and oil resources of the La Habra and Whittier quadrangles. Basin 8-1 Alternative OCWD Management Area 2022 UPDATE Prepared by: Orange County Water District January 1, 2022 SINCE 1933 Basin 8-1 Alternative OCWD Management Area 2022 UPDATE Roy Herndon, P.G., C.Hg. Chief Hydrogeologist Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Prepared for the Department of Water Resources, pursuant to Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), (c) and §10733.6 January 1, 2022 SINCE 33 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents i Section Page SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 GROUNDWATER BASIN CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 1-2 1.2 WATER BUDGET ....................................................................................................... 1-6 1.3 WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS ..................................................... 1-7 1.4 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS........................................................ 1-7 1.5 NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION .............................................................................. 1-9 1.6 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 1-9 1.6.1 Sustainable Management: Water Levels ................................................. 1-10 1.6.2 Sustainable Management: Basin Storage ............................................... 1-10 1.6.3 Sustainable Management: Water Quality ................................................ 1-12 1.6.4 Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion ........................................ 1-12 1.6.5 Sustainable Management: Land Subsidence .......................................... 1-13 1.6.6 Sustainable Management: Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters 1-13 1.7 PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS ................................. 1-13 1.8 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS ............................................................. 1-13 1.9 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 1-14 SECTION 2 AGENCY INFORMATION ................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 HISTORY OF OCWD .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ................................................. 2-2 2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 BUDGET ..................................................................................................................... 2-3 SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................. 3-4 3.1 OCWD MANAGEMENT AREA .................................................................................... 3-4 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 3-7 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents ii 3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation Contours .............................................................. 3-7 3.2.2 Regional Pumping Patterns..................................................................... 3-10 3.2.3 Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrographs .................................... 3-11 3.2.4 Groundwater Storage Data ..................................................................... 3-18 3.3 BASIN MODEL .......................................................................................................... 3-18 3.3.1 Groundwater Quality Conditions .......................................................... 3-19 3.3.2 Coastal Gaps .......................................................................................... 3-26 3.3.3 Land Subsidence .................................................................................... 3-27 3.3.4 Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems ......................................................................................... 3-28 SECTION 4 WATER BUDGET ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 WATER BUDGET COMPONENTS ............................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Measured Recharge .................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Unmeasured Recharge ............................................................................. 4-1 4.1.3 Groundwater Production ........................................................................... 4-2 4.1.4 Subsurface Outflow ................................................................................... 4-3 4.1.5 Evaporation ............................................................................................... 4-3 4.2 WATER YEAR TYPE .................................................................................................. 4-3 4.3 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD ........................................................................ 4-4 4.4 WATER BUDGETS ..................................................................................................... 4-4 SECTION 5 WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS ........................................... 5-1 5.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS .......................................................... 5-1 5.2.1 Groundwater Production Monitoring .......................................................... 5-4 5.2.2 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring ............................................................ 5-5 5.2.3 Groundwater Quality Monitoring ................................................................ 5-8 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents iii 5.2.4 Coastal Area Monitoring ............................................................................ 5-2 5.3 SURFACE WATER AND RECYCLED WATER MONITORING ................................... 5-4 5.3.1 Surface Water Monitoring Programs ......................................................... 5-5 5.3.2 Recycled Water Monitoring ....................................................................... 5-6 SECTION 6 WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ........................................ 6-1 6.1 LAND USE ELEMENTS RELATED TO BASIN MANAGEMENT ................................. 6-1 6.1.1 Summary of Plans Related to Basin Management .................................... 6-1 6.1.2 Land Use Development and Water Demands and Supply ........................ 6-2 6.1.3 Well Construction, Management, and Closure .......................................... 6-2 6.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT ............................ 6-3 6.2.1 Regulation and Management of Contaminants ......................................... 6-4 6.3 RECYCLED WATER PRODUCTION .......................................................................... 6-5 6.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 6-5 6.4 FINAL EXPANSION .................................................................................................... 6-5 6.5 CONJUNCTIVE USE PROGRAMS ............................................................................. 6-7 6.5.1 Sources of Recharge Water Supplies ....................................................... 6-8 6.5.2 Surface Water Recharge Facilities ............................................................ 6-4 6.6 MANAGEMENT OF SEAWATER INTRUSION ........................................................... 6-5 6.6.1 Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier ............................................................ 6-6 6.6.2 Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier .......................................................... 6-6 SECTION 7 NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION ..................................................................... 7-1 7.1 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER USERS ........................................................... 7-1 7.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 COMMUNICATION PLAN ........................................................................................... 7-2 SECTION 8 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT ............................................................ 8-1 8.1 SUSTAINABILITY GOAL ............................................................................................. 8-1 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents iv SECTION 9 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS .... 9-1 9.1 HISTORY/SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 9-1 9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY ..................... 9-1 9.3 MANAGEMENT OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY ................... 9-2 9.4 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS .................................................................................... 9-5 9.5 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLD ......................................................... 9-6 SECTION 10 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO BASIN STORAGE .............. 10-1 10.1 HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 10-1 10.2 CALCULATION OF GROUNDWATER STORAGE LEVELS ................................... 10-2 10.3 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ........................................................ 10-3 10.3.1 Basin Operating Range ......................................................................... 10-3 10.3.2 Balancing Production and Recharge ..................................................... 10-3 10.3.3 Managing Basin Pumping ..................................................................... 10-3 10.3.4 Supply Management Strategies ............................................................ 10-5 10.4 DEVELOPING NEW LOCAL WATER RESOURCES POLICY ................................ 10-5 10.4.1 Water Demands .................................................................................... 10-6 10.5 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION OF GROUNDWATER STORAGE .............................................................................. 10-7 10.6 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................................... 10-1 SECTION 11 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO WATER QUALITY .............. 11-1 11.1 SALINITY MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................... 11-1 11.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS .................................... 11-1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................................. 11-8 11.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................................... 11-9 SECTION 12 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO SEAWATER INTRUSION ... 12-1 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents v 12.1 TALBERT GAP ....................................................................................................... 12-1 12.1.1 Talbert Barrier Groundwater Model ....................................................... 12-2 12.2 ALAMITOS GAP ..................................................................................................... 12-3 12.2.1 Alamitos Barrier Groundwater Model .................................................... 12-5 12.3 SUNSET GAP ......................................................................................................... 12-5 12.3.1 Evaluation of Sunset Gap Alternatives .................................................. 12-7 12.4 BOLSA GAP .......................................................................................................... 12-10 12.5 NEWPORT MESA ................................................................................................. 12-11 12.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF SEAWATER INTRUSION PREVENTION POLICY .......... 12-12 12.6.1 Effective Barrier Operations ................................................................ 12-12 12.6.2 Barrier Performance Monitoring and Evaluation .................................. 12-13 12.6.3 Susceptible Coastal Area Monitoring and Evaluation .......................... 12-13 12.6.4 Coastal Groundwater Management .................................................... 12-14 12.7 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE SEAWATER INTRUSION12-14 12.8 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................................. 12-14 SECTION 13 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO LAND SUBSIDENCE .......... 13-1 13.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LAND SUBSIDENCE THAT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERES WITH SURFACE USES ................................... 13-3 13.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................................... 13-4 SECTION 14 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE WATER ................................................................ 14-1 SECTION 15 PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS ..................... 15-1 SECTION 16 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS ................................................. 16-1 SECTION 17 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 17-1 Figure Figure 1-1: Basin 8-1, OCWD Service Area and OCWD Management Area ............... 1-3 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents vi Figure 1-2: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal Aquifer, June 2021 ...... 1-4 Figure 1-3: Available Basin Storage WY1957-58 to 2020-21 ....................................... 1-5 Figure 1-4: Basin Production and Recharge Sources, WY1999-20 to 2020-21 ........... 1-7 Figure 1-5: Total Water Demands within OCWD, WY1997-98 to 2020-21 ................... 1-8 Figure 1-6: Example Hydrographs ............................................................................ 1-11 Figure 3-1: Basin 8-1, OCWD Service Area and OCWD Management Area ............... 3-4 Figure 3-2: Federal and State Lands ............................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3-3: Retail Water Supply Agencies .................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-4: Land Uses .................................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-5: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Shallow Aquifer, June 2021 ....... 3-8 Figure 3-6: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal Aquifer, June 2021 ...... 3-9 Figure 3-7: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Deep Aquifer, June 2021 ......... 3-10 Figure 3-8: Groundwater Production, WY2018-19 ..................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-9: Location of Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrographs .................. 3-13 Figure 3-10: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SA-21 and GG-16 in Pressure Area 3-14 Figure 3-11: Water Level Hydrograph of Well A-27/AMD-9 in Forebay Area ............. 3-15 Figure 3-12: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SAR-1 and OCWD-CTG1 ............... 3-16 Figure 3-13: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells HBM-1 and IDM-1 ........................... 3-17 Figure 3-14: Groundwater Storage Change, June 2020 to June 2021 ....................... 3-18 Figure 3-15: OCWD Groundwater Basin Model Boundaries ...................................... 3-19 Figure 3-16: Regional Water Board Groundwater Management Zones ..................... 3-20 Figure 3-17: TDS in Groundwater Production Wells, ................................................. 3-22 Figure 3-18: Nitrate (as N) Levels in Groundwater Production Wells, ........................ 3-23 Figure 3-19: Groundwater Contamination Plume Locations ....................................... 3-26 Figure 3-20: Orange County Coastal Gaps ................................................................ 3-27 Figure 4-1: Estimated Subsurface Inflow ...................................................................... 4-2 Figure 5-1: OCWD Monitoring Wells ............................................................................ 5-2 Figure 5-2: Large and Small System Drinking Water Wells .......................................... 5-3 Figure 5-3: Private Domestic, Irrigation and Industrial Wells ........................................ 5-4 Figure 5-4: SGMA Shallow Aquifer System Monitoring Well Network .......................... 5-6 Figure 5-5: SGMA Principal Aquifer System Monitoring Well Network ......................... 5-7 Figure 5-6: SGMA Deep Aquifer System Monitoring Well Network .............................. 5-8 Figure 5-7: North Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells ............... 5-1 Figure 5-8: South Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells ............... 5-2 Figure 5-9: Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Wells ......................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-10: Surface Water Monitoring Locations ........................................................ 5-5 Figure 5-11: Recycled Water Monitoring Wells ............................................................ 5-7 Figure 6-1: Groundwater Replenishment System ........................................................ 6-5 Figure 6-2: GWRS Final Expansion Overview ............................................................. 6-7 Figure 6-3: Historical Recharge in Surface Water Recharge System ........................... 6-2 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents vii Figure 6-4: Locations of Imported Water Deliveries ..................................................... 6-3 Figure 6-5: OCWD Surface Water Recharge Facilities ................................................ 6-4 Figure 9-1: Shallow Aquifer Water Level Change, June 2020 to June 2021 ................ 9-3 Figure 9-2: Principal Aquifer Water Level Change, June 2020 to June 2021 ............... 9-4 Figure 9-3: Deep Aquifer Water Level Change, June 2020 to June 2021 .................... 9-5 Figure 11-1: Estimated TDS Concentration in Base Case for 30 -year Period ............ 11-2 Figure 11-2: Water Quality Improvement Projects and Programs .............................. 11-2 Figure 11-3: North Basin Groundwater VOC Plume ................................................... 11-3 Figure 11-4: South Basin Groundwater Contaminant Plume ..................................... 11-4 Figure 11-5: Production Wells to be Treated to Remove PFAS ................................ 11-7 Figure 12-1: Talbert Gap – Seawater Intrusion Barrier.............................................. 12-2 Figure 12-2: Key Well OCWD-M26 Groundwater Levels, .......................................... 12-1 Figure 12-3: Talbert Gap 250 mg/L Chloride Concentration Contours ....................... 12-2 Figure 12-4: Alamitos Gap – Seawater Intrusion Barrier ............................................ 12-3 Figure 12-5: Alamitos Gap I Zone Chloride Concentration Contours, 2021 ............... 12-4 Figure 12-6: Schematic Geologic Cross-Section from Huntington Harbor ................. 12-5 Figure 12-7: Sunset Gap Chloride Concentrations, 2020 ........................................... 12-7 Figure 12-8: Alamitos-Sunset Gap Groundwater Model Boundaries .......................... 12-8 Figure 12-9: Potential Sunset Gap Barrier Project Facilities .................................... 12-10 Figure 12-10: Newport Mesa Chloride Contours, 2020 ............................................ 12-12 Figure 13-1: Total Vertical Ground Surface Displacement from June 2015 to July 2020 ................................................................................................................................... 13-3 Table Table 3-1: TDS Water Quality Objectives for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones ......................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-2: Nitrate (as N) Water Quality Objective for ................................................. 3-23 Table 4-1 Water Budget, WY2016-17 to 2020-21 ........................................................ 4-1 Table 6-1: Sources of Recharge Water Supplies ......................................................... 6-1 Table 7-1: Major Groundwater Producers .................................................................... 7-1 Table 10-1: Management Actions based on Change in Groundwater Storage .......... 10-5 Table 10-2: Approaches to Refilling the Basin ........................................................... 10-1 Table 11-1: Baseline Projected Future Salt Inflows .................................................... 11-1 Table 11-2: Baseline Future Nitrate (as N) Inflows ..................................................... 11-1 Table 11-3: Summary of BEA Exemption Projects ..................................................... 11-8 OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-1 SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is a special district formed in 1933 by an act of the California Legislature, the “OCWD Act”. OCWD manages the groundwater basin that underlies north and central Orange County pursuant to the OCWD Act. Water produced from the basin is the primary water supply for approximately 2.5 million residents living within the service area boundaries. The mission of OCWD includes sustainably managing the Orange County Groundwater Basin, Basin 8-1, over the long-term. Additionally, as a special act district listed in Water Code § 10723 (c)(1), OCWD is the exclusive local agency within its jurisdictional boundaries with powers to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater management Act (SGMA) via a groundwater sustainability plan (“GSP”) or via an Alternative prepared in accordance with Water Code § 10733.6. The OCWD Management Area includes 89 percent of the area designated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as Basin 8-1, the “Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin” in Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2003). The OCWD Management Area includes the same land area as the OCWD service area within Basin 8-1 except for a small 6.7-square mile area in the northeast corner of the basin that is part of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. The boundaries of Basin 8-1, the OCWD service area and the OCWD Management Area are shown in Figure 1-1. The agencies within Basin 8-1 collaborated to prepare and submit an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). In accordance with Water Code §10733.6(b)(3)(c), the Basin 8-1 Alternative presented an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrated that Basin 8- 1 had operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. The Alternative was submitted to DWR on December 22, 2016. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative satisfied SGMA objectives and was therefore approved. Approved alternatives are required to submit annual reports to DWR on April 1 of each year. Annual reports for Basin 8-1 were submitted to DWR as follows: • Water Year 2016-17, submitted on March 29, 2018 • Water Year 2017-18, submitted on March 29, 2019 • Water Year 2018-19, submitted on March 30, 2020 • Water Year 2019-20, submitted on March 30, 2021 *Note, the DWR Water Year extends from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. According to Water Code §10733.8, “At least every five years after initial submission of a plan pursuant to Section 10733.4, the department shall review any available groundwater sustainability plan or alternative submitted in accordance with Section 10733.6, and the implementation of the corresponding groundwater sustainability program for consistency with this part, including achieving the sustainability goal. The department shall issue an assessment for each basin for which a plan or alternative has been submitted in accordance with this chapter, with an emphasis on assessing progress in achieving the sustainability goal within the OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-2 basin. The assessment may include recommended corrective actions to address any deficiencies identified by the department.” This document, called the 2022 Update, represents the first five-year update, which is due January 1, 2022. For purposes of this report, the Basin 8-1 Alternative submitted on December 22, 2016, will be referred to as the 2017 Alternative. The first five-year update will be referred to as the 2022 Update for ease of reference. The 2017 Alternative was a comprehensive document showing that Basin 8-1 had been managed sustainably for more than 10 years. For the 2022 Update, the focus is on documenting that the basin has been sustainably managed during the five years since the 2017 Alternative was submitted and to present relevant new information from the last five years. As such, the 2017 Alternative is considered a key reference document with background information that is not duplicated in the 2022 Update. 1.1 GROUNDWATER BASIN CONDITIONS GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS OCWD prepares groundwater elevation contour maps for each of the three major aquifer systems (Shallow, Principal, and Deep) annually. In addition to illustrating regional groundwater gradients, the maps are used to prepare water level change maps and to calculate the amount of groundwater in storage and the annual storage change. OCWD’s basin-wide network of monitoring wells is used to monitor groundwater levels and quality, assess effects of pumping and recharge, estimate groundwater storage, characterize basin hydrogeology, and develop and calibrate a numerical flow model of the basin. Groundwater elevation contours for the Principal Aquifer as of June 2021 are shown in Figure 1-2. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-3 Figure 1-1: Basin 8-1, OCWD Service Area and OCWD Management Area OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-4 Figure 1-2: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal Aquifer, June 2021 GROUNDWATER STORAGE The groundwater basin contains an estimated 66 million acre-feet when full. However, OCWD manages the basin within an established operating range of up to 500,000 acre-feet below full condition. This operating range was established to designate the levels of groundwater storage within which the basin that can be maintained without causing adverse impacts. In order to manage the basin within this operating range, OCWD calculates the amount of groundwater in storage on an annual basis. Long-term groundwater storage levels based on OCWD’s water year (July 1 to June 30) are shown in Figure 1-3. i=:i OCVVD Service Boundary L .:] County Boundaries 0 Mesas 12 ,000 24 ,000 Feet w s June 2021 Groundwater Elevation Contours for Principal Aquifer OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-5 Acre-feet Below Full (x1000) Figure 1-3: Available Basin Storage WY1957-58 to 2020-21 WATER QUALITY The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Water Board) is responsible for protection and enhancement of the quality of waters in the watershed, which includes surface water and groundwater in the OCWD Management Area. The watershed’s salinity management program, overseen by the Regional Water Board, is managed by the Basin Monitoring Program Task Force. Water quality objectives for total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater management zones were adopted by the Regional Water Board based on historical water quality data. Every three years the Task Force calculates the current ambient water quality for each groundwater management zone. The most recent recalculation for the groundwater basin was completed in 2020 (OCWD, 2020). There are several regional groundwater contamination plumes within the OCWD Management Area, all of which are under active remediation, and some are being evaluated for additional remediation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead agency in overseeing a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to develop an interim remedy for the VOC plume in the North Basin area. OCWD is conducting an RI/FS to develop an interim remedy for the plume in the South Basin area. Investigations and remediation for individual contaminant source sites within the North Basin and South Basin areas are within the jurisdiction of either the California Department of Toxic Substances Control or the Regional Water Board. The U.S. Navy is taking the lead in remediation of plumes from the former El Toro and Tustin Marine Corps Air Stations and the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1957-58 1962-63 1967-68 1972-73 1977-78 1982-83 1987-88 1992-93 1997-98 2002-03 2007-08 2012-13 2017-18 Full Basin Condition OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-6 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of thousands of manmade chemicals that includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). PFAS compounds have been commonly used in many products including, among many others, stain- and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick products (e.g., Teflon), polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning products, and fire-fighting foams. Beginning in the summer of 2019, the California Division of Drinking Water (DDW) began requiring testing for PFAS compounds in some groundwater production wells in the OCWD area. As a result of required testing, as of September 2021, approximately 60 wells in the OCWD service area have been temporarily turned off until treatment systems can be constructed. As additional wells are tested, this figure may increase. In April 2020, OCWD as the groundwater basin manager, executed a multi-party agreement with the impacted groundwater producers to fund and construct the necessary treatment systems for production wells impacted by PFAS compounds. OCWD expects the treatment systems to be constructed for the approximately 60 impacted wells within the next 2 to 3 years. LAND SUBSIDENCE Ground surface elevations rise and fall due to groundwater conditions in the OCWD Management Area and do not show a pattern of widespread, permanent lowering of the ground surface. There is no evidence of permanent, inelastic land subsidence within the OCWD Management Area. 1.2 WATER BUDGET OCWD developed a hydrologic budget for the purpose of constructing a basin-wide numerical groundwater flow model and for evaluating basin production capacity and recharge requirements. The key components of the budget include measured and unmeasured (estimated) recharge, groundwater production and subsurface outflows. The groundwater basin is not operated on an annual safe-yield basis. The net change in storage in any given year may be positive or negative; however, over a period of several years, the basin is maintained in an approximate balance. Amounts of total basin production and total water recharged from OCWD water years (WY)1999-2000 to 2020-21 are shown in Figure 1-4. The OCWD water year extends from July 1 to June 30. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-7 Figure 1-4: Basin Production and Recharge Sources, WY1999-20 to 2020-21 1.3 WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS Water resource monitoring programs for groundwater, surface water, recycled water, and imported water remain unchanged (see 2017 Alternative for list). The only slight modification is the replacement of the CA Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program with annual data reports required for SGMA compliance. 1.4 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS LAND USE The OCWD Management Area is highly urbanized. As such, OCWD monitors, reviews and comments on local land use plans, environmental documents, and proposed regulatory agency permits to provide input to land use planning agencies regarding proposed projects and programs that could cause short- or long-term water quality impacts to the groundwater basin. DEMAND MANAGEMENT The average annual water demand within the OCWD Management Area for the most recent five water years, WY2016-17 to 2020-21 is approximately 400,000 acre-feet. Total water demands 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 1999-00 2002-03 2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 2014-15 2017-18 2020-21 Santa Ana River Base Flow Santa Ana River Storm Flow Recycled Water Imported Water Incidental Recharge Groundwater ProductionAcre-feet (x1000) ----- .,..___ ' I ' ~ -'\ I -i\ / ' ' I/ -..... OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-8 in the management area are met by a combination of groundwater, imported water, and recycled water. From WY1996-97 to present, water demands have ranged between 367,000 and 526,000 acre-feet per year but have generally decreased, as shown in Figure 1-5. It is noted that water demands in WY2015-16 reflect mandatory demand reductions imposed by the State Water Board in response to an extended drought. OCWD strives to sustainably maximize both production from the basin and recharge of the groundwater basin. Figure 1-5: Total Water Demands within OCWD, WY1997-98 to 2020-21 GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OCWD adopted a Groundwater Quality Protection Policy in 1987 and updated it in 2014. This policy guides the actions of OCWD to maintain groundwater quality suitable for all existing and potential beneficial uses; prevent degradation of groundwater quality and protect groundwater from contamination; maintain surface water and groundwater quality monitoring programs, a monitoring well network and data management system; and assist regulatory agencies in remediating contaminated sites. In January 2020, in preparation for the impacts of PFAS to groundwater supply, OCWD adopted a Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Policy. Central to this policy is OCWD’s desire to maintain a groundwater supply of suitable quality for all existing and potential beneficial uses. Among other items, the policy states that OCWD will fund the lowest reasonable and efficient treatment system design and construction costs to remove PFAS compounds for groundwater producers. Additionally, the policy states that OCWD will fund 50 percent of operation and maintenance expenses up to $75 per acre-foot plus potential adjustments. As of September 2021, approximately 60 production wells operated by 11 groundwater producers have been temporary shut down until treatment systems can be constructed. OCWD expects these treatment systems to be constructed within the next 2 to 3 years. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1996-97 1999-00 2002-03 2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 2014-15 2017-18 2020-21 Water Year Acre-feet (x1000) - - + + 4 4 + + 4 4 + + 4 4 + + 4 4 + + + 4 4 + + 4 4 OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-9 RECYCLED WATER PRODUCTION OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) produces up to 100 million gallons per day (mgd) of highly treated recycled water. The GWRS Final Expansion is under construction and will be on-line in early 2023. The final expansion will increase plant capacity to 130 mgd. GWRS water is recharged into the groundwater basin and is the primary source of water for the Talbert Seawater Barrier. OCWD also operates the Green Acres Project, a non-potable recycled water supply for irrigation and industrial water users. CONJUNCTIVE USE PROGRAMS Recharge water sources include the Santa Ana River and tributaries, imported water, and recycled water supplied by the GWRS as well as incidental recharge from precipitation and subsurface inflow. OCWD’s conjunctive use program includes over 1,500 acres of land on which there are 1,067 wetted acres of recharge facilities. MANAGEMENT OF SEAWATER INTRUSION The Alamitos and Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barriers control seawater intrusion through the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps by injecting fresh water into susceptible aquifers through a series of injection wells to create a hydraulic barrier. Work is underway to characterize intrusion in the Sunset Gap, including installation of monitoring wells, development of a groundwater flow model, and feasibility studies. This information is needed to guide design of a potential new seawater barrier in the Sunset Gap. 1.5 NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION The local agencies that produce the majority of the groundwater from the basin include 19 cities, water districts, and a private water company. OCWD staff holds monthly meetings with this group to provide information and seek input on issues related to groundwater management. OCWD has a proactive community outreach program that includes conducting an annual Children’s Water Education Festival attended by over 7,000 elementary school students and a monthly electronic newsletter with approximately 5,700 subscribers. 1.6 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT The sustainability goal for the OCWD Management Area is to: Continue to manage the groundwater basin to prevent basin conditions that would lead to significant and unreasonable (1) lowering of groundwater levels, (2) reduction in storage, (3) water quality degradation, (4) seawater intrusion, (5) land subsidence and (6) depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-10 Existing monitoring and management programs in place today enable OCWD to sustainably manage the groundwater basin. Since its founding in 1933, OCWD has developed a managed aquifer recharge program, constructed hundreds of monitoring wells, developed an extensive water quality monitoring program, installed seawater intrusion barriers, and doubled the volume of groundwater production while protecting the long-term sustainability of the groundwater resource. OCWD’s management of the OCWD Management Area will continue to provide long- term sustainable basin management that is able to adapt to changing conditions affecting the groundwater basin. 1.6.1 Sustainable Management: Water Levels OCWD manages the basin for long-term sustainability by maximizing groundwater recharge and managing basin production within sustainable levels. Long-term groundwater level trends demonstrate the undesirable result of “chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply” is not present. Hydrographs representative of long-term water levels in the basin are shown in Figure 1-6. These hydrographs demonstrate that groundwater levels in the OCWD Management Area are being managed at long-term sustainable levels. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels is not anticipated to occur in the future in the OCWD Management Area due to OCWD’s management programs. 1.6.2 Sustainable Management: Basin Storage OCWD manages basin storage within an established operating range of up to 500,000 acre-feet below full condition. Maintaining basin storage within this range protects the basin from detrimental impacts such as land subsidence, chronic lowering of groundwater levels and chronic reduction in storage. OCWD manages groundwater pumping such that it is sustainable over the long-term; however, in any given year pumping may exceed recharge or vice versa. Thus, the amount of groundwater stored in or withdrawn from the basin varies from year to year and often goes through multi-year cycles of emptying and filling, which typically correlates with state-wide and/or local precipitation patterns and other factors. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-11 Figure 1-6: Example Hydrographs Each year OCWD calculates the volume of groundwater storage change from a theoretical “full” benchmark condition based on a calculation using changes in groundwater elevations in each of the three major aquifer systems and aquifer storage properties. This calculation is checked against an annual water budget that accounts for all production, measured recharge and estimated unmeasured recharge (also referred to as “incidental recharge”). The amount of available or unfilled storage from the theoretical full condition is shown on Figure 1-3. Maintaining the basin storage condition on a long-term basis within the established operating range allows for long-term sustainable management of the basin without experiencing undesirable effects. Therefore, the undesirable result of “significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage” is not present and is not anticipated to occur in the OCWD Management Area in the future due to OCWD’s management programs. 60 . ~ ~· ,,,-· '·· '· c::1 OCWO Boundary •\,• .. D Or~nge County Coasta~~ Plam (DWR Bull. 118) '\ c:J County Boundaries ••, Aqu ifer Syst em "• ShaUow Aquifer System '•• Principal Aqu ifer System '•• Deep Aquifer System '• 12,500 25,000 ·,. 11----===::j ·,. ~ .._ _________ F_e_e_1 _______ •_,.:•:...s,.. _______ ....;:::..._....J_.L ___ ~L.-..l::=:.!!.=.::l...L..-----..::>.:...-.:..:;=-..:..::.i OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-12 1.6.3 Sustainable Management: Water Quality OCWD has extensive monitoring and management programs in place to monitor and protect groundwater quality. OCWD’s network of approximately 400 monitoring wells is distributed throughout the basin. Water quality in these wells is tested on a regular basis for a large number of parameters. OCWD also conducts groundwater quality sampling of approximately 200 production wells on behalf of the groundwater producers to comply with Title 22 requirements. An additional approximately 120 private, domestic, and irrigation production wells area also sampled periodically. OCWD has a sampling protocol in place that includes standards for increased monitoring of individual wells. In cases where there is a detection of an organic compound for the first time, for example, OCWD will resample that well and if the detection is confirmed will increase the sampling frequency of that well. Another example is an increased frequency for monitoring when there is a detection of nitrate at 50% of the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). These sampling protocols are designed to detect water quality problems at the earliest possible stage. The recent detections of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in groundwater have affected the use of groundwater by 11 groundwater producers. As described in detail later in this report, OCWD is taking steps to restore the beneficial uses of impacted groundwater by installing treatment systems to remove PFAS. The undesirable result of “significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality that impair water supplies” is not present and is not anticipated to occur in the future in the OCWD Management Area due to OCWD’s management programs. 1.6.4 Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion OCWD’s management of seawater intrusion is implemented through a comprehensive program that includes operating two seawater intrusion barriers, monitoring and evaluating barrier performance, monitoring and evaluating susceptible coastal areas, and coastal groundwater management. The Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier manages seawater intrusion in the Alamitos Gap. The Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier manages seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap. Work is underway to further characterize intrusion in the Sunset Gap, including construction of additional monitoring wells, further development of the Alamitos Barrier groundwater model to evaluate seawater intrusion in the area of the Sunset Gap, and feasibility studies to evaluate potential future barrier design. Monitoring and evaluating barrier performance and potential seawater intrusion consists of sampling monitoring wells semi-annually, measuring water levels at least quarterly, installing monitoring wells when needed to fill data gaps, and conducting other management activities to reduce potential for seawater intrusion, such as construction of additional injection wells and the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-13 The undesirable result of “significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion” is not present and is not anticipated to occur in the future in the OCWD Management Area due to OCWD’s management programs. 1.6.5 Sustainable Management: Land Subsidence Management of the groundwater basin by maintaining storage levels within the established operating range has prevented the undesirable result of significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface uses. Within the OCWD Management Area ground surface movements rise and fall as basin storage levels rise and fall. There is no evidence of long-term inelastic land subsidence, nor any land subsidence that has interfered with surface uses. Therefore, the undesirable result of “significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface uses” is not present and is not anticipated to occur in the OCWD Management Area in the future due to OCWD’s management programs. 1.6.6 Sustainable Management: Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters There are no surface water bodies within the OCWD Management Area that are interconnected with groundwater in which the groundwater connection to the surface water provides surface water flow to sustain beneficial uses in a surface water body. Therefore, the undesirable result of “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water due to groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin” is not present and is not anticipated to occur in the OCWD Management Area due to OCWD’s management programs. 1.7 PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS Protocols that trigger a change in a monitoring program include a change in regulations, a first- time detection of a constituent in a water sample, an increase in a constituent in a water sample that approaches or exceeds a regulatory limit or MCL, an indication of an adverse water quality trend or water level, a special study, or a recommendation from OCWD’s Independent Expert Panel. 1.8 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS OCWD regularly evaluates potential projects and conducts studies to improve existing operations. This may include: • Increasing the capacity of existing recharge basins • Constructing new recharge facilities • Constructing new production wells • Improving seawater intrusion barriers OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-14 • Constructing a new seawater barrier in the Sunset Gap • Constructing water quality improvement projects 1.9 CONCLUSION OCWD has been managing the OCWD Management Area since its formation by the State Legislature in 1933. Monitoring and management programs described in the 2017 Alternative, submitted in compliance with CA Code of Regulations (Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 1.5, Subchapter 2) demonstrated that the groundwater basin has been and will continue to be sustainably managed. The Alternative submitted in 2017 and approved by DWR in 2019 demonstrated that the OCWD Management Area operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years, as required by CCR Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 1.5, Subchapter 2, Article 9, Section 358.2 (c)(3). The 2022 Update, prepared to satisfy Water Code §10733.8, shows that the OCWD Management area continues to be managed sustainably. Please note that for consistency, the same chapter headings used in the 2017 Alternative are used in the 2022 Update. The goal of the update is to present new relevant information that has become available over the last five years. Where there is no new relevant information, the reader is directed to the 2017 Alternative by reference. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Agency Information 2-1 SECTION 2 AGENCY INFORMATION 2.1 HISTORY OF OCWD The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is a special district formed in 1933 by an act of the California Legislature, the OCWD Act. Additionally, as a special act district listed in Water Code § 10723 (c)(1), OCWD is the exclusive local agency within its jurisdictional boundaries with powers to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) via a groundwater sustainability plan (“GSP”) or via an Alternative prepared in accordance with Water Code § 10733.6. OCWD manages the groundwater basin that underlies north and central Orange County. Water produced from the basin is the primary water supply for approximately 2.5 million residents living within OCWD’s boundaries. With passage of SGMA (Water Code §10723(c)) in 2014, OCWD was designated the exclusive local agency within its jurisdictional boundaries with powers to comply with SGMA. Nineteen major groundwater producers, including cities, water districts, and a private water company, pump groundwater from approximately 200 large-capacity wells for retail water use. There are also approximately 120 small-capacity wells that pump water from the basin. OCWD protects and manages the groundwater resource for long-term sustainability, while meeting approximately 75 percent of the water demand within its service area. Since its founding, OCWD has grown in area from 162,676 to 243,968 acres and has experienced an increase in population from approximately 120,000 to 2.5 million people. OCWD has employed groundwater management techniques to increase the annual yield from the basin including operating over 1,500 acres of recharge basins in the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and unincorporated areas of Orange County. Annual groundwater production increased from approximately 150,000 acre-feet per year in the mid-1950s to a high of over 366,000 acre-feet per year in WY2007-08. OCWD has managed the basin to provide a reliable supply of relatively low-cost water, accommodating rapid population growth while at the same time avoiding the costly and time- consuming adjudication of water rights experienced in many other major groundwater basins in Southern California. Facing the challenge of increasing demand for water has fostered a history of innovation and creativity that has enabled OCWD to increase available groundwater supply while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the groundwater basin. A brief history of OCWD from 1933 to 2015 is provided in the 2017 Alternative. Significant events that have occurred during the last five years are as follows: 2018: GWRS sets the Guinness World Record for most wastewater recycled in 24 hours. The official amount was 100,008,000 gallons. 2019: OCWD’s Philip L. Anthony Water Quality Laboratory was the first public agency laboratory in California to achieve state certification to analyze for PFAS in drinking water. OCWD launched the nation’s largest pilot program to test various treatment options for PFAS. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Agency Information 2-2 2019: Construction of the GWRS Final Expansion began. Construction is anticipated to be completed in early 2023. Once complete the plant will produce up to 130 mgd and recycle 100 percent of reclaimable sources from the Orange County Sanitation District. 2021: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approves Prado Conservation Pool increase up to elevation 505 feet mean sea level (approx. 20,000 acre-feet of storage) based on the Prado Basin Ecosystem Restoration and Water Conservation Feasibility Study. 2021: The first PFAS treatment system, at Fullerton’s KIM-1A production well, is completed and the well returned to service. 2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE The Orange County Water District was created by the OCWD Act for the purpose of: “providing for the importation of water into said district and preventing waste of water in or exportation of water from said district and providing for reclamation of drainage, storm, flood and other water for beneficial use in said district and for the conservation and control of storm and flood water flowing into said district; providing for the organization and management of said district and establishing the boundaries and divisions thereof and defining the powers of the district, including the right of the district to sue and be sued, and the powers and duties of the officers thereof; providing for the construction of works and acquisition of property by the district to carry out the purposes of this act; authorizing the incurring of indebtedness and the voting, issuing and selling of bonds and the levying and collecting of assessments by said district; and providing for the inclusion of additional lands therein and exclusion of lands therefrom.” (Stats.1933, c. 924, p. 2400) Further details on OCWD governance and management are described in the 2017 Alternative. The nineteen major groundwater producers meet on a monthly basis with OCWD staff to consult with and provide advice on basin management issues. This group is described in more detail in Section 7.1. 2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY A description of OCWD’s legal authority is described in the 2017 Alternative. A copy of the OCWD Act, which has been the basis for OCWD’s sustainable management of its portion of Basin 8-1 over many years, can be found at: http://www.ocwd.com/media/2681/ocwddistrictact_201501.pdf OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Agency Information 2-3 2.4 BUDGET The mission of OCWD is to provide a reliable, high quality water supply in a cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner and to manage the Orange County groundwater basin in a sustainable manner over the long-term. For a summary description of OCWD’s budget structure, see the 2017 Alternative. For more recent information, see OCWD’s website at www.ocwd.com where detailed budget reports are published annually. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-4 SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION 3.1 OCWD MANAGEMENT AREA OCWD’s service area covers approximately 430 square miles and is co-extensive with the OCWD Management Area for purposes of the Alternative, except as identified below. The OCWD service area includes 90 percent of the area designated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as Basin 8-1, the “Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin” in Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2003). For the purposes of this Alternative, the OCWD Management Area contains the same geographical area as the portion of the OCWD service area within Basin 8-1 except for a small 6.7-square mile area in the northeast corner of the basin that is part of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. The boundaries of Basin 8-1, the OCWD service area and the OCWD Management Area are shown in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1: Basin 8-1, OCWD Service Area and OCWD Management Area .. ,, . ·"' ,,. ··, .. , .. , \,. ·, .. , .--··, ... L __,• OCWD Service A rea '-.,. .. ' OCWD Ma nageme nt Area ••,. / LJ DVVR Basin 8-1 •, •• J [=] County Bou nd ary N ', Mesas \ •••• __ / 0 12,000 24 ,000 W E •.._ • ......... ,· Feet ,.- OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-5 Jurisdictional Areas within OCWD Management Area Federal and state lands within the OCWD Management Area as well as city boundaries are shown in Figure 3-2 and have not changed since the 2017 Alternative. Retail water providers within OCWD’s service area are shown in Figure 3-3. The OCWD Management Area with a population of approximately 2.5 million is highly urbanized, as shown in Figure 3-4. Each of the 22 cities within OCWD’s jurisdiction has an adopted general plan. There are no federally recognized tribes with land and there are no adjudicated groundwater areas within the OCWD Management Area. The unincorporated areas are managed by the County of Orange. Groundwater supplies are managed as a single, shared resource with no separate water use sectors. Figure 3-2: Federal and State Lands OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-6 Figure 3-3: Retail Water Supply Agencies OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-7 Figure 3-4: Land Uses 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS This section describes the groundwater conditions within the OCWD Management Area. The focus is on data from the last five years. For some historical data, please see the 2017 Alternative. The description includes groundwater elevation, pumping patterns, storage levels, groundwater quality, information concerning land subsidence, seawater intrusion, and interactions between surface water and groundwater. All elevations in this report are in units of feet above mean sea level referenced to vertical datum NGVD29, which can be converted to NAVD88. Geographic locations are reported in GPS State Plane coordinates referenced to NAD83. 3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation Contours Figures 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7 show the contoured water levels for the Shallow, Principal and Deep Aquifers in June 2021. The contour maps for each of the three aquifer systems are prepared annually. The contour maps are used to prepare water level change maps for the three major I I ___ J RANGE CO NTY . ~------------, -Urban and Built-Up Farmland/Agriculture/Grazing OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-8 aquifer systems and to calculate the amount of groundwater in storage and the annual storage change. Figure 3-5: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Shallow Aquifer, June 2021 i=:i OCWD Service Boundary c .. =..1 County Boundaries Mesas 12 ,000 24 ,000 Feet w '/ "'i'"," ",r- June 2021 Groundwater Elevation Contours for Shallow Aquifer (Feet , MSL; NGVD29) OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-9 Figure 3-6: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal Aquifer, June 2021 ,=:i OC\ND Service B L -1 oundary -1 County Boundaries Mesas 12 ,000 24 ,000 Feet June 2021 Groundw Contour/ter Elevation < Aquifer for Principal Groundw I (Feet, Mste~~~~~~;'"s ---8010 -10 --0 OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-10 Figure 3-7: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Deep Aquifer, June 2021 3.2.2 Regional Pumping Patterns Active wells pumping water from the basin are shown in Figure 3-8. The approximately 200large- system wells account for an estimated 97 percent of the total basin production. The remaining three percent of total basin production includes agricultural and industrial producers, small mutual water companies, domestic well producers, and production from privately-owned wells. As can be seen in Figure 3-8, groundwater production is distributed throughout the basin. Please note that due to the recent impacts of COVID and PFAS, data from WY2018-19 is presented to show the typical average distribution of pumping in the basin. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-11 * Due to impacts from COVID-19 FY 2018-19 groundwater production was chosen to be representative of typical pumping patterns. Figure 3-8: Groundwater Production, WY2018-19 3.2.3 Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrographs Groundwater elevation trends exhibit both short-term (seasonal) and long-term fluctuations. Seasonal elevation changes reflect short-term variations in pumping and recharge, while multi- year trends reflect the effects of extended periods of above- or below-average precipitation and/or availability of imported water. OCWD measures elevations in three principal aquifer systems. In general, groundwater elevations in the Shallow Aquifer system show less amplitude than those in the underlying Principal and Deep Aquifer systems due to the higher degree of pumping and confinement of the Principal and Deep Aquifer systems. Because approximately 95 percent of all production occurs from wells screened within the Principal Aquifer system, groundwater elevations within this system are typically lower than those in the overlying Shallow Aquifer system and, in some areas, the underlying Deep Aquifer system. As a result, vertical gradients created by pumping --X SAN BERNARDI ' COUNTY ' ' _.. .............. ..... ...... ' OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-12 and recharge drive groundwater into the Principal Aquifer system from the overlying Shallow Aquifer system and, to a lesser extent, from the Deep Aquifer system. Groundwater elevation trends can be examined using seven wells with long-term groundwater level data, the locations of which are shown in Figure 3-9. Figures 3-10 and 3-11 show water level hydrographs for wells SA-21 and GG-16 representing historical conditions in the Pressure Area and well A-27 representing historical conditions in the Forebay. Water level data for well A-27 near Anaheim Lake dates back to 1932 and indicate that the historic low water level in this area occurred in 1951-52. The subsequent replenishment of Colorado River water essentially refilled the basin by 1965. Water levels in this well reached a historic high in 1994 and have generally remained high as recharge has been nearly continuous at Anaheim Lake since the late 1950s. Well A-27 was destroyed in May 2012. To continue this hydrograph, water levels from nearby OCWD monitoring well, AMD-9/1 is used. A comparison of water levels when the two wells were in operation show they are nearly identical. The hydrograph for well SA-21 indicates that water levels in this area have decreased since 1970. Also noteworthy is the large range of water level fluctuations from the early 1990s to early 2000s. The increased water level fluctuations during this period were due to a combination seasonal water demand-driven pumping and participation in the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MWD) Short-Term Seasonal Storage Program by local groundwater producers (Boyle Engineering and OCWD, 1997), which encouraged increased pumping from the groundwater basin during summer months when MWD was experiencing high demand for imported water. Although this program did not increase the amount of pumping from the basin on an annual basis, it did result in greater water level declines during the summer during the period of 1989 to 2002 when the program was active. Figure 3-12 presents water level hydrographs of two OCWD multi-depth monitoring wells, SAR- 1 and OCWD-CTG1, showing the relationship between water level elevations in aquifer zones at different depths. The hydrograph of well SAR-1 in the Forebay exhibits a similarity in water levels between shallow and deep aquifers, which indicates the high degree of hydraulic interconnection between aquifers characteristic of much of the Forebay. The hydrograph of well OCWD-CTG1 is typical of the Pressure Area in that there are large differences in water levels in different aquifers, indicating a reduced level of hydraulic interconnectivity between shallow and deep aquifers caused by fine-grained layers that restrict vertical groundwater flow. Water levels in the deepest aquifer zone at well OCWD-CTG1 are higher than overlying aquifers, in part, because few wells directly produce water from these zones. The lack of production from the deepest aquifers is due to the presences of amber- colored water, the cost to construct very deep wells, and the fact that sufficient high-quality groundwater is readily available within the overlying Principal aquifer. Two additional hydrographs for wells HBM-1 and IDM-1 show multi-depth water levels representative of the coastal area and the southwestern portion of the management area. The downward trend in water levels at well IDM-1 shows the effects of a water quality improvement project known as the Irvine Desalter Project. This joint project between OCWD and IRWD, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Navy, went on line in 2006 and consists of production OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-13 wells, pipelines, and treatment facilities to remove, treat, and put to beneficial use groundwater that contains elevated TDS, nitrate, and/or trichloroethylene. To provide the intended hydraulic containment of this impacted groundwater, lowered groundwater levels in the Irvine area were necessary and expected based on model projections. For additional information and background information on groundwater level measurements, see the 2017 Alternative. Figure 3-9: Location of Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrographs r -~~-ai~.,___ ---- ; .,, ...... ,,. < ·, .. '·· ~ Active Large-System '.. Production Well '• Destroyed and Sea led Well ,♦• Monitoring Well '•• '·· ~ '•• I .. $ ... ! .. Multiport Mon itoring Well l-.. 1 OCWD Service Boundary L County Boundaries Mesas 2 Miles ,,. I '( " '-.. , ......... OC W D M a n a g e m e nt A r e a BA S I N 8 -1 A L T E R N A T I V E 20 2 2 U P D A T E Ma n a g e m e n t A r e a D e s c r i p t i o n 3-14 Fi g u r e 3-10 : Wa t e r L e v e l H y d r o g r a p h s o f W e l l s S A -21 a n d G G -16 in P r e s s u r e A r e a "" 0 0 0 Water Leve l Elevat ion (ft NGVD29) b, 6, .b. "' 0 0 0 0 0 "" 0 ,. 0 1970 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 200 8 2010 2012 2014 2016 20 18 2020 ···············································,·~··········•:••··································· . . ··········· ············ ........................ J'.............. -......................... . . . ::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::r::::::>::::::::::::+:::::::::: ............ . ....................................................... ·········••1••········••1••········••1••········•1·•··:•J•••·······S·········••!••·········· ::::::::::: :::::::::~+::::::::::r;:::~ ' . . ···,············· .. ············r············ ' . . ,-·---· ···:-·---··----:--·--------- ------·--··-····-···-·····-··----···-. . ........ .,.. ........... -~ ........... . . . ··•····•·••1•·········:··i··········••:••····•~··-········;············· ----:----· .................. . ............................ . . ........................ ,,.. ........................ . ....................... ........... ············ .,. ............................ . ... ., .......... . ................................ ........... •······ ........... . ....................... . . ............... •❖············~············ . ' ••••••••••• •••••••••••• •••••••••••• ••••••••••••#••••T •••--.----.--....- • .................... • .......................... ~ ......... ,. ··'-···· ~·····:::::::[:::::::::::: ............... • ................................ ~.~ ....................... . ............................. ······ :::::::::::;::::::::::::;::::::::::::r:::::::::::;~::·:·;···4.·:: ::::::::::: :::::::::::: .. ··~· ... . ... . .. . .......... . ·····································~············;~ ......... ,........... . .......... . ....... •. . .............. . .................................... . . ·---·········-·••,i.••······ 2022 t ·;· ···;·,:, I 1 ,:, 1 , ~. 1 1 I -~··········;············ .... ·~ ........ . b, 0 1970 197 2 1974 1976 197 8 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 G) 19 88 G) 1990 I ...... 199 2 0) ~ 1994 0) 199 6 r+ CD 1998 .., r 2000 CD < 2002 CD (/) 2004 2006 2008 20 10 2012 20 14 20 16 20 18 2020 2022 Water Leve l Elevat ion (ft NGVD29) 0) .b. ~ N 0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 :::::::::::::::F:::::::::::J::::~::::::::~. ············"······ ................ L ,: :: I 1 i l' : : T T ••••••••••••• ::::::::::c:::::.:(: .. _. ·;; .: •••••••••••• ··········!··· : • •• : • • •••• t ••• l . -~····· ..,. ..................... . e:. ...... '. .. ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: •' .. :· .. :::::·::::::::: :::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: ........................................... .......... ········•······· ................................... . . ·•••· '··············••:••··············· J •• c •••••••• ?J•••f ······••1•••·•·•········· ... :(::::::.:::: .... :]::::::::::::::: .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; ................ . ,·. -:· ............... -~ ................ -:· ............... . . . . ····· ........... ······· ................... . ············~::L~:::::::·-:j:·::::::::::::·· ...................................... . . ............ ;. ................ .; ................ . ............................. ················ ................ .,____,_,._,, ......................................... . -... ...... ········•······· •••••••••••••·•· ............. ............... . (/) )> I I\.) ...... ~ 0) r+ CD .., r CD < CD (/) OC W D M a n a g e m e nt A r e a BA S I N 8 -1 A L T E R N A T I V E 20 2 2 U P D A T E Ma n a g e m e n t A r e a D e s c r i p t i o n 3-15 Fi g u r e 3-11 : Wa t e r L e v e l H y d r o g r a p h of W e l l A -27 /A M D -9 in F o r e b a y Ar e a Water Level Elevation (ft NGVD29) N ~ ~ m oo o ~ ~ m oo o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;~~~E.' .. ' .. '.! .. ' .. '~'. .. ' .. 'J .' .. ' .. ' .. ! .. ' .. ' .. '.J .. ' .. ' .. ' . .l..'.·'·'••!•-'··'··'·l •• '.-'·'··I 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 · f':::::: ,: : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : :t::::::::: :: : : : : : : : : =~:::::: 'f•·········~·········-:··········~·········-:··········~·-···· -'----'----'-"-" .... -· ............ -........................ .. ~::::j::::;::::~:::::::::r:::::::::!:::::: --......... ~ ... ~ ......... -:-......... ~ ..... . l> l> S: ,:.,, 0 -.J k. .... ······,·········· .......................... . _______ .. _____ _ ....... , ............................................... . ~:::;{:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............... ::::::::: --····· ......... ......... ........ ..... . ....... . -.---a:"••··········,·······•·-:---······· ..................................... . .. ............................ .................... ......... ........ . ::::::::::::::::::·~ ............. -....... ...,, ••• _ •• ;.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ................................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ·········!········· ................. . ......... ......... ......... ......... . ................ . ······•·• ......... ········· ......... ----·---- ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ,--,,>;..:,;=.:.: ...... ::::::::: ··-······· ·········:·-········ ·-•;•-·-·· ··-:······- ................. •• a , ••• : ................ . ........................ ""----'--"~···•·•~····· --...... J.:::::: .. . 2012 I ... -···-··--·····----· I 20 "' t ·····es"'1' ' ~m : j:: :~;a~H : 2022 • ;r 1 r -r 1 • • r • .;;it.;.;;;:;.;· • -··1··········,·········· ·······•·1 ·• .. _•_••······· )> I I\.) -....J Qo )> s:: 0 I (0 --_.. ~ Ill ...... (D -, r (D < (D (/) OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-16 Figure 3-12: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SAR-1 and OCWD-CTG1 100 m N 0 6 80 z ~ C: 0 ·~ 60 6j [jJ ai 6j ...J ~ 40 i 20 20 0 m N 0 6 -20 z c: -40 0 ii 6j w -60 ai 6j ...J Qi -80 l -100 -120 . . . . ' ' . ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' --·•J:•.~~~·-. ' . . ' ' . ·····-··---····-·-··-······-·-···-········ . ' ' . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . ......................... ,. .............. . ~ MP I (1e2 ft bgs) -+-MP2 (2Q7 ft bgs) -a-MP3 (327 ft bgs) -+-M P◄ (307 ft bgs) -.,-. MP5 (51 Q ft bgs) ~ MPe (564 ft bgs) MF>7 (82CI ftbgs) -+-MPS (8Q.4 ft bgs) -MPQ (Q14ftbgs) -+-MP 10 (10 1 ◄ ft bgs) -+-MP11 (111 ◄ftbgs) -MP 12(123-4ftbgs) -+-MP 13 (13 7◄ ft bgs) .......... MP14(t4-4eftbgl) 2008 2009 20 10 20 11 2012 20 13 20 14 2015 20 16 2017 2018 20 19 2020 2021 2022 OCWD-CTG 1 Water Levels . ' ' . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... . ..... ! .............................................. . ' . ' . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·····t·····(·····-:-······~·· . . . . . . . . . ···+·1 L -j--·-·(1 · ( . . . . . . . . . . . . ---OCWD-CTG1 /2 RP Elev-32 .79 ft NGVD29; Pert Int: 420 -720 ft bgs OCWD-CTG1/3 RP Elev -32 .82 ft NGVD29 . Pert Int: 800 -1025 ft bg s OCWD-CTG 1/4 RP Elev -32 82 tt NGVD29 . Perl Int: 1060 ·1220 11 bgs ·········---·······"······························· ................................ ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' . ' . ' . ' ' ' . ' . ' . ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' . . ' ' . . . . . . ... ~-............... : ........ :. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...... :. ....... ~ ...... : ..... . ' . ' ' ' ' ' . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' . ' . . ' ' . ' . . . . . . . ' . . ' . •••••••••••••••• ••••• ···•·········.-···----·· . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . ' . ' . ' . . . ·····r·····r · r y r .. ····r ..... 1······r·····r·····r .. NOT~. Verti ~al sc al e:grea 1e,:1han sc~le used:for oth e! Multi-d~pl h we (I graph~. -{··--·---:•--···-·;'--···--i --------;--------:--------{-·--·-. . . . . . . . . ' ' . ' . . . . . . . . _ 140 luwcu=<luuwwiliw~ulwwwulwcuw.wluww,uwcuw.ww.ww,uwcuw.wuJ.wwuwJ:W..ww.lwu,uw.lw.ww.<luu,uwcuw.ww.ulw,uww1uww.wJ 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 2018 2019 2020 202 1 2022 OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-17 Figure 3-13: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells HBM-1 and IDM-1 10 s N ~ -10 (.'.) z ~ C 0 ~ -30 Cl) [jJ ai ai ..J ~ -50 ~ -70 --4-MF>1 (0 1 ft bg:s) -+-MP2 (1Q \flbgs) .....,_ MP3 (32 1 "bgs) -+-MP4 (-i83ftbgs) -e-M~(~2ftbgs) MP6 (702 ft bgs) , -+-MP7 (Q'24f'lbgs) -----:---MP8 (1036Nbg1,) • -+-MPG(1130ftbgs) --+-MP-10 (1362ttbg:s) --+-MP11 {1464!1.bgs) -MP12 (1544 flbgs) -+-MP13 (1&44 ti bg:s) -+-MPt 4 (1034fl bgs) -·-········ .. ········•···· ' ' ' ' ' . -90 W.U.LWJJL.LW.1.LLW.w.l.uLWJJJJ.U.l.L1.W.1.W.UWJ.J.L.LLW.LLl.w1.W.U.wl.J.UJ.J.JawJ.JJ.LLW..L1.W.liL.wLJ.W.1.LLlJ.J.LWJJw.w.LLW.W.IJClw.JJ.L1.W.iliu.LWJJLJ.LlJ.I.LLW.I..LIJJ,1.LWJ.w.u.J 2007 2008 2009 2010 201 1 20 12 2013 2014 20 15 2016 2017 20 18 2019 2020 2021 2022 s N 0 120 100 80 G z 60 ~ C 0 ·-ai 40 ai [jJ ai ai 20 ..J cii f 0 -20 -40 .. .....,._ ~Pl (a&ltbgs) -+-WP2 (27 1 ft bgs) _.,_ MP3(33.eft bgs) I~ W.P4 (43eftbgs) -+-~P5 (~3 1 ftbgs) -+-MPa (703 ft bgs) -MP7 (Ml ft bgs) IDM-1 WATER LEVELS RP Elev: 162 .52 ft NGVD29 . ' . . ' N;OTE : Vetlical se al~ grealer:than scare use d ; for p lher W"!"tba y we!I graphs. I . . ' . . ' ' . ' ' . . . . ' ' . ' . --~ --.. --... -----.. -.... --.. --.. ---... -' . . ' . . . ' . . ' ' . . ...... -:-........ ~ ........ ~-....... -~ ........ ~ ........ -:-........ ! ...... . ' ' . ' . . . ' . . ' ' ' ' . . . ··········-·-·--···-····-··· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2007 2008 2009 2010 20 11 2012 2013 2014 2015 20 16 2017 2018 20 19 2020 2021 2022 OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-18 3.2.4 Groundwater Storage Data OCWD operates the basin within an operating range from a full condition to approximately 500,000 acre-feet below full to protect against seawater intrusion, inelastic land subsidence, and other potential undesirable results. Figure 1-3 shows how storage has fluctuated from 1958 to 2021. On a short-term basis, the basin can be operated at an even lower storage level in an emergency. In order to manage the basin within this operating range, OCWD calculates the change in storage relative to a full basin condition on an annual basis for the three aquifer layers, an example of which is shown in Figure 3-14. Figure 3-14: Groundwater Storage Change, June 2020 to June 2021 3.3 BASIN MODEL OCWD’s basin model encompasses most of Basin 8-1 and extends approximately three miles into the Central Basin in Los Angeles County to provide for more accurate model results than if the model boundary stopped at the county line (see Figure 3-15). The county line is not a hydrogeologic boundary, and groundwater freely flows through aquifers that have been correlated across the county line. The model provides a tool to supplement the storage change calculations that are done each year with actual groundwater elevation data. The model also provides a tool to conduct evaluations of proposed projects and operating scenarios. For more detailed information about the model, please refer to the 2017 Alternative. -200,000AF June 2020 - Shallow Aquifer: -35 ,000 AF -48,000 AF Principal Aquifer: -10,000AF -248,000AF DeeoAauifer:-3.000AF V June 2021 OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-19 Figure 3-15: OCWD Groundwater Basin Model Boundaries OCWD staff update the basin groundwater model approximately every three to five years. Major changes and improvements since the 2017 Alternative was submitted include: 1. Extension of the model transient calibration through WY2016-17. The new calibration period is November 1990 to June 2017 which includes a wide range of basin storage conditions as well as a wide range of hydrologic conditions. 2. Addition of new recharge basin, La Palma Basin. 3. Updating aquifer parameters, i.e., hydraulic conductivity and storage parameters, changes during calibration (still in progress). 4. Model layer revision in Irvine Sub Basin area. 3.3.1 Groundwater Quality Conditions Salinity .. ·"' ,,. 1·· ·, ··, .. '· ·, ··, .. . '· ~ ·, i ··, ..... f ' ; ··-·· ··, ~ ~ 1-.. 1 OCWD Service Boundary N ••, •• ! L .. :J County Boundaries ~, i Mesas w~ ~., lf-E '-. f 0 12 ,000 24 ,000 y ......... ~ '---------F_e_e1 ______________ •..,_ .. _,,....._ _____ ....... ""' __ -=:;_==-"----.>.1....:.... ____ ...r.:,....:,;c..:;..c.....:,._, OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-20 At the state level, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards have authority to manage TDS concentrations in water supplies. The salinity management program for the Santa Ana River Watershed is implemented by the Basin Monitoring Program Task Force (Task Force), a group comprised of water districts, wastewater treatment agencies and the Regional Water Board. OCWD is a member of the Task Force. Historical ambient or baseline conditions were calculated for levels of TDS and nitrate (as N) in each of the 39 groundwater management zones in the watershed. Management Zones established by the Regional Water Board within the OCWD Management Area are shown in Figure 3-16. The TDS water quality objectives and ambient water quality levels for the two zones within the OCWD Management Area are shown in Table 3-1. Figure 3-16: Regional Water Board Groundwater Management Zones ----', SAN BERNARDINO ', COUNTY " ....... ~, ' RI VERS IDE \COUNTY \ \ ·, '\ '\_ OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-21 Table 3-1: TDS Water Quality Objectives for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones Groundwater Management Zone Water Quality Objective 2018 Ambient Quality* Orange 580 mg/L 603 mg/L Irvine 910 mg/L 877 mg/L *Water Systems Consulting, 2020. Figure 3-17 shows the average TDS at production wells in the basin for WY2016-17 to 2020-21. In general, the TDS concentrations in the Principal Aquifer in the Orange Groundwater Management Zone generally range from 300 to 400 mg/L in the Pressure Area and from 500 to 700 mg/L in the Forebay Area. In the Irvine Groundwater Management Zone, TDS concentrations range from approximately 400 mg/L west of Culver Drive to 1,000 mg/L in the area northeast of Interstate 5. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-22 Figure 3-17: TDS in Groundwater Production Wells, 5-year average, WY2016-17 to 2020-21 Nitrate Management of nitrate is a component of the salinity management program in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Along with TDS objectives, water quality objectives for nitrate (as N) are established for each of the 39 groundwater management zones in the watershed. Water quality objectives and ambient quality levels for the zones within the OCWD Management Area are shown in Table 3-2. Figure 3-18 shows the 5-year average nitrate (as N) levels in production wells for WY2016-17 to 2020-21. In general, nitrate (as N) concentrations in the Orange Groundwater Management Zone are generally less than 5 mg/L. There are some localized areas with concentrations greater than 10 mg/L. In cases where pumped groundwater exceeds the MCL, the groundwater producer treats the water to reduce nitrate (as N) levels prior to being served to customers. ii ~ ~ ~ I ·"'·· .,. ,, .. ··,. ' ·\. Total Dissolved Solids (mg /L) •• 2017 -2021 5-Year Average '• 0 <300 '· 0 300 • 500 '·· 0 500 • 700 '·· 0 700 • 900 '··, 0 >900 ··, ,:' .,., I ,, ' g i:::i OCWD Service Boundary ! L,---:_] Coun ty Boundaries i ~ 0 12,000 24 ,000 w ......... •--t::==:::i Feet 5 •-, .. ~._ _______________________ _j...:_ ____ _::.?3:l.___L_ _______ :ll_ ____ .:...__J " OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-23 Table 3-2: Nitrate (as N) Water Quality Objective for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones Groundwater Management Zone Water Quality Objective 2018 Ambient Quality* Orange 3.4 mg/L 3.0 mg/L Irvine 5.9 mg/L 6.37 mg/L *Water Systems Consulting, 2020. Figure 3-18: Nitrate (as N) Levels in Groundwater Production Wells, 5-year average, WY2016-17 to 2020-21 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of thousands of manmade chemicals that includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). PFAS compounds have been commonly used in many products including, among many others, stain- and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick products (e.g., Teflon), polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning I Nitrate-nitrogen (mg/L) ~ 2017-2021 5-Year Average ~ 0 <2 .5 I o 2.51-5.0 > 0 5.01. 7 .5 t O 7.51 • 10.0 1 o > 10 .a g i=:i OC\/v'D Service Boundary ! [_~-=-l Coun ty Boundaries 1~ ~ 0 12 ,000 24 ,000 " -----/'<-. SAN BERNARDINO I/If "-,'-COUN TY --.. ~, .. , lr---.... , ., ---: ' ', .. " w OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-24 products, and fire-fighting foams. Beginning in the summer of 2019, the California Division of Drinking Water (DDW) began requiring testing for PFAS compounds in some groundwater production wells in the OCWD area. In February 2020, the DDW lowered its Response Levels (RL) for PFOA and PFOS to 10 and 40 parts per trillion (ppt or nanogram/L, ng/L), respectively. In March 2021, DDW established a third PFAS RL for perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) at 5,000 ppt. The DDW recommends the public water systems not serve any water exceeding the RL – effectively making the RL a de facto interim MCL while the state undertakes the formal process to set an enforceable MCL. In response to DDW’s issuance of the revised RL, as of September 2021, approximately 60 wells in the OCWD service area have been temporarily turned off until treatment systems can be constructed. As additional wells are tested, this figure may increase. The state has begun the process of establishing MCLs for PFOA and PFOS; in July 2021, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) released draft Public Health Goals (PHGs) for PFOA and PFOS or 0.007 ng/L and 1 ng/L, respectively, for public comment. After the PHGs are finalized, DDW will formally begin developing corresponding MCLs and currently anticipates issuing a final MCL by 2023 or 2024. OCWD anticipates the MCLs will be set at or below the RLs. In April 2020, OCWD as the groundwater basin manager, executed a multi-party agreement with the impacted groundwater producers to fund and construct the necessary treatment systems for production wells impacted by PFAS compounds. The PFAS treatment projects include the design, permitting, construction, and operation of PFAS treatment systems for impacted production wells. Each well treatment system will be evaluated for use with either granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange (IX), or an alternative novel sorbent for the removal of PFAS compounds. These treatment systems utilize vessels in a lead-lag configuration to remove PFOA and PFOS to less than 2 ppt, the current laboratory detection limit. These PFAS treatment systems are designed to ensure the groundwater supplied by producer wells can be served in compliance with current and future PFAS regulations. The groundwater producers will own the treatment systems once they are completed. With financial assistance from OCWD, the groundwater producers will operate and maintain the new treatment systems once they are constructed. To minimize alternative water supply expenses and provide maximum protection to the public water supply, OCWD initiated design, permitting, and construction of the PFAS treatment projects on a schedule that allows rapid deployment of treatment systems. As of September 2021, construction contracts have been awarded for treatment systems for production wells owned by the cities of Orange (Phase 1), and Garden Grove, Serrano Water District, and Yorba Linda Water District. The City of Anaheim has also awarded a design-build contact (phase A) for 8 impacted wells, that will be reimbursed by OCWD. The City of Fullerton’s well KIM-1A treatment system has been completed and is in operation. Additional construction contracts are anticipated to be awarded for impacted wells operated by the cities of Fullerton (Main Plant), Orange (Phase 2), Santa Ana, Tustin, Irvine Ranch Water District and East Orange County Water District by early 2022. OCWD expects the treatment systems to be constructed for the approximately 60 impacted wells within the next 2 to 3 years. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-25 As monitoring continues and additional wells are taken off-line due to PFAS detections reported at or near the current RL (or future MCL), OCWD will continue to partner with the affected groundwater producers and take action to design and construct necessary treatment systems to bring the impacted wells back online as quickly as possible. Groundwater production in WY2020-21 was expected to be approximately 325,000 acre-feet but declined to 282,000 acre-feet primarily due to PFAS impacted wells being turned off around February 2020. OCWD expects groundwater production to be in the area of 250,000 acre-feet in WY2021-22 due to the currently idled wells and additional wells being impacted by PFAS and turned off. As PFAS treatment systems are constructed, OCWD expects total annual groundwater production to slowly increase back to levels similar to years prior to PFAS impacts. Contamination Plumes Major groundwater contamination sites within the OCWD Management Area include areas where contamination has migrated significantly beyond the contamination sources and threaten to further impact the groundwater quality. These plumes, shown in Figure 3-19, are in the process of being remediated, and some are being evaluated for additional remediation. The North Basin Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) plume area contains contaminated groundwater primarily in the Shallow Aquifer, which is generally less than 200 feet deep with migration downward into the Principal Aquifer. OCWD is performing a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) under the oversight of the U.S. EPA and working with state regulatory agencies and stakeholders to evaluate and develop effective remedies to address the contamination under the National Contingency Plan process. The U.S. EPA is the lead agency for this North Basin RI/FS. The South Basin plume area contains VOCs and perchlorate. OCWD has collected extensive data to delineate the comingled plumes. OCWD is performing an RI/FS in consultation with the Regional Water Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and stakeholders to evaluate and develop effective remedies to address the contamination under the National Contingency Plan process, designated as the South Basin Groundwater Protection Project (SBGPP). The U.S. Navy is taking the lead in remediation of three groundwater contamination plumes of VOCs in the vicinity of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), former Tustin MCAS, and the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-26 Figure 3-19: Groundwater Contamination Plume Locations 3.3.2 Coastal Gaps In the coastal area of Orange County, the primary source of saline groundwater is seawater intrusion into the basin through permeable aquifer sediments underlying topographic lowlands or gaps between the erosional remnants or mesas of the Newport-Inglewood Uplift. The susceptible locations from north to south are the Alamitos, Sunset, Bolsa, and Talbert gaps as shown in Figure 3-20. Note that new wells added within the last five years are shown in Figure 3-20. Background information on these gaps is contained in the 2017 Alternative. Ongoing activities related to seawater intrusion protection is described in subsequent sections of this report. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-27 Figure 3-20: Orange County Coastal Gaps 3.3.3 Land Subsidence In Orange County, subsidence in swampy low-lying coastal areas underlain by shallow organic peat deposits started as early as 1898 when development of these areas for agriculture resulted in excavation of unlined drainage ditches. The ditches drained the swamps and intercepted the shallow water table which was lowered to allow the land to drain adequately for irrigated agriculture. When the shallow water table was lowered, it exposed the formerly saturated peat deposits to oxygen that caused depletion and shrinkage of the peat due to oxidation (Fairchild and Wiebe, 1976). Subsidence related to shallow peat deposits was associated with land development practices that occurred in Orange County in the late 1800s and early 1900s and, as such, is not something associated with or controlled by groundwater withdrawals in the basin. Another documented cause of subsidence in Orange County unrelated to groundwater basin utilization is oil extraction along the coast, particularly in Huntington Beach (Morton et al., 1976). I ""' Additional Active Large-System i,zJ Production Well (since 2016) ~ Additona l Monitoring Well (since 2016) ~ Additional Injection Well (since 2016) $ Active large-System Production Well $ Monitoring Well ♦ Multiport Monitoring Well ■ Injection Well ____..., Potential Path of Seawater Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge w N Newport Mesa I OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-28 Ground surface elevations rise and fall due to groundwater conditions in the OCWD Management Area, and there is no indication of widespread irreversible lowering of the ground surface. Storage conditions in the groundwater basin were at historical lows in the mid-1950s, but since this time OCWD has operated the groundwater basin within a storage range above this historical low. There are reports that some subsidence may have occurred before OCWD began refilling the groundwater basin in the late 1950s (Morton, et al., 1976); however, the magnitude and scope of this subsidence is uncertain, and it is not clear if this subsidence was permanent. As such, there is no evidence of permanent, inelastic land subsidence in the OCWD Management Area (see Section 13), and future subsidence is not expected as long as OCWD continues to manage basin storage above the historic low observed in the late 1950s. 3.3.4 Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Frequent and destructive flooding of the Santa Ana River in Orange County was the impetus for construction of Prado Dam in 1941. Prior to the construction of flood control facilities, the banks of the Santa Ana River naturally overflowed periodically and flooded broad areas of Orange County. Coastal marshes were inundated during winter storms, and the mouth of the river moved both northward and southward of its present location. In the days before flood control, surface water naturally percolated into the groundwater basin, replenishing groundwater supplies. Subsequent flood protection efforts included construction of levees along the river and concrete- lined bottoms along portions of the river. Flood risk was reduced, increased pumping of groundwater lowered water levels, and low-lying areas were filled in and/or equipped with drains, pumps and other flood control measures to allow for urban development. Since at least the 1950s, groundwater levels throughout the OCWD Management Area have been low enough that the rising and lowering of groundwater levels do not impact surface water flows or ecosystems. Although it is outside the OCWD Management Area (within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area described later), it is noted that from Prado Dam to Imperial Highway, the wide soft- bottomed Santa Ana River channel supports riparian habitat. Riparian habitat is dependent on river water released through Prado Dam, which is predominantly treated wastewater discharged in the upper watershed when storm flow is not present. In aggregate, this stretch is generally considered to be in equilibrium between surface water and groundwater based on available stream gage and groundwater level data, although some infiltration may occur due to minor groundwater pumping in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. As the Santa Ana River enters the OCWD Management Area, from Imperial Highway to 17th Street in Santa Ana, there is minimal riparian habitat, and the river is a losing reach with engineered facilities to infiltrate surface water into the groundwater basin. OCWD conducts recharge operations within the soft-bottomed river channel except for a portion of the river where the Riverview Golf Course occupies the river channel. The river levees are constructed of either rip-rap or concrete. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Management Area Description 3-29 From 17th Street to near Adams Avenue in Costa Mesa, the river channel is concrete-lined for flood control with vertical to sloping concrete side walls and a concrete bottom. From Adams Avenue to the coast, the channel has vertical concrete side walls or rip-rap for flood control and a soft bottom. Estuary conditions within the concrete channel exist at the mouth of the river where the ocean encroaches at high tide. The tidal prism extends from the ocean approximately three miles inland to the Adams Avenue Bridge. There are no surface water bodies within the boundaries of the OCWD Management Area that are dependent on groundwater. Therefore, there are no groundwater-dependent ecosystems in the OCWD Management Area. Some areas in the basin experience relatively high groundwater levels due to perched groundwater where shallow groundwater is impeded from flowing into deeper groundwater by a layer of low-permeable clay or silt, known as an aquitard. Except in very low-lying areas near sea level, the high groundwater is not close enough to the surface to support hydrophilic vegetation. OCWD carefully monitors water levels in the vicinity of the Talbert Seawater Barrier in order to maintain injection well rates to assure that groundwater levels do not rise to levels that could threaten urban infrastructure. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Budget 4-1 SECTION 4 WATER BUDGET OCWD developed a hydrologic budget (inflows and outflows) for the purpose of constructing a basin-wide groundwater flow model, (Basin Model) and for evaluating basin production capacity and recharge requirements. The key components of the budget include measured and unmeasured (estimated) recharge, groundwater production, and subsurface flows along the coast and across the Orange County/Los Angeles County line. Because the basin is not operated on an annual safe-yield basis, the net change in storage in any given year may be positive or negative; however, over the long-term, the basin is operated within the established operating range. The components of the water budget are described below. OCWD’s water year (WY) begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. 4.1 WATER BUDGET COMPONENTS 4.1.1 Measured Recharge Measured recharge consists of all water artificially recharged at OCWD’s surface water recharge facilities, water injected in the Talbert and Alamitos Barriers, and water injected in the Mid-Basin Injection wells. The majority of measured recharge occurs in the District’s surface water system, which receives Santa Ana River baseflow and storm flow, GWRS water, and imported water. 4.1.2 Unmeasured Recharge Unmeasured recharge also referred to as “incidental recharge” accounts for a significant amount of the basin’s recharge, particularly in wet periods. This includes recharge from precipitation, irrigation return flows, urban runoff, seawater inflow through the gaps as well as subsurface inflow at the basin margins along the Chino, Coyote, and San Joaquin hills and the Santa Ana Mountains, and beneath the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Subsurface inflow beneath the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek refers to groundwater that enters the basin at the mouth of Santa Ana Canyon and in the Santiago Creek drainage below Villa Park Dam. Estimated average subsurface inflow to the basin is shown in Figure 4-1. OCWD has estimated total unmeasured recharge, sometimes referred to as “incidental recharge,” between 20,000 and 160,000 acre-feet per year. Net unmeasured recharge is the amount of unmeasured recharge remaining in the basin after accounting for underflow losses to Los Angeles County and relatively minor groundwater inflows/outflows at the coastal gaps. Under average hydrologic conditions, net incidental recharge averages 66,000 acre-feet per year. This average was substantiated during calibration of the Basin Model and is also consistent with the estimate of 58,000 acre-feet per year reported by Hardt and Cordes (1971) as part of a USGS modeling study of the basin. Because unmeasured recharge is one of the least understood components of the basin’s water budget, the error margin for any given year is likely in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 acre-feet. Since unmeasured recharge is well distributed OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Budget 4-2 throughout the basin, the physical significance (e.g., water level drawdown or mounding in any given area) of overestimating or underestimating the total recharge volume within this error margin is considered to be minor. Figure 4-1: Estimated Subsurface Inflow 4.1.3 Groundwater Production Entities that produce groundwater within the OCWD Management Area include major groundwater producers and small groundwater producers. Ninety-eight percent of groundwater production within Basin 8-1 occurs within the OCWD Management Area. The major groundwater producers include cities, water districts and a private water company that account for approximately 97 percent of the total basin production. These 19 major producers operate approximately 200 large-system wells. Small groundwater producers include entities that typically .Jr-LA ......._-::::::::-t-~~--c.-----.._ ~ PALMA I { j CYPRESS .. ,·· LOS AU.MITOS Drainage into OCWD Basin 1. Inflow from LaHab ra bas in 2. Recharge from footh ills into Yorba Linda subbasin 3. Subsurface inflow at Imperial Hwy beneath the SAR 4. Recharge along Peralta Hills 5. Subsurface inflow from Santiago Canyon 6. Recharge along Tustin Hills 7. Recharge from footh ills into Irvine subbas in 6,000 5,000 4,000 10 ,000 6,000 14 ,000 48 ,000 STANTON GARDEN GROVE ---1::::::====l Miles .,< q_S' ~ ,q' s SANTA C ANA ~ OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Budget 4-3 produce less than 500 acre-feet per year. These include small mutual water companies, agricultural companies, golf courses, cemeteries (irrigation wells), and private-well owners. Groundwater pumping for agricultural irrigation use accounts for less than one percent of total basin production. 4.1.4 Subsurface Outflow Groundwater outflow from the basin across the Los Angeles County/Orange County line has been estimated to range from approximately 1,000 to 14,000 acre-feet per year based on groundwater elevation gradients and aquifer transmissivity (DWR, 1967; McGillicuddy, 1989). The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) also has estimated underflow from Orange County to Los Angeles County within the aforementioned range. Groundwater outflow cannot be directly measured and is accounted for in the basin water budget within the net unmeasured recharge described above. Modeling by OCWD indicates that underflow to Los Angeles County increases by approximately 7,500 acre-feet per year for every 100,000 acre- feet of increased groundwater in storage in Orange County, given the assumption that groundwater elevations in Los Angeles County remain constant. Recent updates to the OCWD groundwater model show that subsurface outflow averaged approximately 13,000 acre-feet per year during the period 1991 to 2017 with a range of 5,000 to 25,000 acre-feet per year. Due to differences in model-estimated inter-basin groundwater flows, OCWD and WRD are jointly conducting a study to evaluate OCWD’s Basin Model and WRD’s groundwater model of Central Basin in Los Angeles County constructed by the USGS. The goal is to improve each model’s ability to more closely represent local groundwater conditions and thereby more accurately estimate inter-basin groundwater flows. With the exception of unknown amounts of semi-perched (near-surface) groundwater being intercepted and drained by submerged sewer trunk lines and unlined flood control channels along coastal portions of the basin, no other significant basin outflows are known to occur. 4.1.5 Evaporation The total wetted area of the District’s recharge system is over 1,000 acres. OCWD estimates the evaporation from this system on a monthly basis. Generally, total evaporation is on the order of 2,000 acre-feet per year which is approximately one percent of the total volume recharged annually. The relatively minor impact of evaporation reflects moderate temperatures in the region and high percolation rates (1 to 10 feet per day). 4.2 WATER YEAR TYPE As explained previously, OCWD manages groundwater pumping and basin storage over the long-term, which includes wet and dry years. Basin storage levels from WY1957-58 to 2020-21 are shown in Figure 1-3. Typically, basin storage levels increase during wet periods and decrease during dry periods. Operating the basin within the operating range provides for maximum basin production while preventing significant and unreasonable undesirable results. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Budget 4-4 4.3 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD Even though the groundwater basin contains an estimated 66 million acre-feet when full, OCWD operates the basin within an operating range of up to 500,000 acre-feet below full condition to protect against seawater intrusion, inelastic land subsidence, and other potential undesirable results. On a short-term basis, the basin can be operated at an even lower storage level in an emergency. OCWD manages groundwater production and recharge to maintain groundwater storage levels within the established operating range. In this sense, the basin’s sustainable yield can be defined as the volume of groundwater production that can be sustained while maintaining groundwater in storage within the operating range. Basin storage is determined on an annual basis by calculating the difference between groundwater production and recharge based on OCWD’s July 1 to June 30 water year. The sustainable yield of the basin is a function of the amount of groundwater recharge from OCWD’s managed aquifer recharge program and natural recharge as a result of precipitation and percolation of irrigation flows. The process that determines a sustainable level of pumping on an annual basis considers the basin’s operating range, basin storage conditions and the amount of available recharge water supplies. As mentioned in Section 1.2, the groundwater basin is not operated on an annual safe-yield basis. The net change in storage in any given year may be positive or negative; however, over a period of several years, the basin is maintained in an approximate balance. Amounts of total basin production and total water recharged from WY1999-2000 to 2020-21 are shown in Figure 1-4. 4.4 WATER BUDGETS The OCWD Management Area water budget for WY2016-17 to 2020-21 is presented in Table 4- 1. Estimated water budgets for dry years, average years and wet years as well as a future projected budget are presented in the 2017 Alternative. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Budget 4-1 Table 4-1 Water Budget, WY2016-17 to 2020-21 FLOW COMPONENT 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 INFLOW Santa Ana River baseflow 70,000 65,400 98,000 74,500 76,400 Santa Ana River stormflow 65,400 24,100 63,700 79,500 36,600 Recycled Water (GWRS/Alamitos Barrier) 98,000 106,400 97,200 99,700 101,700 Imported Water 50,400 66,100 40,300 18,100 0 Net Estimated Unmeasured or Incidental Recharge* 67,900 26,200 45,600 41,400 19,100 TOTAL INFLOW: 351,700 288,200 344,800 313,200 233,800 OUTFLOW Groundwater Production 300,700 237,200 303,800 277,200 281,800 TOTAL OUTFLOW: 300,700 237,200 303,800 277,200 281,800 CHANGE IN STORAGE: 51,000 51,000 41,000 36,000 (48,000) OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-1 SECTION 5 WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS 5.1 OVERVIEW Water resource monitoring programs can be categorized into groundwater, surface water, and recycled and imported water programs. These programs are summarized in Table 5-1 in the 2017 Alternative. The only change is related to the termination of CASGEM, which is being replaced by annual reporting required by SGMA. 5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS OCWD collects samples and analyzes water elevation and water quality data from approximately 400 District-owned monitoring wells (shown in Figure 5-1) and at over 250 privately-owned and publicly-owned large and small system drinking water wells that are part of OCWD’s Title 22 program, shown in Figure 5-2. OCWD also has access agreements to sample a number of non-District-owned monitoring wells and privately-owned irrigation, domestic and industrial wells, shown in Figure 5-3. New wells constructed in the last five years are highlighted in these figures. Inactive wells are included in District monitoring programs when feasible. An inactive well is defined as a well that is not currently being routinely operated. The number and location of wells that are sampled change regularly as new wells come online and old ones are abandoned and destroyed. The District collects, stores, and uses data from wells owned and sampled by other agencies. For example, data collected by the WRD from wells in Los Angeles County along the Orange County boundary are part of the network of wells evaluated to determine annual groundwater elevations and are used for basin modeling. Also included in OCWD’s monitoring network are wells that are owned and operated by the U.S. Navy for remediation of contamination plumes in the cities of Irvine, Seal Beach and Tustin, and wells that are related to operation of the Alamitos Barrier that are located in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County wells are also used to model the Orange County groundwater basin as groundwater flow is unrestricted across the county line. Wells sampled under various monitoring programs change in response to fluctuations in the number of available wells, basin conditions, observed water quality, and regulatory and non- regulatory requirements. Appendix A of the 2017 Alternative presented a comprehensive list of all wells in OCWD’s database. This list included well name, owner, type of well, casing sequence number, depth, screened interval, and aquifer zone monitored, when known. In some cases, well depth and screened intervals are listed in the database as unknown. OCWD maintains data on these wells when water quality or elevation data continues to be collected by the owner or operator. OCWD uses data from these wells in monitoring programs, for groundwater modeling, or for other basin programs. Wells on the list also include inactive OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-2 wells when water quality or water elevation data continues to be collected or the data is utilized in one or more current basin programs. Groundwater elevation and monthly production data are used to quantify total basin pumping, evaluate seasonal groundwater level fluctuations and assess basin storage conditions. Figure 5-1: OCWD Monitoring Wells LOS ANGELES cou N~ _/~ ,r . ♦ 8 ~ [ ~ i ' I!' ' .. 1 '\ ~ ' 8, C i Eiil Additiona l Monitoring Well (since 2016)' ~ Additiona l Multiport ' ' ~· Iii Monitoring We ll (since f 2016) •! ~ <f} Mo nitoring Well i ♦ Mulliport Monitoring ~ ' Well 2 OCWD Boundary £ ~ < " Mile s ~ OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-3 Figure 5-2: Large and Small System Drinking Water Wells in Title 22 Monitoring Program Additiona l Active Small-System Production \111,II (since 2016) Active Large-System Production \111,II Active Small-System Productkm \111,II Standby Large-System Production \Nell OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-4 Figure 5-3: Private Domestic, Irrigation and Industrial Wells in OCWD Monitoring Program 5.2.1 Groundwater Production Monitoring All entities that pump groundwater from the basin are required by the OCWD District Act to report production every six months and pay a Replenishment Assessment. Owners or operators of wells with discharge outlets of two inches in diameter or less and supply an area of no more than one acre pay an annual flat fee as the Replenishment Assessment and do not have to report their production. Approximately 200 large-capacity production wells owned by 19 major water retail agencies account for ninety-seven percent of production. Large-capacity well owners voluntarily report monthly groundwater production for each of their wells. The production volumes are verified by OCWD field staff. Production data are used to evaluate basin conditions, calculate and manage basin storage, run groundwater model scenarios, and collect revenues. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-5 5.2.2 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Production and monitoring wells in the basin are measured for groundwater elevation at varying intervals, as explained below: • Water elevation measurements are collected for every OCWD monitoring well at least once a year with most wells measured at least monthly; • Monitoring of production wells is typically monthly but may vary depending on operational status, well maintenance, abandonment, new well construction, and related factors; • Over 1,000 individual measuring points are monitored for water levels on a monthly or bi-monthly basis to evaluate short-term effects of pumping, recharge or injection operations; and • Additional monitoring is done as needed in the vicinity of OCWD’s recharge facilities, seawater barriers, and areas of special investigation where drawdown, water quality impacts or contamination are of concern. Beginning in 2011, OCWD began reporting seasonal groundwater elevation measurements to DWR as part of the CASGEM program. The monitoring well network developed for the CASGEM program provide a detailed and representative data set, both spatially and temporally. The initial network established in 2011 consisted of a total of 77 monitoring stations distributed laterally and vertically throughout the groundwater basin. Most of the wells are owned by OCWD and have detailed borehole geologic logs and downhole geophysical logs. In 2021, DWR instructed agencies that submitted an Alternative to begin submitting data to the SGMA portal. As a result, CASGEM data was incorporated into annual data submittals required for SGMA compliance. For the 2022 Update, OCWD reviewed the CASGEM network and updated it, primarily in removing wells that were no longer accessible, and changed the name to the SGMA Monitoring Well Network. Figures 5-4 to 5-6 present the monitoring well locations for each of the three aquifer systems. The SGMA network includes wells within the OCWD, La Habra-Brea, Santa Ana Canyon, and Southeast Management Areas. The City of La Habra Groundwater Sustainability Agency will be reporting water levels from the La Habra Management Area separately. Two wells monitored by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) that are located in the Southeast Management area, IRWD-LA1 and IRWD-LA4 (Figure 5-5) are included in the SGMA reports that OCWD will submit to DWR. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-6 Figure 5-4: SGMA Shallow Aquifer System Monitoring Well Network B BPM -2/M • LAM-1/MP1 L ~ E ~, f .,,·· ~J ,,,. Sl 1•• ~I ♦, i ··,, I '··,. '· ~1 Additional Shallow Aquifer •, HBM -6/MP1 • f ~ Monitoring VVells (since ••, I 2016) ••,. • j • ~:~ow Aquifer Monitoring •, I I ~, ~ ~ r-•i OCWD Service Boundary ♦-.._~# i' [°".'.'"~] County Boundaries -~ ',._ i Mesas w, 1' ~ •E " SAN BER NARDI COUNTY ',, ··--~, " l ···-·· SCS -2/ ' • '\ RI VE RS IDE \, COUNTY \ ~ 0 12 ,000 24 ,000 ; ........... , ~~--------F_e_e_1 _______________ ♦••• __ -_,~~---------~---------~--------~ OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-7 Figure 5-5: SGMA Principal Aquifer System Monitoring Well Network AMO • • SAR- GGM-1/MPS • ', SAN BERNARD INO ', COUNTY ', .......... , .. L_, ., .,· ~ . .,.. '-.. '\ \ \ '\ i ?, \ \ •• ""I. \ \.· ... \} .. \ RIVERSIDE \COUNTY \ \ \, \:, '-- OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-8 Figure 5-6: SGMA Deep Aquifer System Monitoring Well Network 5.2.3 Groundwater Quality Monitoring OCWD monitors water quality in production wells on behalf of the groundwater producers for compliance with state and federal drinking water regulations. Samples are analyzed for more than 100 regulated and unregulated chemicals at frequencies established by regulations from the DDW and EPA. Over 425 monitoring and production wells are sampled semi-annually to assess water quality conditions during periods of lowest (winter) and peak production (summer). The total number of water samples analyzed varies year-to-year due to regulatory requirements, conditions in the basin and applied research and/or special study demands. In 2020, OCWD water quality staff collected 15,496 samples, 4,139 of which were collected from drinking water wells. OCWD developed specific programs to monitor the North Basin and South Basin plumes \\as described in the 2017 Alternative. Several new monitoring wells were constructed within the last five years for the North Basin and South Basin plume areas as shown on Figures 5-7 and 5- 8. BPM -2/MP , LAM-1 /MP12 SBM-1/MPS 0 SAN BERNARD INO COUNTY ',, ...... , .. , , ... OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-9 Continual monitoring of groundwater near the coast is done to assess the effectiveness of the Alamitos and Talbert Barriers and track salinity levels in the Bolsa and Sunset Gaps. Key groundwater monitoring parameters used to determine the effectiveness of the barriers include water level elevations, chloride, TDS, electrical conductivity, and bromide. Groundwater elevation contour maps for the aquifers most susceptible to seawater intrusion are prepared to evaluate whether the freshwater mound developed by the barrier injection wells is sufficient to prevent the inland movement of saline water. OCWD’s extensive network of monitoring wells within the groundwater basin includes concentrated monitoring along the seawater barrier and near the recharge basins. GWRS- related monitoring wells in the vicinity of Kraemer, Miller, La Palma and Miraloma basins are used to measure water levels and to collect water quality samples. In addition to ensuring the protection of water quality, these wells have been used to determine travel times from recharge basins to production wells. Permits regulating operation of GWRS require adherence to rigorous product water quality specifications, extensive groundwater monitoring, buffer zones near recharge operations, reporting requirements, and a detailed treatment plant operation, maintenance and monitoring program. GWRS product water is monitored daily, weekly, and quarterly for general minerals, metals, organics, and microbiological constituents. Focused research-type testing has been conducted on organic contaminants and selected microbial species. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-1 Figure 5-7: North Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells i I ~ I i1----l------l=~=~=--..~~--- ll----+---!ti~-=="-f"-"J'----------~ ~ f f l 1 ___ ,.N I w ~ 0 i< ~-Cerntos Avenue Additional Monitoring Well (since 2016) ~ ~:~c~;~ristem ~ ~:~c~;:~ristem $-Inactive Production IJVell $ Monitoring Well Other Active Production Well OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-2 Figure 5-8: South Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells 5.2.4 Coastal Area Monitoring OCWD operates and maintains a network of coastal area monitoring wells that provide water level and water quality data that allow staff to evaluate the performance of seawater intrusion barriers and to identify potential intrusion in coastal areas. The monitoring well network has been expanded and improved over time based on new information and a greater understanding of the basin hydrogeology. Approximately 200 monitoring and production well sites are monitored for groundwater levels and quality within a 4- to 5- mile area from the coast, generally seaward or south of the 405 freeway, as shown in Figure 5-9. The monitoring wells are largely located in the coastal gaps as well as on the coastal mesas. The mesas are not impermeable features; rather, the marine deposition Pleistocene aquifers extend beneath the mesas to the basin production wells and provide potential avenues for seawater intrusion. OCWD conducts the groundwater monitoring for the majority of the monitoring wells with the exception of the Alamitos Barrier monitoring wells. The Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier is ij ;; I en ~ • <: a, i . • t f 1, • II I ~ :, f ~ 3 ~ i' ~ 0 i< ~ (3 West Warner A\8nue East Wa MacA hur Boulevard McFaddenAvenu Monito ring VVell Active Large-System Production Well Inactiv e Production Well Other Active Produc tion Well Standby Large-System Production Well Multiport Monitoring We.II OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-3 located along the border of Los Angeles and Orange counties and is jointly owned by OCWD and Los Angeles County Public Works (LACPW). LACPW operates, maintains, and samples Alamitos Barrier monitoring and injection wells, including those owned by OCWD located within Orange County. Through an interagency cooperative agreement dating to 1964, operational costs and data are shared between the two agencies with a joint report on the status of the barrier prepared on an annual basis. Most of the monitoring wells shown in Figure 5-9 are owned by OCWD and are either single- point or nested. Single-point monitoring wells have one screened interval in one targeted aquifer zone, while nested wells have multiple (2 to 6) casings within the same borehole, with each casing screened in a separate aquifer zone at a discrete depth. A handful of OCWD monitoring wells in the coastal area are Westbay multi-port type, having only one well casing but with multiple monitoring ports each separated by inflatable packers. Therefore, although there are approximately 200 monitoring and production well sites in the coastal groundwater monitoring program, there are over 430 individual sampling points. Figure 5-9: Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Wells ~ ~ e ~ l ~ Additional Active Large.System I ~ Productk,n Well (since 2016) ~ Ii] Additional Other Active Production VVe ll • (since 2016) ~ l ~ Additional Monitoring VVel l (since 2016) i ~ Active Large-System Production \/Vell I ~ Active Small-System Production Well ~ Other Active Production \/Vell Newport ~' MeSa l $ Inactiv e Productk,n Well • $ Monitoring \f\/ell I ♦ Multiport Monitor ing We.II ~' Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge ; OCWD Boundary w E ~ ~ 0 5,000 10,000 ~ ~ Feet OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-4 In addition to OCWD monitoring wells, there are a few privately owned monitoring wells and active municipal production wells included in OCWD’s coastal monitoring program. For example, in Sunset Gap there are a few monitoring wells owned by The Boeing Company (Boeing) related to a shallow VOC plume in the area; Boeing monitors these wells twice a year (groundwater levels and VOCs), and OCWD obtains split samples with Boeing for seawater intrusion monitoring. The retail water agency production wells in the coastal monitoring program include three wells inland of the Alamitos Barrier (City of Seal Beach and Golden State Water Company) and three wells just inland of Sunset Gap (City of Huntington Beach). A complete list of all wells in the coastal groundwater monitoring program, along with their screened interval depths, was presented in Appendix A of the 2017 Alternative. Groundwater levels are measured bi-monthly (every 2 months) at the majority of coastal monitoring wells and nearly all of the coastal monitoring wells are sampled semi-annually (March and September) for key groundwater quality parameters to assess seawater intrusion and barrier operations. Key groundwater quality parameters analyzed for the coastal monitoring program include chloride, bromide, and electrical conductivity (EC), which is a surrogate for TDS. The EC is typically measured both in the field at the time of sampling and in the laboratory. Dissolved chloride concentrations and EC are used both to track seawater intrusion and to trace the injection of purified recycled water at the barriers, especially the Talbert Barrier in which the injection supply consists of 100 percent recycled water having a much lower salinity signal than native fresh groundwater. Chloride is considered to be a good conservative intrinsic tracer since it is relatively unaffected by sorption- and chemical-, or biological reactions in the subsurface. Bromide concentrations in brackish groundwater samples are valuable to help determine the origin or source of intrusion by evaluating the chloride to bromide ratio. Chloride to bromide ratios in the range of 280-300 in brackish coastal samples suggest relatively young active intrusion from the ocean or water body connected to the ocean, whereas lower ratios may indicate intrusion from past oil brine disposal or an influence of very old connate water from the original marine depositional process when these coastal aquifers were first formed. 5.3 SURFACE WATER AND RECYCLED WATER MONITORING Surface water from the Santa Ana River is a major source of recharge supply for the groundwater basin. As a result, the quality of the surface water has a significant influence on groundwater quality. Therefore, characterizing the quality of the river and its effect on the basin is necessary to verify the sustainability of continued use of river water for recharge and to safeguard a high-quality drinking water supply for Orange County. Several on-going programs monitor the condition of Santa Ana River water. OCWD monitoring sites along the river and its tributaries are shown in Figure 5-10. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-5 Figure 5-10: Surface Water Monitoring Locations 5.3.1 Surface Water Monitoring Programs The surface water monitoring programs include: • Santa Ana River Monitoring (SARMON) Program • The Basin Monitoring Program Task Force (Task Force) • Santa Ana River Watermaster • Emerging constituents • Imported water from MWD Detailed descriptions of each program are contained in the 2017 Alternative. Within the last five years, additional work has been done by the watershed-wide Emerging Constituents Monitoring Task Force administered by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA). This group was formed in 2010 to characterize emerging constituents in 1) municipal wastewater effluents, 2) the Santa Ana River at various locations, and 3) imported water. Three years of testing (2011-2013) were completed as directed by the Regional Water Board (R8- RIVERSIDE COUNTY ~ OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-6 2009-0071). OCWD monitored two sites twice a year on the Santa Ana River for this program. The SAWPA testing program was resumed voluntarily 2019, with the addition of PFAS monitoring; the program was not continued in 2020 and has been functionally replaced by the statewide PFAS Investigation Orders issued to upper watershed wastewater dischargers. OCWD monitors for Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs), including PFAS, at two surface water sites quarterly on the Santa Ana River and at various locations within District recharge facilities below Prado Dam. Samples are analyzed for pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and other emerging constituents such as personal care products, food additives, and pesticides. 5.3.2 Recycled Water Monitoring Use and monitoring of GWRS water is regulated by the Regional Water Board and DDW. Performance of the GWRS is monitored on a routine basis. Monitoring wells to monitor and track GWRS water are located adjacent to surface recharge basins located in Anaheim, downgradient of Mid-Basin Injection wells, and near the injection wells of the Talbert Seawater Barrier as shown on Figure 5-11. Additional details on recycled water monitoring and reporting are presented in the 2017 Alternative. Similar monitoring is performed at the WRD-owned Leo J. Vander Lans Advanced Water Treatment Facility that supplies recycled water to the Alamitos Seawater Barrier for injection. In March 2020, OCWD’s Mid-Basin Injection (MBI) Project went on-line. This project started in April 2015 with the operation of a demonstration well (MBI-1). The MBI Project is located in the city of Santa Ana, primarily at Centennial Park and injects up to 10 million gallons of GWRS water a day into the Principal Aquifer and includes four new injection wells, MBI-2, 3, 4, and 5. Additionally, a total of four nested monitoring wells were installed as part of the MBI Project to track the quality and movement of injection water prior to reaching down gradient production wells. Nested wells SAR-10 and -11 were installed downgradient of MBI-1. To track the movement of GWRS water from the four new injection wells, SAR -12 and -13 were constructed (see Figure 5-11). OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Monitoring Programs 5-7 Figure 5-11: Recycled Water Monitoring Wells I i ,,. ~ , '!JI ♦' " ,,. I: c··,,.. ~ ··,. ~ ·, i ··,. -~ Additiona l Recycled •, •• ~. = rn V\ater Monitoring Wells '• f (since 2016) •,. "i a-._ Recyded Water Monitoring •, j w Wells •• I L-::i OCWD Serv ice Boundary '••, ~1 C, C.ounty Boundaries N •, •• i Mesas w ~• '••, 0 8,000 16,000 w .. Feet s '-, SAR-10 :,....J.0{,. ~ ~ 'I" :! C: .. Cl) SAR-11 ~R-iJ SAR -i ~SAR-13 SAR-12 OCWD-M47 D-M11 OCWD-M_4~6--..----,,r:...,. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-1 SECTION 6 WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 6.1 LAND USE ELEMENTS RELATED TO BASIN MANAGEMENT The OCWD Management Area is highly urbanized as shown on Figure 3-4. Monitoring potential impacts from proposed new land uses and planning for future development are key management activities essential for sustainable management of the groundwater basin. OCWD monitors, reviews and comments on local land use plans and environmental documents such as environmental impact reports, notices of preparation, amendments to local general plans and specific plans, proposed zoning changes, draft water quality management plans, and other land development plans. District staff also review draft National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and waste discharge permits issued by the Regional Water Board. The proposed projects and programs may have elements that could cause short- or long-term water quality impacts to source water used for groundwater replenishment or have the potential to degrade groundwater resources. Monitoring and reviewing waste discharge permits provides OCWD with insight on activities in the watershed that could affect water quality. The majority of the basin’s land area is located in a highly urbanized setting and requires tailored water supply protection strategies. Reviewing and commenting on stormwater permits and waste discharge permits adopted by the Regional Water Board for the portions of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties that are within the Santa Ana River watershed are conducted by OCWD on a routine basis. These permits can affect the quality of water in the Santa Ana River and other water bodies, thereby impacting groundwater quality in the basin. OCWD works with local agencies having oversight responsibilities on the handling, use and storage of hazardous materials; underground tank permitting; well abandonment programs; septic tank upgrades; and drainage issues. Participating in basin planning activities of the Regional Water Board and serving on technical advisory committees and task forces related to water quality are also valuable activities to protect water quality. 6.1.1 Summary of Plans Related to Basin Management The 2017 Alternative presented a comprehensive list of plans related to basin management, including: • Municipal Stormwater Permit • The OC Plan which is the combined North Orange County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM), Central Orange County IRWM, and Coastal Watershed Management Plan • OWOW 2.0 Plan which is the IRWM Plan for the Santa Ana Watershed OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-2 • Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan • Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) 2016 Orange County Reliability Study 6.1.2 Land Use Development and Water Demands and Supply Water demands within the OCWD Management Area between WY1989-90 and 2020-21 have fluctuated between approximately 367,000 and 526,000 acre-feet per year but have leveled off in the past few years to approximately 400,000 acre-feet per year as shown in Figure 1-5. Since its founding, OCWD has grown in area from 162,676 to 243,968 acres and has experienced an increase in population from approximately 120,000 to 2.5 million people. OCWD has employed groundwater management techniques to increase the annual yield from the basin including operating over 1,000 wetted acres of infiltration basins. Annual groundwater production increased from approximately 150,000 acre-feet in the mid-1950s to a high of over 366,000 acre-feet in WY2007-08. OCWD strives to maximize production from the basin through maximizing recharge of the groundwater basin. The basin is managed within the established groundwater storage operating range independently of total regional water demands as total water demands are met by a combination of groundwater and imported water. 6.1.3 Well Construction, Management, and Closure Well construction, management and closure are regulated by various state agencies. To comply with federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements regarding the protection of drinking water sources, the DDW created the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) program. Water suppliers must submit a DWSAP report as part of the drinking water well permitting process and have it approved before providing a new source of water from a new well. OCWD provides technical support to groundwater producers in the preparation of these reports. Well construction ordinances adopted and implemented by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and certain municipalities follow state well construction standards established to protect water quality under California Water Code Section 231. Cities within OCWD boundaries that have local well construction ordinances and manage well construction within their local jurisdictions include the cities of Anaheim, Fountain Valley, Buena Park, and Orange. To provide guidance and policy recommendations on these ordinances, the County of Orange established the Well Standards Advisory Board in the early 1970s. The five-member appointed Board includes OCWD’s Chief Hydrogeologist. Recommendations of the Board are used by the OCHCA and municipalities to enforce well construction ordinances within their jurisdictions. A well is considered abandoned when the owner has permanently discontinued its use, or it is in such a condition that it can no longer be used for its intended purpose. This often occurs when wells have been forgotten by the owner, were not disclosed to a new property owner, or when the owner is unknown. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-3 A properly destroyed and sealed well has been filled so that it cannot produce water or act as a vertical conduit for the movement of groundwater. In cases where a well is paved over or under a structure and can no longer be accessed it is considered destroyed but not properly sealed. Many of these wells may not be able to be properly closed due to overlying structures, landscaping or pavement. Some of them may pose a threat to water quality because they can be conduits for contaminant movement as well as physical hazards to humans and/or animals. OCWD supports and encourages efforts to properly destroy abandoned wells. As part of routine monitoring of the groundwater basin, OCWD will investigate on a case-by-case basis any location where data suggests that an abandoned well may be present and may be threatening water quality. When an abandoned well is found to be a significant threat to the quality of groundwater, OCWD will work with OCHCA and the well owner, when appropriate, to properly destroy the well. The City of Anaheim has a well destruction policy and has an annual budget to destroy one or two wells per year. The funds are used when an abandoned well is determined to be a public nuisance or needs to be destroyed to allow development of the site. The city’s well permit program requires all well owners to destroy their wells when they are no longer needed. When grant funding becomes available, the city uses the funds to destroy wells where a responsible party has not been determined and where the well was previously owned by a defunct water consortium. Information on the status of wells is kept within OCWD’s Water Resource Management System data base. Since the 2017 Alternative was submitted, a total of 15 production wells were properly destroyed and sealed. During this same period, a total of 9 new production wells were constructed. 6.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OCWD has a number of policies and programs to project groundwater quality. The list of programs below is described in detail in the 2017 Alternative. • OCWD Groundwater Protection Policy (2014) • Various Salinity Management Programs o Seawater Intrusion Barriers o Coastal Pumping Transfer Program o Groundwater Replenishment System o Septic Systems o Nitrogen and Selenium Management Program o Groundwater Desalters and Inland Empire Brine Line and Non-Reclaimable Waste Line o Basin Monitoring Program Task Force o Salinity Management and imported Water Workgroup o Nitrate Management Program OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-4 6.2.1 Regulation and Management of Contaminants A variety of federal, state, county and local agencies have jurisdiction over the regulation and management of hazardous substances and the remediation of contaminated groundwater supplies. OCWD does not have regulatory authority to require responsible parties to clean up pollutants that have contaminated groundwater. In some cases, OCWD has pursued legal action against entities that are responsible for contaminating the groundwater basin to recover OCWD’s remediation costs or to compel those entities to implement remedies. OCWD also coordinates and cooperates with regulatory oversight agencies that investigate sources of contamination. OCWD efforts to assess the potential threat to public health and the environment from contamination in the Santa Ana River Watershed and within the County of Orange include: • Reviewing ongoing groundwater cleanup site investigations and commenting on the findings, conclusions, and technical merits of progress reports • Providing knowledge and expertise to assess contaminated sites and evaluating the merits of proposed remedial activities • Conducting third-party groundwater split samples at contaminated sites to assist regulatory agencies in evaluating progress of groundwater cleanup and/or providing confirmation data of the areal extent of contamination The following is a list of potential contaminants of greatest concern for basin water quality management. More details on these are presented in the 2017 Alternative. • Per- and polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) • Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) • N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) • 1,4-Dioxane • Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) As new chemicals become of scientific interest or are regulated, the OCWD laboratory develops the analytical capability and becomes certified in the approved method to process compliance samples. In 2019, the District’s lab became the first public agency laboratory in the state of California to achieve state certification to analyze PFAS in drinking water. The District has invested over $1 million in monitoring equipment to test for PFAS and other CECs. OCWD is committed to (1) track new compounds of concern; (2) research chemical occurrence and treatment; (3) communicate closely with the DDW on prioritizing investigation and guidance; (4) coordinate with OC San, upper watershed wastewater dischargers and regulatory agencies to identify sources and reduce contaminant releases; and (5) inform the groundwater producers on emerging issues. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-5 6.3 RECYCLED WATER PRODUCTION 6.3.1 Overview The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) is a joint project built by OCWD and OC San that began operating in 2008. Secondary treated wastewater that otherwise would be discharged to the Pacific Ocean is purified using a three-step process to produce high-quality water used to control seawater intrusion and recharge the basin. As shown on Figure 6-1, the system includes four major components (1) the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF), (2) the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier, (3) Mid-Basin Injection wells, and (4) four dedicated recharge basins. Figure 6-1: Groundwater Replenishment System 6.4 FINAL EXPANSION The GWRS Final Expansion (GWRSFE) Project began in 2019 with a budget of $310 million. It is the third and final phase of the project to build-out capacity of the GWRS facility that treats _r• OCWD SERVICE _r' BOUNDARY ~ _./ FACIL Los Angeles County ' ' \ ' GWRS PIPELIN AMITOS BARRIER ' l SANTI A ,· I ~ MID-BASIN t. ( INJECTION WELLS \. ; , • TA ~;E~ GWRS ADVANCE : WATER •,,.? BARRIER -PUR ' • ' IFIC FAalUTY ') , , ,, • • t < I ':.!lJ ,-'>,,, , r / .7#-<--~ • ., " nty OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-6 secondary effluent from OC San to drinking water standards for groundwater replenishment. As discussed above, the GWRS first began operating in 2008 producing 70 mgd and in 2015, it underwent a 30 mgd expansion. When the Final Expansion is completed in 2023, the plant will have the capacity to produce 130 mgd. In order to produce 130 mgd, additional treated wastewater from the OC San is required. This additional water will come from OC San’s Treatment Plant 2, which is located in the city of Huntington Beach approximately 3.5 miles south of the GWRS. Since the current GWRS facility only receives influent from OC San’s Plant No. 1, new secondary effluent conveyance facilities are required at OC San’ Plant No. 2 to convey the secondary effluent to GWRS. These conveyance facilities include an effluent pump station, two flow equalization tanks and rehabilitation of an existing pipeline. In order for secondary effluent from OC San’s Plant No. 2 to be recycled by GWRS, Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) flows must be segregated. Currently, SARI flows are not permitted to be recycled through GWRS due to the industrial and treatment facility discharges that currently flow in the SARI pipeline. Therefore, in addition to the conveyance facilities, modifications will be made to OC San Plant No. 2 headworks facilities to segregate the SARI flows and treat these flows separately for discharge to the ocean outfall. This project is referred to as the Plant No. 2 Headworks Modification Project. In addition to the Plant No. 2 Headworks Modification Project, an upgrade to OC San’s Plant No. 2 water pump station is required to feed the headworks with reclaimable water. This Plant Water Pump Station Project is also considered part of the complete GWRSFE Project. An overview of the sites and the project locations of the GWRSFE are shown in Figure 6-2. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-7 Figure 6-2: GWRS Final Expansion Overview The GWRSFE is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2023. Once completed, the GWRS will recycle 100 percent of OC San’s reclaimable sources and produce enough water to meet the needs of over one million people. 6.5 CONJUNCTIVE USE PROGRAMS The conjunctive use of surface and groundwater has been the foundation of OCWD’s basin management strategy since it was formed in 1933. OCWD Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) program began in 1936 when it began purchasing portions of the Santa Ana River channel, eventually acquiring six miles of the channel in Orange County, in order to maximize the recharge of river water to the basin. Recharge of imported water began in 1949 when OCWD began purchasing Colorado River water from MWD. In 1958, OCWD purchased and excavated a 64-acre site one mile north of the Santa Ana River to create Anaheim Lake, OCWD’s first recharge basin. Today OCWD operates a network of 25 facilities that recharge an average of over 230,000 acre-feet per year. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-8 OCWD has developed a diverse recharge portfolio including water from the Santa Ana River and tributaries, imported water, and recycled water supplied by the GWRS. The basin also receives natural recharge (also called incidental recharge) from precipitation and subsurface inflow. 6.5.1 Sources of Recharge Water Supplies Water supplies used to recharge the groundwater basin are listed in Table 6-1. Figure 6-3 shows the historical recharge by source from 1936 to 2021. Table 4-1 presents the annual recharge by source for WY2016-17 to 2020-21. Santa Ana River Water from the Santa Ana River is a primary source of water used to recharge the groundwater basin. OCWD diverts river water into recharge facilities where the water percolates into the groundwater basin. Recharge facilities are capable of recharging all of the base flow. Both the Santa Ana River base flow and storm flow vary from year to year. The volume of storm water that can be recharged into the basin is highlight dependent on the amount and timing of precipitation in the upper watershed, which is highly variable. OCWD has water rights to all storm flows and base flows that reach Prado Dam. When storm flows exceed the capacity of the diversion facilities, river water reaches the ocean, and this portion is lost as a water supply. Santiago Creek Santiago Creek is the primary drainage for the northwest portion of the Santa Ana Mountains and ultimately drains into the Santa Ana River. OCWD captures and recharges water in Santiago Creek that flows into the Santiago Recharge Basins. During dry periods, the Santiago basins are used to recharge Santa Ana River flows which are pumped to the basins. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-1 Table 6-1: Sources of Recharge Water Supplies SUPPLY SOURCES AND DESCRIPTION RECHARGE LOCATION Santa Ana River Base Flow Perennial flows from the upper watershed in Santa Ana River; predominately treated wastewater discharges Santa Ana River, recharge basins, and Santiago Creek Storm Flow Precipitation from upper watershed flowing in Santa Ana River through Prado Dam Santa Ana River, recharge basins, and Santiago Creek Santiago Creek Storm Flow / Santa Ana River Storm flows in Santiago Creek and Santa Ana River water pumped from Burris Basin via Santiago Pipeline Santiago Creek, Santa Ana River, recharge basins Incidental Recharge Precipitation and subsurface inflow Precipitation and runoff from Orange County foothills, subsurface inflow from basin boundaries Basin-wide Recycled Water Groundwater Replenishment System Advanced treated wastewater produced at GWRS plant in Fountain Valley Injected into Talbert Barrier and Mid- Basin Injection Wells, recharged in Kraemer, Miller, La Palma and Miraloma basins Water Replenishment District of Southern CA Water purified at the Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility in Long Beach Injected into Alamitos Barrier Imported Water Untreated State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct Various recharge basins Treated State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct treated at MWD Diemer Water Treatment Plant Injected into Alamitos Barrier OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-2 Figure 6-3: Historical Recharge in Surface Water Recharge System Incidental Recharge Incidental recharge is comprised of subsurface inflow from the local hills and mountains, infiltration of precipitation and irrigation water, recharge in small flood control channels, and groundwater underflow to and from Los Angeles County and the ocean. Since the amount of incidental recharge cannot be directly measured, it is also referred to as unmeasured recharge. Each year, an estimate is made of the amount of net incidental recharge based on OCWD’s annual groundwater storage calculation. In general, since the Central Basin in Los Angeles County is usually operated at a lower level than the Orange County basin, there is usually a net flow of water out of the Orange County basin to the Central Basin. This outflow is subtracted from the total incidental recharge to get the net incidental recharge to the basin, which is the value reported in this document. Recycled Water The basin receives two sources of recycled water for recharge. The primary source is the GWRS, which currently has the capacity to produce 103,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water. This will be increasing to 134,000 acre-feet per year, when the GWRS Final Expansion is complete in 2023. Recycled water from the GWRS is percolated in the surface water system and injected into the Talbert Seawater Barrier, and the Mid-Basin Injection wells. Operation of GWRS is explained in detail in Section 5. The second source of recycled water is the Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility which supplies water to the Alamitos Seawater Barrier. The capacity of the Vander Lans Treatment 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 19 4 9 19 5 1 19 5 3 19 5 5 19 5 7 19 5 9 19 6 1 19 6 3 19 6 5 19 6 7 19 6 9 19 7 1 19 7 3 19 7 5 19 7 7 19 7 9 19 8 1 19 8 3 19 8 5 19 8 7 19 8 9 19 9 1 19 9 3 19 9 5 19 9 7 19 9 9 20 0 1 20 0 3 20 0 5 20 0 7 20 0 9 20 1 1 20 1 3 20 1 5 20 1 7 20 1 9 20 2 1 Recharged Base Flow Storm Flow Recharge Imported Water GWRS Acre-feet (x1000) ■ ■ ■ ■ OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-3 Facility was expanded from 3 mgd to 8 mgd but has generally not operated above 4 mgd for extended periods of time for various reasons. WRD is working on increasing this facility’s online performance. A portion of the water recharged in the Alamitos Barrier recharges the Orange County Groundwater Basin with the remainder recharging the Central Basin in Los Angeles County. Imported Water OCWD purchases imported water for recharge from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which is a member agency of MWD. Untreated imported water can be delivered to the surface water recharge system in multiple locations, including Anaheim Lake (OC-28/28A), Santa Ana River (OC-11), Irvine Lake (OC-13A), and San Antonio Creek near the City of Upland (OC-59). These locations are shown in Figure 6-4. Connections OC-28, OC-11 and OC-13A supply OCWD with Colorado River Aqueduct water. Connection OC-59 supplies OCWD with State Water Project water, and OC-28A (co-located with OC-28) supplies OCWD with a variable blend of water from these two sources. Figure 6-4: Locations of Imported Water Deliveries SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-4 6.5.2 Surface Water Recharge Facilities OCWD operates a network of 25 surface water facilities located adjacent to the Santa Ana River in the City of Anaheim and Santiago Creek in the City of Orange as shown in Figure 6-5. The system has a total storage capacity of over 25,000 acre-feet. OCWD carefully tracks the amount of water being recharged in each facility on a daily basis. Figure 6-5: OCWD Surface Water Recharge Facilities Three full-time hydrographers control and monitor the recharge system. These hydrographers and other OCWD staff prepare a monthly Water Resources Summary Report, which lists the source and volume for each recharge water supply, provides an estimate of the amount of water percolated in each recharge basin, documents total groundwater production from the basin, and estimates the change in groundwater storage. The report also estimates the amount of incidental recharge, evaporation and losses to the ocean – essentially a monthly water budget I East Cha man Aven e FULLERTON (/) East Bal Road O OC'MJ Field Headquarters --lnfiatable Rubber Dam --Transfer Tube --GWRS Pipeline --Recharge water Pipeline c::::::J ocwo Recharge Basin [ ~ City Boundary 2,200 w ◊• 4,400 5 Feet PLACENTIA ORANGE East Taft Avenue VILLA PARK OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-5 accounting. The monthly figures are compiled to determine yearly recharge and production totals and used in the year-end determination of groundwater storage change. 6.6 MANAGEMENT OF SEAWATER INTRUSION In the coastal area of Orange County, the primary source of saline groundwater is seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin through permeable sediments underlying topographic lowlands or gaps between the erosional remnants or mesas of the Newport-Inglewood Uplift. Areas susceptible to intrusion are the Talbert, Bolsa, Sunset, and Alamitos gaps as shown in Figure 3-26. Seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap area began as early as the 1920s as the previously flowing artesian conditions within the shallow Talbert aquifer were gradually lowered until groundwater levels declined below sea level due to unrestricted agricultural pumping. By the 1930s and 1940s, seawater had advanced more than one mile inland within the Talbert Gap, forcing the closure of municipal supply wells owned and operated by the cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach due to elevated salinity. Seawater intrusion became a critical problem in the 1950s. Overdraft of the basin caused water levels to drop as much as 40 feet below sea level. By the mid-1960s seawater had intruded nearly four miles inland within the Talbert Gap. Intrusion was also observed in the Alamitos Gap area along the Orange County/Los Angeles County border. During the 1950s and 1960s seawater intrusion investigations in coastal Orange County were conducted by the USGS, DWR and OCWD to define the nature and extent of the problem. During this time, OCWD slowed seawater intrusion by filling the basin with imported Colorado River water in the Anaheim Forebay area, thus reducing the overdraft throughout the basin and raising coastal groundwater levels (DWR, 1966). Largely based on the 1966 DWR study, OCWD constructed the initial Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier in 1975 with 23 injection well sites. In 1965, a line of injection wells was constructed across the Alamitos Gap to form a subsurface freshwater hydraulic barrier. The Alamitos and Talbert barriers control seawater intrusion in their respective gaps by injecting fresh water into a series of multi-depth wells targeting each individual aquifer zone that is susceptible to seawater intrusion. The pressure mound resulting from this injection minimizes seawater intrusion through these gaps into the basin. Both the Alamitos and Talbert barriers have been expanded and improved periodically and have allowed the basin to be operated more flexibly as a storage reservoir with an operating range of 500,000 acre-feet below full condition. In July 2014, the OCWD Board of Directors adopted a Seawater Intrusion Prevention Policy that contained the following tenets: • Prevent degradation of the quality of the groundwater basin from seawater intrusion • Effectively operate and evaluate the performance of the seawater barrier facilities OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-6 • Adequately identify and track trends in seawater intrusion in susceptible coastal areas and evaluate and act upon this information, as needed, to protect the groundwater basin 6.6.1 Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier The Talbert Barrier consists of 36 injection well sites, shown in Figure 3-26, with the primary alignment along Ellis Avenue approximately four miles inland from the ocean. Barrier injection raises groundwater levels in the immediate vicinity and thus creates a groundwater mound that acts as a hydraulic barrier to seawater that would otherwise migrate inland toward areas of groundwater production. From 1975 until 2008, a blend of deep well water, imported water and recycled water from the former Water Factory 21 was injected into the barrier. In 2008, GWRS recycled water became the primary supply used for the injection wells, with a small and intermittent portion of the supply from potable imported water delivered via the City of Huntington Beach at the OC-44 turnout and potable water delivered by the City of Fountain Valley (a blend of groundwater and imported water). Since approval by the Regional Water Board in 2009, OCWD uses recycled water for all of the injection well supply at the Talbert Barrier. Prior to GWRS, barrier capacity averaged approximately 15 mgd but now averages approximately 30 mgd with a typical seasonal range of 20 to nearly 40 mgd. Doubling the injection capacity was necessary to prevent seawater intrusion as groundwater production increased and was made possible by construction of additional injection wells and pipelines, superior water quality (GWRS water), and improved barrier operations, such as more frequent backwashing and rehabilitation. Barrier injection rates are adjusted based on overall basin storage conditions and seasonally varying coastal water levels. Therefore, injection is typically lower in the winter months and higher in the summer when increased coastal production causes lower coastal groundwater levels. Approximately 85 to 90 percent of barrier injection is typically targeted into the shallow and intermediate aquifer zones for seawater intrusion control on an annual basis, while the other 10 to 15 percent goes into the deeper Main aquifer zone primarily for basin replenishment. Based on the much steeper hydraulic gradient inland toward pumping depressions (relative to that toward the coast), OCWD estimates that approximately 95 percent of the water injected at the Talbert Barrier flows inland to replenish the basin, with the remainder ultimately flowing to the ocean as subsurface outflow. 6.6.2 Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier The Alamitos Barrier Project was initially constructed in 1964 and went into operation in 1965 to create a freshwater pressure ridge to prevent seawater intrusion from migrating through the Alamitos Gap into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County and the Orange County groundwater basin. The barrier alignment straddles the Los Angeles-Orange County line and spans approximately 1.8 miles across the Alamitos Gap from Bixby Ranch Hill in the City of Long Beach to the vicinity of Landing Hill in the City of Seal Beach. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resource Management Programs 6-7 Under the terms of the 1964 Agreement for Cooperative Implementation of the Alamitos Barrier Project (1964 Agreement), the barrier facilities are co-owned by OCWD and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD, a division of LACPW) and currently include 58 injection wells and 238 active monitoring wells as shown in Figure 3-26. The barrier is operated and maintained by LACPW under the direction of the Alamitos Barrier Joint Management Committee (JMC), whose membership includes OCWD, LACPW, WRD, City of Long Beach, and Golden State Water Company. The barrier has been incrementally expanded over time to include the construction of additional injection and monitoring wells. Since the initial 14 injection wells were constructed in 1964, an additional 44 injection wells have been installed over eight phases of well construction. Most recently in 2018, with the addition of 17 new injection wells at 8 locations to control breaches through the barrier where well spacing was too large and injection capacity too small. Similar to the Talbert Barrier, the Alamitos Barrier consists of both nested and cluster-type injection wells screened discretely in each aquifer zone in order to control the injection rate and injection pressure into each targeted aquifer zone independently since each aquifer zone has different physical characteristics and groundwater levels. In addition, there are a couple “dual- point” injection wells that consist of only one well casing, but two different screened interval depths separated inside the well by an inflatable packer and two separate injection drop pipes. OCWD Management Area Basin 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Notice and Communication 7-1 SECTION 7 NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION 7.1 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER USERS The local agencies that produce the majority of the groundwater from the basin are listed in Table 7-1 with geographic boundaries shown in Figure 3-3. OCWD meets monthly with 19 major water retail agencies, referred to as the groundwater producers, to discuss and evaluate basin management issues and proposed projects and work cooperatively among the agencies in the OCWD Management Area. Table 7-1: Major Groundwater Producers CITIES Anaheim Huntington Beach Santa Ana Buena Park La Palma Seal Beach Fountain Valley Newport Beach Tustin Fullerton Orange Westminster Garden Grove WATER DISTRICTS AND WATER COMPANIES East Orange County Water District Mesa Water District Golden State Water Company Serrano Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Yorba Linda Water District The monthly meeting with OCWD staff and the groundwater producers provides a forum for the groundwater producers to provide their input to OCWD on important issues such as: • Setting the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) each year • Reviewing the merits of proposed capital improvement projects • Purchasing imported water to recharge the groundwater basin • Reviewing water quality data and regulations • Maintaining and monitoring basin water quality • Budgeting, replenishment assessment and considering other important policy decisions OCWD Management Area Basin 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Notice and Communication 7-2 7.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION On September 30, 2021, OCWD sent a letter via email to all of the Basin 8-1 agencies to inform them that the 2017 Alternative was being updated and would be available for review and comment. No comments were received by any of the agencies contacted. A draft of the 2022 Update was presented to the OCWD Board and posted on the OCWD website on November 18, 2021, to allow for public review and comment. The final 2022 Update was presented to the OCWD Board on December 15, 2021. At this board meeting, a resolution was adopted to support the submission of the 2022 Update to DWR. 7.3 COMMUNICATION PLAN Proactive community outreach and public education are central to OCWD. The 2017 Alternative provides detailed information on OCWD’s communication plan. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Basin Management 8-1 SECTION 8 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT 8.1 SUSTAINABILITY GOAL The sustainability goal for the OCWD Management Area is as follows: Continue to manage the groundwater basin to prevent basin conditions that would lead to significant and unreasonable undesirable results as defined by California Water Code Section 10721(x). Existing monitoring and management programs in place today enable OCWD to sustainably manage the groundwater basin. Since its formation in 1933, OCWD has developed a managed aquifer recharge program, constructed hundreds of monitoring wells, developed water quality monitoring programs, constructed a large surface water recharge system, installed seawater intrusion barriers, and managed the volume of groundwater production through a scientifically based understanding of the basin’s sustainable yield and the use of financial incentives. Continued successful protection of the groundwater basin requires that OCWD’s management of the basin be able to adapt to changing conditions affecting the groundwater basin. The following sections describe the sustainable basin management for each of the undesirable results as defined in the California Water Code, Section 10721(x). OCWD Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE Sustainable Management: Groundwater Levels 9-1 SECTION 9 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS 9.1 HISTORY/SUMMARY OCWD manages the basin for long-term sustainability by maximizing recharge of the basin and managing basin production within sustainable levels. This section will discuss the relationship between groundwater elevations and sustainable groundwater management. Groundwater elevations over the last twenty years exhibit short-term changes and long-term (multi-year) trends see Figures 3-10 through 3-13). Short-term elevation changes typically reflect seasonal variations in pumping and recharge, while multi-year trends reflect the effects of extended periods of above- or below-average precipitation and/or availability of imported water. Groundwater elevation is monitored at over 1,000 individual measuring points, including key wells formerly designated under the CASGEM program which has been superseded by annual reporting required under SGMA. OCWD will be reporting water level data for the basin except for the La Habra-Brea Management Area. In general, groundwater elevations in the Shallow Aquifer system show less amplitude than those in the underlying Principal and Deep Aquifer systems due to the higher degree of pumping and confinement of the Principal and Deep Aquifer systems. Because approximately 95 percent of all production occurs from wells screened within the Principal Aquifer system, groundwater elevations within this system are typically lower than those in the overlying Shallow Aquifer system and, in some areas, the underlying Deep Aquifer system. Vertical hydraulic gradients created by pumping and recharge drive groundwater into the Principal Aquifer system from the overlying Shallow Aquifer system and, to a lesser extent, from the Deep Aquifer system. Long-term data demonstrates that groundwater elevations in the basin have exhibited multi-year cyclical patterns and have not experienced chronic lowering due to OCWD’s management approach of maintaining basin storage within the established operating range. As a result, the undesirable effect of “chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply” is not occurring in the OCWD Management Area and is not expected to occur in the future as OCWD continues to manage the basin as described in this report. 9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY As explained in Section 3.2, OCWD monitors water levels at over 1,000 individual measuring points on a monthly or bi-monthly basis to evaluate the effects of pumping, recharge or injection operations. Additional monitoring is conducted as needed in the vicinity of OCWD’s recharge OCWD Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE Sustainable Management: Groundwater Levels 9-2 facilities, seawater barriers and areas of special investigation where drawdown, water quality impacts or contaminants are of concern. Groundwater elevation contour maps for the Shallow, Principal and Deep Aquifers are prepared annually and are scanned and digitized into OCWD’s GIS database. Figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 show the groundwater elevation contours for June 2021 for all three basin aquifers. The changes in groundwater elevations for the three aquifers are also calculated on an annual basis. The water level changes for each of the three aquifers for June 2020 to June 2021 are shown in Figures 9-1, 9-2 and 9-3. 9.3 MANAGEMENT OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY For each of the three major aquifer systems, GIS mapping is used to multiply the water level changes by a grid of aquifer storage properties from OCWD’s calibrated groundwater flow model. This results in a storage change volume for each of the three aquifer layers which are totaled to provide a net annual storage change for the basin. Thus, measurements of groundwater elevations are ultimately used to calculate total basin storage levels each year. OCWD Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE Sustainable Management: Groundwater Levels 9-3 Figure 9-1: Shallow Aquifer Water Level Change, June 2020 to June 2021 In determining the operating range for groundwater storage levels, OCWD considered the potential negative impacts that could occur due to unreasonable and chronic lowering of groundwater elevations. These potential negative impacts include increased costs for groundwater producers to pump groundwater, decreased yield in production wells, increased risk of land subsidence, and increased risk of seawater intrusion. Monitoring and management of groundwater elevations in the OCWD Management Area is most important in the coastal areas in order to protect groundwater basin water quality from seawater intrusion. Management programs that enable long-term sustainable basin management related to groundwater elevations in the coastal areas include the operation of the Alamitos and Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barriers and the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program. OCWD Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE Sustainable Management: Groundwater Levels 9-4 Figure 9-2: Principal Aquifer Water Level Change, June 2020 to June 2021 OCWD Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE Sustainable Management: Groundwater Levels 9-5 Figure 9-3: Deep Aquifer Water Level Change, June 2020 to June 2021 9.4 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS OCWD closely monitors groundwater levels in the three major aquifer systems (Shallow, Principal and Deep) for a number of purposes including determination of groundwater storage within the basin. OCWD uses groundwater storage conditions to manage the basin sustainably by keeping storage levels within an operating range up to 500,000 acre-feet below full condition. Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater in storage could occur in the event that the volume of groundwater in storage fell below the 500,000 acre-feet below full condition for an extended period of time. If OCWD were to consider an operating range below 500,000 acre- feet from full condition, additional analysis and monitoring would be needed. OCWD Management Area 2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE Sustainable Management: Groundwater Levels 9-6 9.5 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLD The minimum threshold for significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater levels is reached when the storage volume of the groundwater basin falls below the operating range of up to 500,000 acre-feet below full condition for an extended period of time. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Basin Storage 10-1 SECTION 10 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO BASIN STORAGE 10.1 HISTORY Within the Orange County Groundwater Basin, there is an estimated 66 million acre-feet of water in storage (OCWD, 2007). In spite of the large amount of stored water, there is a comparatively narrow operating range within which the basin can be safely operated. The operating range of the basin is considered to be the maximum allowable storage range over the long-term without incurring detrimental impacts. The upper limit of the operating range is defined by the full basin condition. Although it may be physically possible to fill the basin higher than this full condition, it could lead to detrimental impacts such as percolation reductions in recharge facilities and increased risk of shallow groundwater seepage in low-lying coastal areas. The lower limit of the operating range is considered to be 500,000 acre-feet below full condition. Although it may be considered to be acceptable to allow the basin to decline below 500,000 acre-feet below full condition for brief periods due to severe drought conditions and lack of imported water for basin recharge, it is not considered to be an acceptable management practice to intentionally manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Increased risk of seawater intrusion • Increased risk of land subsidence • Depletion of water in storage available for future drought conditions • Some wells potentially becoming inoperable due to lower groundwater levels • Increased costs to pump groundwater for groundwater users • Increased potential for upwelling of amber-colored groundwater from the Deep Aquifer It is important to note that detrimental impacts do not suddenly happen when storage levels fall to 500,000 or more acre-feet below full condition; rather, they occur incrementally, or the potential for their occurrence grows as the basin declines to lower levels. OCWD has used the basin model computer simulations to evaluate the potential for detrimental impacts if storage were to fall to 700,000 acre-feet from full. Basin model runs at 700,000 acre-feet below full condition indicates the potential for increased seawater intrusion and considerably more production wells being impacted by low pumping levels. Thus, a reduction of up to 700,000 acre-feet of groundwater in storage is only considered acceptable during an extreme emergency, such as a disruption in imported water supplies due to an earthquake. Negative or adverse impacts that are considered when establishing the operating range include chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply if OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Basin Storage 10-2 continued over the long-term, increased seawater intrusion, significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses, and increased pumping costs. The current policy of maintaining a groundwater storage level of up to 500,000 acre-feet below full was established based on completion of a comprehensive hydrogeological study of the basin in 2007 (OCWD, 2007). The basin’s storage level is quantified based on a benchmark defined as the full basin condition. Although the groundwater basin rarely reaches the full basin condition, basin storage has fluctuated within the operating range for many decades. OCWD manages groundwater pumping such that it is sustainable over the long term; however, in any given year pumping may exceed recharge or vice versa. Thus, the amount of groundwater stored in or withdrawn from the basin varies from year to year and often goes through multi-year cycles of emptying and filling, which generally correlates with state-wide and/or local precipitation patterns. Each year OCWD calculates the volume of groundwater storage change from a theoretical “full” benchmark condition based on a calculation using changes in groundwater elevations in each of the three major aquifer systems and aquifer storage coefficients. This calculation is checked against an annual water budget that accounts for all production, measured recharge, and estimated unmeasured recharge. The amount of available or unfilled storage from the theoretical full condition from WY1958-59 to 2020-21 is shown in Figure 1-3. Maintaining the basin storage condition on a long-term basis within this operating range allows for long-term sustainable management of the basin without experiencing undesirable effects. Short-term excursions from the operating range due to extreme drought or other factors are not expected to cause adverse impacts but would need to be monitored closely and be of limited duration. In the California Water Plan Update 2013 (DWR, 2014) this manner of groundwater basin management is described as follows: “Change in groundwater storage is the difference in stored groundwater volume between two time periods…However, declining storage over a period characterized by average hydrologic conditions does not necessarily mean that the basin is being managed unsustainably or is subject to conditions of overdraft. Utilization of groundwater in storage during years of diminishing surface water supply, followed by active recharge of the aquifer when surface water or other alternative supplies become available, is a recognized and acceptable approach to conjunctive water management.” (p. SC-77) 10.2 CALCULATION OF GROUNDWATER STORAGE LEVELS The estimated historical minimum storage level of 500,000 to 700,000 acre-feet below full condition occurred in 1956-57 (DWR, 1967; OCWD, 2003). Since this time, the basin storage fluctuated within the operating range reaching a full condition in 1969 and 1983. OCWD uses two methods to calculate the storage condition of the basin: (1) water budget method and (2) three-layer storage change method. The water budget method is simply an accounting of the inflows to the basin and outflows. This data is collected and compiled on a OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Basin Storage 10-3 monthly basis. Estimates of unmeasured or incidental recharge are used based on a statistical relationship between historical local precipitation and calculated unmeasured recharge. Unmeasured recharge is trued up at the end of the year with the final reports of inflows and outflows and basin storage change (based on groundwater level changes). This method produces a monthly estimate of the change in groundwater storage and allows for real-time decision making with respect to managing the basin. In 2007, OCWD instituted a new three-layer change in storage method for calculating the amount of groundwater in storage (OCWD, 2007). The three-layer method involves creating groundwater elevation contour maps for each of the three aquifer layers (Shallow, Principal and Deep aquifers) for conditions at the end of June of each year. Prior to this time, groundwater storage was determined based on a single groundwater elevation map that was essentially a composite of the Shallow and Principal aquifers. 10.3 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 10.3.1 Basin Operating Range Each year OCWD assesses current basin storage and projected water supply availability as factors in establishing how much groundwater can be pumped from the basin for the following year. If basin storage approaches or falls within the lower end of the established operating range, issues that are evaluated when considering the management of the basin include the current status of seawater intrusion protective measures, monitoring of ground surface elevations to assess the risk of land subsidence, inflow of amber-colored water or poor quality groundwater into the Principal Aquifer from underlying or overlying aquifers, and the number of shallow production wells that would become affected by lower groundwater levels. On the other hand, when operating the basin near the higher end of the storage range, considerations include the potential to increase groundwater pumping, purchase less imported replenishment water, and the potential for more groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County. 10.3.2 Balancing Production and Recharge Over the long-term, the basin must be maintained in an approximate balance to ensure the long-term viability of basin water supplies. In a given year, water withdrawals may exceed water recharged as long as over the course of a number of years this is balanced by years where water recharged exceeds withdrawals. Levels of total basin production and total water recharged since WY1999-00 are shown in Figure 1-4. 10.3.3 Managing Basin Pumping The primary mechanisms used by OCWD to manage pumping are the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) and the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA). The ability to assess the BPP and the BEA were provided to OCWD through an amendment to the OCWD Act in 1969. Section 31.5 of the OCWD Act empowers the Board to annually establish the BPP, defined as: OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Basin Storage 10-4 “…the ratio that all water to be produced from groundwater supplies with the district bears to all water to be produced by persons and operators within the District from supplemental sources and from groundwater within the District during the ensuing water year.” In other words, the BPP is a percentage of each Producer’s water supply (supplemental and groundwater sources) that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. The BPP is set uniformly for all groundwater producers. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed the Replenishment Assessment (RA). Production above the BPP is charged the RA plus the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA). The BEA is set by the Board and is presently calculated so that the cost of groundwater production above the BPP is equivalent to the cost of purchasing imported potable supplies. This approach serves to discourage, but not eliminate, production above the BPP. In practice, groundwater producers rarely pump in excess of the BPP as doing so triggers a requirement to pay the BEA, thereby eliminating any cost savings that a pumper might obtain by pumping an amount in excess of the BPP. Collection of the BEA provides funds for OCWD to purchase additional replenishment water (where determined appropriate by OCWD). If necessary, the BEA can be increased to further discourage production above the BPP. The BPP is set after evaluating groundwater storage conditions, availability of recharge water supplies and basin management objectives. OCWD’s goal is to set the BPP as high as possible to allow groundwater producers to sustainably maximize pumping and reduce their overall water supply cost. To change the BPP, the Board of Directors must hold a public hearing. Raising or lowering the BPP allows OCWD to manage the amount of pumping from the basin. The BPP is lowered when basin conditions necessitate a decrease in pumping. A lower BPP results in the need for groundwater producers to purchase additional, more expensive imported water. The methodology for setting the BPP and OCWD polices related to the BPP are described further in the 2017 Alternative. Table 10-1 shows the management actions to be used to guide OCWD in setting the BPP. As the BPP is annually set in April for the following fiscal year (but may be changed throughout the year), the projected change in basin storage would be estimated for the end of that fiscal year (as of June 30), given various assumptions of basin pumping, inflows and outflows. Maintaining some available storage space in the basin allows for maximizing surface water recharge when such supplies are available, especially in relatively wet years. By keeping the basin relatively full during wet years and for as long as possible in years with near-normal recharge, the maximum amount of groundwater could be maintained in storage for future drought conditions. During dry hydrologic years when less water would be available for recharge, the BPP could be lowered to maintain groundwater storage levels. At the beginning of 2015, OCWD committed to purchase 650,000 acre-feet of imported water to recharge the basin over a ten-year time period. This amount of imported water for recharge into the basin will help maintain the BPP and assist in managing the basin storage level within the operating range. OCWD works to maintain a Water Reserve Fund to purchase imported water OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Basin Storage 10-5 from MWD. Each year, a specific amount of money is budgeted to purchase imported water and, if water is not available from MWD, the funds are carried over to the next year in the Water Reserve Fund. Table 10-1: Management Actions based on Change in Groundwater Storage Available Storage Space (amount below full basin condition) Basin Management Actions to Consider Less than 100,000 acre-feet Raise BPP 100,000 to 300,000 acre-feet Maintain and/or raise BPP towards 75% goal 300,000 to 350,000 acre-feet Seek additional supplies to refill basin and/or lower the BPP Greater than 350,000 acre-feet Seek additional supplies to refill basin & lower the BPP Basin Production Limitation Another management tool that enables OCWD to sustainably manage the basin is the Basin Production Limitation. Section 31.5(g)(7) of the OCWD Act authorizes limitations on production and the setting of surcharges when those limits are exceeded. This provision can be used when it is necessary to shift pumping from one area of the basin to another. An example of this is the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program, which shifts pumping from the coastal area to inland to minimize seawater intrusion, when necessary. 10.3.4 Supply Management Strategies One of OCWD’s basin management objectives is to maximize groundwater recharge. This is achieved through increasing the efficiency of and expanding OCWD’s recharge facilities and the supply of recharge water. Construction and operation of the GWRS has provided a substantial increase in supply of water available to recharge the basin. Additional OCWD supply management programs include developing increased stormwater capture programs behind Prado Dam in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, encouraging and participating in water conservation efforts, and working with MWD and the Municipal Water District of Orange County in developing and conducting other supply augmentation projects and strategies. 10.4 DEVELOPING NEW LOCAL WATER RESOURCES POLICY In July 2020, the District adopted a policy called the Developing New Local Water Resources Policy to acknowledge that the local multi-billion-dollar economy and 2.5 million citizens that rely on groundwater as their primary water supply require a reliable, sustainable and economical OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Basin Storage 10-6 water source to remain healthy and strong. It further acknowledges that the imported water that is purchased annually to meet the needs of the groundwater producers is becoming uncertain as environmental, agricultural, and urban interests maneuver to obtain a greater share and is susceptible to impacts from climate change. The Policy contains the following tenets: • The District recognizes the impacts of climate change and their ability to disrupt predictions of future local water supplies for the District’s service territory • The District will evaluate and undertake economical and environmentally sensitive projects and programs to work towards the goal of ensuring adequate water supplies are always available to its service territory • The types of projects that will be evaluated include: (1) Maximizing Santa Ana River base and storm flow capture, (2) Increasing water conservation, (3) Increasing water recycling, (4) Improving the reliability of imported water supplies, (5) Brackish water desalination, (6) weather modification/cloud seeding; and (7) Seawater desalination Conjunctive Use and Water Transfers By agreement with OCWD, MWD established a Conjunctive Use Project (CUP) in the OCWD Management Area by purchasing the right to store up to 66,000 acre-feet of water in the groundwater basin until 2028. OCWD used the funds provided by MWD to improve basin management facilities including the construction of eight new production wells for water retail agencies and new injection wells for the Talbert Barrier. Under the agreement, MWD may request that stored water be extracted up to a maximum of 22,000 acre-feet each year. OCWD reviews opportunities for additional conjunctive use projects that would store water in the basin and potentially in other groundwater basins. Additionally, OCWD reviews opportunities for water transfers that could provide additional sources of recharge water. Such projects are evaluated carefully with respect to their impact on available storage, reliability and cost effectiveness. 10.4.1 Water Demands Water demands within the OCWD Management Area for WY2016-17 to 2020-21 averaged 400,000 acre-feet per year (Figure 6-1). Total demand includes the use of groundwater, surface water from Santiago Creek and Irvine Lake, recycled water, and imported water. Projected Water Demands OCWD estimated future total water demands (including recycled water) within the OCWD Management Area to be approximately 431,000 acre-feet per year in 2050. This is based on a water demand study jointly funded by OCWD and MWDOC. This study was undertaken to assist the 19 major groundwater producers in the development of their 2020 Urban Water Management Plans. Water Demands within the OCWD Management Area was determined by summing the 19 producer future estimates and water produced by private, mutual water company, and irrigation wells. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Basin Storage 10-7 Drought Management During a drought, flexibility to manage pumping from the basin becomes increasingly important. The OCWD Management Area may experience a decline in the supply of recharge water (local supply of Santa Ana River water and net incidental recharge) of 55,000 acre-feet per year or more during drought. Provided that the basin has available water in storage within the established operating range, this stored water provides a valuable water supply asset during drought conditions. Ensuring that the basin can provide a buffer against drought conditions requires: • Maintaining sufficient water in storage that can be pumped out in time of need; and • Possessing a plan to recover basin storage following the drought, including having a reserve account with sufficient funds to purchase replenishment water. A sufficient supply of stored groundwater provides a safe and reliable buffer to manage for drought periods. If the basin, for example, has an available storage level of 150,000 acre-feet and can be drawn down to 500,000 acre-feet without irreparable seawater intrusion, a supply of 350,000 acre-feet is available for increased production. In a hypothetical five-year drought, an additional 70,000 acre-feet per year may be produced from the basin for five years without jeopardizing the long-term health of the basin. In addition to reducing pumping when the basin is at lower storage levels, planning for refilling the basin is important. Approaches for refilling the basin are described in Table 10-2. 10.5 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION OF GROUNDWATER STORAGE OCWD manages the groundwater basin to maintain groundwater storage levels within an operating range of up to 500,000 acre-feet below the full condition. Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater in storage would occur when the volume of groundwater in storage fell below the 500,000 acre-feet below full condition for an extended period of time. If OCWD were to consider an operating range below 500,000 acre-feet additional analysis and monitoring would be needed. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Basin Storage 10-1 Table 10-2: Approaches to Refilling the Basin APPROACH DISCUSSION Decrease Total Water Demands • Increase water conservation and water-use efficiency measures Decrease BPP • Allows groundwater levels to recover rapidly • Decreases revenue to the OCWD • Increases water cost for groundwater producers • Does not require additional recharge facilities • Dependent upon other sources of water (e.g., imported water) being available to substitute for reduced groundwater pumping Increase Recharge • Dependent on increased supply of recharge water • Replenishment could be in the form of in-lieu water (additional imported water delivered to groundwater producers instead of groundwater pumping) • Water transfers and exchanges could be utilized to provide the increased supply of recharge water • May be dependent on building and maintaining excess recharge capacity (which may be underutilized in non-drought years) Combination of the Above • A combination of the approaches provides flexibility and a range of options for refilling the basin 10.6 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS The minimum threshold for significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater in storage is reached when the storage volume of the groundwater basin falls below the operating range of up to 500,000 acre-feet below full condition for an extended period of time. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-1 SECTION 11 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO WATER QUALITY OCWD has extensive monitoring and management programs in place to protect the groundwater basin from significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality including migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies. These programs include monitoring, remediation of contaminated groundwater, and recharging high-quality recycled water. This section describes sustainable basin management related to the water quality programs and projects instituted to prevent degradation of water quality and to remediate water quality problems in the OCWD Management Area. 11.1 SALINITY MANAGEMENT Management of salt and nitrate concentrations in groundwater is important to maintaining the long-term sustainable use of groundwater supplies. OCWD also operates the Prado Wetlands to remove nitrate from Santa Ana River (SAR) water that is recharged into the groundwater basin. These efforts help provide high-quality groundwater to water users in Orange County. In 2020, OCWD completed an evaluation of future TDS and nitrate concentrations in the Orange and Irvine Management Zones (OCWD, 2020). Figure 3-16 shows the areal extent of these zones, which are not to be confused with the OCWD Management Area that is the subject of this report. The 2020 update is similar to an analysis conducted in 2016 (OCWD, 2016) and involved using a model to evaluate the effects of different basin management scenarios on TDS and nitrate concentrations over the next 30 years. One of the key outputs of the model is the calculated ambient TDS and nitrate concentrations for groundwater in the Orange and Irvine Management Zones. The model-calculated ambient concentration represents a volume- weighted average value for the Shallow and Principal Aquifers. The report was prepared to meet regulatory requirements of the Regional Water Board as part of the watershed-wide salt and nutrient management plan. Data and information used for this analysis included: • Quantity and quality of water recharged through surface recharge facilities and injection wells • Quantity and quality of unmeasured recharge, such as percolation of irrigation water into the groundwater basin • Measurements of groundwater pumping • Estimates of groundwater outflow from the Orange Management Zone The most significant change from the prior analysis is the impact of the GWRS Final Expansion, which increases the volume of low-TDS recycled water recharged by 30,000 acre-feet per year. Because OCWD is obtaining the additional water from OC San Plant No. 2, the overall TDS of the recycled water generated increases slightly from 60 mg/L to 86 mg/L. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-2 The quantity and quality of water recharged in the model for the Baseline Scenario are shown in Table 11-1. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-1 Table 11-1: Baseline Projected Future Salt Inflows Source of Water Recharge Volume (acre-feet/yr) TDS Conc. (mg/L) Mass (tons/yr) Deep percolation of precipitation* 6,500 100 900 Percolation of applied water* 9,000 1,900 23,200 Subsurface inflow* 44,500 1,290 78,200 SAR base flow 52,000 700 49,500 SAR storm flow 50,000 200 13,600 Recycled water (GWRS) 133,000 86 15,600 Alamitos Barrier 2,500 350 950 MWD imported water 0 0 0 Total 297,000 449 181,200 *Component of unmeasured recharge The Baseline Scenario assumes that no imported water is used for recharge for the 30-year period and is utilized to compare with other model runs and determine how changing model inputs affect the predicted concentration. The projected trend for TDS for the Baseline declines from the current ambient groundwater concentration of 603 mg/L to 569 mg/L in 30 years as shown in Figure 11-1. Seven additional scenarios were run to model different quantities of recharge source water. The projected 30-year TDS for these scenarios range from 559 mg/L to 580 mg/L. This shows the tremendous impact of low-TDS GWRS water in lowering the overall salinity in the basin over time regardless of how much water is obtained from other recharge sources, such as higher TDS imported water. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-2 Figure 11-1: Estimated TDS Concentration in Base Case for 30-year Period With regards to nitrate, the approach used to estimate future nitrate concentrations was similar to the approached used for TDS projections. The nitrate (as nitrogen, N) concentration for each inflow component was estimated using available data. Table 11-2 summarizes the inflow terms and their nitrate-N concentrations for the Baseline Scenario. The flow-weighted average nitrate (as N) concentration for all inflows to the management zone is 2.3 mg/L. The initial concentration was set at 2.95 mg/L (based on the current ambient concentration for the most recent 20-year period). Since the inflow concentration is less than the initial concentration, the estimated future nitrate (as N) concentration gradually decreases. For the Baseline Scenario, the ambient nitrate (as N) concentration is projected to decrease from 2.95 mg/L to 2.8 mg/L over the course of 30 years. Again, as with TDS, the impact of recharging large volumes of high quality GWRS water lowers nitrate concentrations in basin groundwater over time. 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 TDS (mg/L) Year 2018 Ambient Water Quality Water Quality Objective Projected Ambient Water Quality OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-1 Table 11-2: Baseline Future Nitrate (as N) Inflows Inflow Volume (Acre-Feet/yr) Nitrate-N Conc.(mg/L) Mass (tons/yr) Deep percolation of precipitation* 6,500 1 9 Percolation of applied water* 9,000 10 122 SAR base flow 52,000 3.6 255 SAR storm flow 50,000 1.3 88 Imported water recharge 0 0 0 Recycled water recharge (GWRS) 133,000 1.0 181 Subsurface inflow* 44,500 4.2 253 Alamitos Barrier 2,000 1.4 4 Total 297,000 2.3 657 *component of unmeasured recharge 11.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS This section describes specific projects that improve groundwater quality by removing TDS, nitrate, VOCs and other constituents, including PFAS. The locations of these projects, except for PFAS, are shown in Figure 11-2. PFAS projects are located at specific groundwater producer wells. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-2 Figure 11-2: Water Quality Improvement Projects and Programs North Basin Groundwater Protection Program The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is taking the lead to remediate a VOC plume in the North Basin area of the groundwater basin as shown in Figure 11-3. Groundwater contamination is primarily found in the Shallow Aquifer, which is generally less than 200 feet deep; however, VOC-impacted groundwater has migrated downward into the Principal Aquifer tapped by production wells. The contamination continues to migrate both laterally and vertically threatening downgradient production wells operated by the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim and other agencies. OCWD is conducting a remedial investigation/feasibility study under USEPA oversight to evaluate and develop effective remedies to address the contamination under the National Contingency Plan (NCP) process. In September 2020 the USEPA included the North Basin site on the National Priorities (Superfund) List. • -Project Location ·-·· s ~"'! .. I OCWD Service B L -7 oundary _1 County Boundaries Mesas Feet s OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-3 Figure 11-3: North Basin Groundwater VOC Plume South Basin Groundwater Protection Program Groundwater contaminated with VOCs and perchlorate in the South Basin area of the groundwater basin is shown in Figure 11-4. Elevated concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and perchlorate were detected in Irvine Ranch Water District’s Well No. 3, located in Santa Ana. OCWD’s remedial investigation has resulted in the delineation of an approximately 2-mile long comingled contaminant plume. With the remedial investigation complete, OCWD is proceeding with a feasibility study to evaluate and develop remedial measures in cooperation with regulatory agencies and stakeholders following the NCP process. In tandem with OCWD’s remediation program to address off-site contamination, the Regional Water Board and DTSC are overseeing investigation and remediation activities at the contaminant source sites. MTBE Remediation In 2003, OCWD filed suit against numerous oil and petroleum-related companies that produce, refine, distribute, market, and sell MTBE and other oxygenates. The suit seeks funding from I 0 0.5 West Broadwa voes MeUNL to sx MeUNL voes sx MeUNL to 10X MeUNL voes 10X MeUNL to 20X MeUNL voes > 1 cox MeUNL 2019 composite voe Plume - Principal Zone 1§::1 voes MeUNL to SX MeUNL ~ voes SX MeUNL to 10X L.<::..LJ MeUNL i L l_~~~~~~~~~::::::::::~?~M~ile:s:_ ____ j_ _______ J_ ___ _J~~-_J._ __ _...!L ___ .=====::iz:====:r::==:J OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-4 these responsible parties to pay for the investigation, monitoring and removal of oxygenates from the basin. Most of the major defendants have settled the litigation with OCWD, and funds from these settlements have been set aside for use at such time as treatment is required at drinking water wells. Treatment technologies used to remove MTBE from groundwater include granular activated carbon or advanced oxidation. Depending upon site-specific requirements, a treatment train of two or more technologies in series may be appropriate (i.e., use one technology to remove the bulk of MTBE and a follow-up technology to polish the effluent water stream). Figure 11-4: South Basin Groundwater Contaminant Plume Irvine Desalter The Irvine Desalter was built in response to elevated TDS and nitrate and the discovery in 1985 of VOCs beneath the former El Toro Marine Air Corps Station and the central area of Irvine. A plume of TCE migrated off base and impacted the groundwater basin. In 1990 the USEPA placed the site on the National Priorities List. Irvine Ranch Water District and OCWD cooperated with the U.S. Department of Navy in building production wells, pipelines and two Santa Ana Irvine We t amer Avenue South Basin Groundwater Contami nant Plume , 2019 Uncertain Contam inant Plume Extent 1 to 10 parts per billion Contam inant Plume Extent 10 to 100 parts per billion Contam inant Plume Extent 100 to 1,000 parts per billion OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-5 treatment plants, both of which are now owned and managed by IRWD. Operating since 2007, the two plants remove VOCs by air-stripping and vapor-phase carbon adsorption with the treated water used for irrigation and recycled water purposes. A third plant treats groundwater outside the plume to remove excess nitrate and TDS concentrations using reverse osmosis (RO) membranes for drinking water purposes. Combined production of the Irvine Desalter wells is approximately 8,000 acre-feet per year. OCWD provides a financial subsidy to IRWD in the form of a BEA exemption to help offset the treatment costs. Tustin Desalters Tustin’s Main Street Treatment Plant has operated since 1989 to reduce nitrate levels from the groundwater produced by Tustin’s Main Street Wells Nos. 3 and 4. The groundwater undergoes either RO or ion exchange treatment. The RO membranes and ion exchange units operate in a parallel treatment train. Approximately 1 mgd is bypassed and blended with the treatment plant product water to produce up to 2 mgd or 2,000 acre-feet per year. The Tustin Seventeenth Street Desalter began operation in 1996 to reduce high nitrate and TDS concentrations from the groundwater pumped by Tustin’s Seventeenth Street Wells Nos. 2 and 4 and Tustin’s Newport Well. The desalter utilizes two RO membrane trains to treat the groundwater. The treatment capacity of each RO train is 1 mgd. Approximately 1 mgd is bypassed and blended with the RO product water to produce up to 3 mgd or 3,000 acre-feet per year. OCWD provides a financial subsidy to the City of Tustin in the form of a BEA exemption to help offset the treatment costs. Irvine Ranch Water District Wells 21 and 22 Water produced by IRWD Wells 21 and 22 contain nitrate (as N) at levels exceeding the primary MCL of 10 mg/L. TDS concentrations range from 650-740 mg/L, which is above the secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. Because of the elevated nitrate, TDS, and hardness concentrations, IRWD constructed a RO treatment facility to reduce concentrations in the water before conveying to the potable supply distribution system. Operation of the treatment facility provides 6,300 acre- feet per year of drinking water and benefits the groundwater basin by reducing the spread of impaired groundwater to other portions of the basin. OCWD provides a financial subsidy to IRWD in the form of a BEA exemption to help offset the treatment costs. Amber-Colored Groundwater Amber-colored water is found in the Deep Aquifer (600 to 2,000 feet below ground surface). Natural organic material from ancient, buried plant and wood material gives the water an amber tint and a sulfur odor. Although this water is of high quality, its color and odor produce negative aesthetic qualities that require treatment before use as drinking water. Two facilities currently treat colored groundwater in Orange County for potable supply. In 2001, Mesa Water District opened its Colored Water Treatment Facility capable of treating 5.8 mgd. This facility was replaced in 2012 by the 8.6-mgd Mesa Water Reliability Facility that uses nano- filtration membranes to remove color. OCWD provides a financial subsidy to Mesa Water District in the form of a BEA exemption to help offset the treatment costs. The second facility is OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-6 the Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS), a treatment facility owned and operated by the IRWD since 2002 that uses nano-filtration membranes. This facility purifies 7.4 mgd of amber- colored water. PFAS Treatment Systems In 2020 OCWD as the groundwater basin manager, executed a multi-party agreement with the impacted groundwater producers to fund and construct the necessary treatment systems for production wells impacted by PFAS compounds. The PFAS treatment projects include the design, permitting, construction, and operation of PFAS treatment systems for impacted production wells. Each well treatment system will be evaluated for use with granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange (IX), or an alternative novel sorbent for the removal of PFAS compounds. These treatment systems utilize vessels in a lead-lag configuration to remove PFOA and PFOS to less than 2 ppt, the current laboratory detection limit. These PFAS treatment systems are designed to ensure the groundwater supplied by producer wells can be served in compliance with current and future PFAS regulations. The groundwater producers will own the treatment systems once they are completed; with financial assistance from OCWD, the groundwater producers will operate and maintain the new treatment systems once they are constructed. To minimize alternative water supply expenses and provide maximum protection to the public water supply, OCWD initiated design, permitting, and construction of the PFAS treatment projects on a schedule that allows rapid deployment of treatment systems. As of September 2021, construction contracts have been awarded for treatment systems for production wells owned by the cities of Orange (Phase 1) and Garden Grove, Serrano Water District, and Yorba Linda Water District. The City of Anaheim has also awarded a design-build contact (Phase A) for 8 impacted wells, that will be reimbursed by OCWD. The City of Fullerton’s well KIM-1A treatment system has been completed and is in operation. Additional construction contracts are anticipated to be awarded for impacted wells operated by the cities of Fullerton (Main Plant), Orange (Phase 2), Santa Ana, and Tustin; Irvine Ranch Water District; and East Orange County Water District by early 2022. OCWD expects the treatment systems to be constructed for the approximately 60 impacted wells within the next 2 to 3 years. Figure 11-5 shows locations of wells affected by and to be treated for PFAS. As monitoring continues and additional wells are anticipated to be taken off-line due to PFAS detections reported at or near the current RL (or future MCL), OCWD will continue to partner with the affected groundwater producers and take action to design and construct necessary treatment systems to bring the impacted wells back online as quickly as possible. Groundwater production in WY2020-21 was expected to be approximately 325,000 acre-feet but declined to 282,000 acre-feet primarily due to PFAS-impacted wells being turned off around February 2020. OCWD projects groundwater production to be approximately 250,000 acre-feet in WY2021-22 due to the currently idled wells and additional wells being impacted by PFAS and turned off. As PFAS treatment systems are constructed, OCWD expects total annual groundwater production to increase back to levels similar to years prior to PFAS impacts. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-7 Figure 11-5: Production Wells to be Treated to Remove PFAS BEA Exemption for Water Quality Improvement Projects In some cases, OCWD encourages the pumping of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality. This is achieved by using a financial incentive called the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) Exemption. The benefits to the basin include promoting beneficial uses of poor-quality groundwater and reducing or preventing the spread of poor-quality groundwater into non-degraded aquifer zones. OCWD uses a partial or total exemption of the BEA to compensate a qualified participating groundwater producer for the costs of treating poor-quality groundwater. These costs typically include capital, interest and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the treatment facilities. Using this approach, OCWD has exempted all or a portion of the BEA for pumping and treating groundwater for removal of nitrates, TDS, VOCs, and other contaminants. Water quality improvement projects that currently are receiving BEA exemptions are listed in Table 11-3. ., ••-•• OCVVD Service Boundary •-··' c.-::--=.l County Boundaries Mesas 10 ,000 20 ,000 Feet w OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-8 Table 11-3: Summary of BEA Exemption Projects Project Name Project Description BEA Exemption Approved Average 5-Year Pumping (afy) Max Production Above BPP (afy) OCWD BEA Subsidy Irvine Desalter Remove nitrates, TDS, and VOCs 2001 6,990 10,000 Exemption Tustin Desalter Remove nitrates and TDS 1998 2,240 3,500 Exemption Tustin Nitrate Removal Remove nitrates 1998 170 1,000 Exemption Mesa Water Colored Water Removal Remove color 2011 4,605 8,700 Exemption IRWD Wells No. 21 and 22 Remove nitrates 2012 2,420 7,000 Exemption Huntington Beach Well No. 9 Remove odor 2018 1,680 (3 yrs) 3,000 Partial exemption DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY Three elements must be considered when evaluating the impact of groundwater quality degradation with regard to SGMA undesirable results. The first element is considering the causal nexus between groundwater management activities and groundwater quality. For example, groundwater contamination due to improper handling of toxic materials impacts groundwater quality; however, this water quality degradation is not caused by groundwater management activities. The second element is the beneficial uses of the groundwater and water quality regulations, such as MCLs and other potable water quality requirements. The third element that must be considered is the volume of groundwater impacted by quality degradation. If small volumes are negatively affected that do not materially affect the overall use of the aquifer or basin for its existing beneficial uses, then this would not represent a OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Water Quality 11-9 significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality. However, if the impacted volume grows, then it could reach a level that it becomes significant and unreasonable. When considering all three elements, “significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality” is defined as degradation of groundwater quality attributable to groundwater production or recharge practices in the OCWD Management Area and to the extent that a significant volume of groundwater becomes unusable for its designated beneficial uses. 11.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS The minimum thresholds for groundwater quality are exceedances of MCLs or other applicable regulatory limits that are directly attributable to groundwater management actions in the OCWD Management Area that prevent the use of groundwater for its designated beneficial uses. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-1 SECTION 12 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO SEAWATER INTRUSION In the coastal area of the Orange County groundwater basin, the primary source of saline groundwater is seawater intrusion through permeable aquifer sediments underlying topographic lowlands or gaps between the erosional remnants or mesas of the Newport-Inglewood Uplift. The susceptible locations from north to south are the Alamitos, Sunset, Bolsa, and Talbert gaps as shown in Figure 3-20. OCWD’s policy regarding control of seawater intrusion is implemented through a comprehensive program that includes operating seawater intrusion barriers, monitoring and evaluating barrier performance, monitoring and evaluating susceptible coastal areas, and coastal groundwater management. These programs enable OCWD to sustainably manage groundwater conditions in the basin in order to prevent significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion. 12.1 TALBERT GAP The Talbert Gap, also referred to as the Santa Ana Gap, is shown in Figure 12-1. The furthest seaward mergence zone between the Talbert and Lambda aquifers in the vicinity of Adams Avenue is a primary pathway by which seawater can potentially migrate inland and downward within the Talbert Gap. OCWD monitoring well M26 is a key monitoring well for evaluating barrier injection requirements versus seawater intrusion potential and is used to assess whether protective groundwater elevations are being achieved in the Talbert Gap. The well is strategically located seaward of the barrier in the middle of the Talbert Gap and is screened within the merged Talbert and Lambda aquifers (see Figure 12-2). At the location of well M26, the protective groundwater elevation is approximately 3.5 feet above mean sea level (msl), as explained below. The protective groundwater elevation is based on the Ghyben-Herzberg relation (Ghyben, 1888; Herzberg, 1901; Freeze and Cherry, 1979, pp. 375-376), which takes into account the depth of the Talbert aquifer at a given location along with the density difference between saline and fresh groundwater. Using this relation, for every 40 feet that the bottom of the aquifer is below sea level, there should be about one foot of head of fresh water above sea level to overcome the density effect of seawater. In the case of well M26, the bottom of the merged Talbert-Lambda aquifer is approximately 140 feet below sea level. Therefore, the freshwater head (protective elevation) should be approximately 140 feet divided by 40 which equals 3.5 feet above sea level. Achieving this protective elevation at well M26 is OCWD’s goal to prevent brackish water in the Talbert aquifer from migrating down into the Lambda aquifer that is tapped by inland production wells. Figure 12-2 shows the historical interrelationship between coastal groundwater production, Talbert Barrier injection, and groundwater elevations at well M26 from 2008 to 2021. This figure OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-2 shows that groundwater elevations at well M26 have consistently been maintained at or above protective elevations since 2010 with the exception of brief periods related to GWRS shutdowns. Figure 12-1: Talbert Gap – Seawater Intrusion Barrier Figure 12-3 shows the 250 mg/L chloride concentration contour in the Talbert and Bolsa gaps and adjacent mesas for 1993, 1998, 2008, and 2020. The 250 mg/L chloride contour is used to delineate the inland extent of intrusion because this is above ambient (non-intruded) groundwater quality and is equal to the secondary drinking water standard. Native fresh groundwater in this area typically has a chloride concentration well below 100 mg/L, while the GWRS injection supply has a chloride concentration of approximately 10 mg/L. This figure shows that the 250 mg/L chloride contour has remained relatively unchanged from 2008 to 2020, indicating that the barrier and other basin management programs are keeping seawater intrusion from taking place. M38 ---_; ---C M4 1 $ ---• ANG$).,w1 $ '- SA1 o' $ --- '-' ,USGS-NAWQA 1 '-,_$ '-,M1 <f>'-,/ I (/) Additional Monito ring VVell (s ince 2016) Act iv e Large-System Production Well Standby Large -System Production Well Activ e Small-S ystem Production Well .. , .. Other Act iv e Production Well .. '-$-Inactive Production VVell • ■ Injection Well --- -Geolog ic Fault Q Talbert and Alpha Talbert and Beta EJ Talbert and Beta-Lambda Q Talbert and Lambda LJ Lambda and Omicron l.:_;_::-:>J lambda and Upper Rho 0 ~L~~~~~:==s::=3l~e:'.:e:t ___ '-~--,;;::::::::_-'if ::_-~~~~~~~~=-~~:~t~~~~f u~e~~1:$~~M:o:n:it:o:rin~g~We:~II ================~ OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-1 Figure 12-2: Key Well OCWD-M26 Groundwater Levels, Talbert Barrier Injection, and Coastal Pumping Protective elevation to prevent seawater intrusion 40 30 -30 -40 2008 2009 -- - 2010 20 11 20 12 20 13 2014 2015 2016 OCWD-M26 Water Leve l Elevations in the Ta lbert/Lambda Aquifer Me rgence Zone Month ly Total Ta lbert Barrier Inj ection Monthly Total Coastal Groundwater Production 2017 2018 2019 2020 LL < 3,000 -; 0 ~ ::J 6,000 1l a: .;; 9,000 ~ 0 0 LL ~ C: 3,000 o .:; (.J "' ·c- 2,000:: -~ iii ID 1,000 -iii 0 2021 .c ~ (Includes Huntington Beach , Fountain Valley , Newport Beach , Mesa Water , and IRWD DRWF and OATS) Bolsa I Gap $ Mon11CfnQ1Mltt ■ lnjectionWl!II Huntington Beach Mesa Q Tabert and Larrtida Aquifer Mergence Zone 0 2,000 4,000 .... llli::::==::j FO<I Newport Mesa OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-2 Figure 12-3: Talbert Gap 250 mg/L Chloride Concentration Contours for Selected Years 12.1.1 Talbert Barrier Groundwater Model OCWD has developed a calibrated MODFLOW groundwater model of the Talbert Barrier and surrounding area (Talbert Model). In addition to helping to guide the planning, location, and hydraulic effectiveness of the supplemental injection wells for the Talbert Barrier during pre- GWRS planning activities, the Talbert Model was also used to estimate the general groundwater flow paths and subsurface residence time of barrier injection water by using the USGS particle tracking code MODPATH (Pollack, 1994). This modeling work provided the basis for delineating a recycled water retention buffer area surrounding the Talbert Barrier at a distance of 2,000 feet and one-year travel distance. No new drinking water production wells are allowed within this buffer area, as required by the California Department of Public Health requirements contained within the original permit to operate GWRS (RWQCB, 2004; OCWD, 2005). For more information on the Talbert Model, see the 2017 Alternative. $ Bolsa Gap ~ Additional Active Large-System l,!'.l Production Well (since 2016) CiEl Additonal Monitoring Well (since CE'.l 2016) ~ Additional Injection Well (since 2016) -$-Active Large-System Production \/Veil ~ Actr;e Small-System Production Well ,!} Monitoring Well ♦ Mulliport Mon~oring Well Other Actr;e Production Well ■ Injection \/,Jell 250 mg /L Chloride Concentration --Contour by Year 5,000 10 ,000 Feet OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-3 12.2 ALAMITOS GAP The Alamitos Barrier Project was initially constructed in 1964 and became operational in 1965 to manage seawater intrusion in the Alamitos Gap. The barrier has been expanded over time to include the construction of additional injection and monitoring wells (Figure 12-4). Similar to the Talbert Barrier, the Alamitos Barrier consists of both nested and cluster-type injection wells screened discretely in each aquifer in order to control the injection rate and injection pressure into each targeted aquifer independently since each aquifer has different physical characteristics and groundwater levels. Figure 12-4: Alamitos Gap – Seawater Intrusion Barrier The pathways for intrusion in Alamitos Gap are similar to the Talbert Gap with the uppermost Recent aquifer connected to the Pacific Ocean. Once seawater migrates inland within the Recent aquifer past the Seal Beach Fault, the brackish water can then migrate downward into the C, B, A, and I aquifers via areas of hydraulic mergence with the Recent aquifer where the intervening low-permeability aquitards are absent. These susceptible Pleistocene aquifers were ~ E • I ~' i ~ ~ •' f Signal Hill @-Mon itor ing \/Vell ■ Injection We ll ~ ~ __ Alamitos Inject ion Supp ly w Pipeline - ~.I ...... N g I.,,,. OCWD Bo undary ® Orange I w ~ E .,• County L d. ~ o 1,000 2,000 ··.. ..,• an mg L~~~~=~::'....---=!:~~--L ----------=~~H:il ~-----------J ~ Feet s • .>' OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-4 warped upward by the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and then during Recent geologic time were eroded away and subsequently overlain by the Recent aquifer river deposits. The aquifers susceptible to intrusion are generally thinner and finer-grained than their counterparts in Talbert Gap. Therefore, per-well injection capacity in the Alamitos Barrier is about half that of the Talbert Barrier and thus requires more injection wells and denser spacing to achieve sufficient injection for creating a continuous pressure ridge that achieves protective elevations. Figure 12-5: Alamitos Gap I Zone Chloride Concentration Contours, 2021 Additional injection wells were constructed as part of the Alamitos Barrier Improvement Project to control the identified breaches through the barrier and to address barrier deficiencies along the north-south reach where injection well spacing was too large and injection well capacity too small. In addition, four monitoring wells and two piezometer were installed to improve monitoring near the barrier. Figure 12-5 shows the extent of chlorine intrusion in the I zone in 2021. Since the completion of the Alamitos Barrier Improvement Project in 2018, freshwater injection capacity along the north-south barrier alignment has improved with the even distribution of injection flow through the added new wells and water levels along this barrier reach have I i .., .:, CD I ;tJ -~ $ Signal Hill --==m==-.. Alamitos Injection Su pply -Pipeline ii::~ OCWD Boundary 0 1,000 2,000 w $ Alamitos Gap $$ eles ty ., .. ,· Orange County OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-5 achieved and maintained protective elevations, a first since the barrier was constructed over 50 years ago. LACPW continues to operate and maintain the existing and new barrier facilities as OCWD will continue to work alongside LACPW to monitor the water levels and the barrier performance along the stretch affecting Orange County. 12.2.1 Alamitos Barrier Groundwater Model A transient groundwater flow and solute transport model of the Alamitos Barrier area was developed and calibrated in 2010 by Intera, Inc. with oversight and cost sharing from OCWD, LACPW, and WRD. The model was developed to provide a useful tool to evaluate the existing barrier’s effectiveness, determine barrier expansion requirements, evaluate migration of saline intrusion as well as migration of recycled injection water towards production wells for regulatory purposes, and optimize existing barrier operations. For more information on this model, see the 2017 Alternative. 12.3 SUNSET GAP Sunset Gap was historically considered to be a much lesser seawater intrusion threat compared to the Talbert and Alamitos Gaps. Recent monitoring data, however, indicate that seawater intrusion is occurring in Sunset Gap, as shown schematically in a cross-section in Figure 12-6. Figure 12-7 shows the location of this cross-section. Figure 12-6: Schematic Geologic Cross-Section from Huntington Harbor through Sunset Gap (Fall 2020 Chloride Concentrations, mg/L) Southwest A Main Aquifer BOE-MW59B HB-13 Northeast A' Depth O' 100' 200' 300' 400 ' 500' 600' 700' 800' OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-6 Three potential seawater intrusion source areas appear likely: • Intrusion from Alamitos Gap south of Alamitos Barrier moving in an easterly direction • Intrusion moving north-northeasterly from the Huntington Harbor Marina where dredged canals may have breached through the shallow aquitard overlying the shallow-most potable aquifer • Lateral leakage across the Newport/Inglewood Fault Zone (Seal Beach Fault) in the Landing Hill area in one or more of the Upper Pleistocene aquifers In the southeast portion of Sunset Gap, dredging associated with construction of the boat canals in Huntington Harbor during the 1960s was the subject of several studies at that time regarding the potential for causing saline intrusion. Conclusions of these studies were inconsistent and inconclusive. Studies done by the USGS (1967) and DWR (1968) found that seawater intrusion into the semi-perched aquifer (generally the uppermost 50 feet) associated with the harbor development was occurring, but this was considered to be of little to no significance due to the lack of beneficial use of this near-surface water-bearing zone. Approximately 10 years after construction of Huntington Harbor, chloride concentrations began to rise during the mid-1970s at OCWD monitoring well HH2 screened in the shallow-most Pleistocene Alpha aquifer at a depth of 85-95 ft bgs and located just inland of the Bolsa- Fairview Fault in the Huntington Harbor area. The Bolsa-Fairview Fault is the farthest inland branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone in the area. Chloride concentrations at this well rose steadily over time to very brackish levels today, suggesting an inland gradient and active pathway for inland intrusion. In 2004, elevated chloride concentrations ranging from 300 to 800 mg/L were discovered at two monitoring wells owned by the Boeing Company (BOE-MW16 and BOE-MW17) screened in the Beta aquifer. OCWD commissioned a geophysical survey in 2010 at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station to investigate the extent and depth of intrusion and to help guide the number and location of proposed monitoring wells necessary to sufficiently define the extent of intrusion. One large system production well (HB-12) was shut down and destroyed due to impacts from advancing intrusion in Sunset Gap. From 2012 to 2016, OCWD constructed seven multi-depth monitoring wells to depths up to 1,000 feet in Sunset Gap to better define the source areas, pathways, and overall inland extent of seawater intrusion as the first step towards identifying feasible remedies. In 2021, OCWD began a project to install 11 monitoring wells clustered at five locations: one site in Seal Beach (BS25) and four in Huntington Beach (BS23, BS26, BS27 and BS28). Figure 12-7 shows the location of new wells installed in the last five years and the wells being installed in 2021. The multiple wells at each site will allow for the measurement of groundwater levels and collection of groundwater samples for water quality analyses in specific aquifers at different depths. The information from these monitoring wells may be used to determine if the groundwater flow model needs refinement before finalizing recommendations regarding a potential new seawater barrier in Sunset Gap (e.g., locations and number of injection wells and their injection rates). OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-7 Figure 12-7: Sunset Gap Chloride Concentrations, 2020 12.3.1 Evaluation of Sunset Gap Alternatives The Alamitos Barrier groundwater flow and transport model was recently updated and expanded to include the Sunset Gap area and thereby utilize data from newer OCWD monitoring wells on the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB). The Alamitos-Sunset Gap model boundaries are shown in Figure 12-8. Additional Injection \Nell (since 2016) Addltional Monitor ing \Nell (since 2016) Activ e Large.System Production Well Monitoring Well Other Activ e Production Well ■ Injecti on VI/ell Q Planned Monitoring VI/ells --Geologic Faults 2 ,500 5,000 w N OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-8 Figure 12-8: Alamitos-Sunset Gap Groundwater Model Boundaries To date, the calibrated Alamitos-Sunset Gap model has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of five alternatives for a potential seawater intrusion barrier. These and other alternatives will be evaluated with the goal of halting the inland movement of seawater intrusion without significantly raising or lowering groundwater levels in the environmentally sensitive tidal marsh on the NWSSB. The effects, if any, of the simulated alternatives on nearby contaminant plumes will also be evaluated. Other factors to evaluate once the additional predictive scenarios are modeled will include feasibility, constructability, injection water supply, brackish extraction disposal/reuse, and cost. The number of injection and extraction wells, well spacing, and injection volumes were varied from scenario to scenario to determine the preferred barrier scenario that prevents seawater intrusion by maintaining a seaward gradient without significantly raising or lowering groundwater levels in the environmentally sensitive tidal marsh on the NWSSB. Additionally, the model will run a series of no-barrier predictive scenarios to evaluate the potential maximum future inland extent of seawater intrusion and associated impacts and measures that would likely occur as a result, e.g., groundwater production well loss and/or inland groundwater desalters. LOS ANGELES COUNTY ~·i-------;---+-~,--- [ ~?,I jC~I " iN~ ~ / I ··"· i .~ i / 5 ,:· I ,-■-, ·, •• .. ORANGE COUNTY o: L .. _: OCWD Service Boundary N '• I [--7 County Boundaries •, D Alarritos Model Extent i'! w E ··, D • o 3 ~ Alamitos-Sunset Model Extent ~ 1.5 ··, ~"l ~ ..... __________ M_i_.,_• ____ s _______ ••~-----------"'.:;·::,,._ __ _JL _____ .!:::::■==ln=je=c=ti=on=We=II =====::::::! OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-9 Preliminarily and subject to further analysis, the most favorable approach based on the five predictive scenarios completed so far includes a dual injection/extraction barrier, with an L- shaped injection well alignment around the perimeter of the NWSSB (Figure 12-9). A potential Sunset Gap Barrier Project (SGBP) would be designed to prevent the inland advancement of seawater intrusion near the NWSSB and the Huntington Harbor areas, thus protecting production wells in the cities of Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and Westminster. The preliminary favorable injection alignment would include approximately 20 injection well sites spaced approximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet apart (subject to further analysis). Total modeled injection was 13 mgd, with the majority being injected into the Beta and Lambda aquifers. The preliminary favorable extraction alignment would include three single-point extraction wells screened across the Beta and Lambda aquifers. Total modeled extraction was 3 mgd, or 1 mgd per well. The three potential extraction wells were strategically located just outside (inland) of the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge perimeter to provide ample distance from the injection wells while also remaining outside of the NWSSB ordnance areas. Initially, the extracted brackish groundwater would be expected to have a chloride concentration ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 mg/L. Depending on extracted water disposal/use feasibility and cost, a groundwater treatment plant may be appropriate to remove the high salinity from the groundwater produced by the barrier extraction wells. Reverse osmosis would be the likely treatment process. The technical and economic viability of this supply option would need to be evaluated as part of the future technical work described below. To provide the injection wells with high-quality fresh water, the several water supply alternatives will be considered, including: (1) Groundwater treatment plant (brackish extraction wells and/or Deep aquifer amber-colored water wells); (2) Satellite wastewater treatment plant; (3) GWRS water via new pipeline; and (4) Imported water. Future technical analysis that would need to be conducted as part of the feasibility study includes the following: • Evaluate injection water supply alternatives • Perform siting study for pipelines and wells • Evaluate extraction well discharge alternatives • Identify hydrogeologic data necessary to design, construct, and monitor the performance of barrier facilities • Develop preliminary project design to support CEQA evaluation • Estimate staffing needs for barrier operation and maintenance (O&M) • Provide capital and O&M cost estimate OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-10 Figure 12-9: Potential Sunset Gap Barrier Project Facilities 12.4 BOLSA GAP In the Bolsa Gap, seawater intrusion extends approximately 1.3 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Groundwater monitoring data show that the highest chloride concentrations in Bolsa Gap have remained seaward of the Bolsa-Fairview Fault, which is the farthest inland branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone in that area. Therefore, the saline groundwater appears to be largely restricted from migrating inland across the Bolsa-Fairview Fault within the Bolsa aquifer under normal basin conditions, as the Bolsa aquifer zones of mergence with the underlying Pleistocene aquifers are all inland of the Bolsa-Fairview Fault. An area of slightly elevated salinity has existed beneath the Huntington Beach Mesa for many years and is thought to be due to past disposal practices of oil field brines in the early 1900s rather than active seawater intrusion from the ocean. This area of saline groundwater is being pushed westerly into Bolsa Gap due to increased injection at the west end of the Talbert Barrier but is not expected to be a threat to active production wells or groundwater resources. 0' $ ~ $ ~ $ I !,, ! '-..... 1 'I'-I Proposed Sunset Gap Barrier \ ij Facilities !l ~ 0 Proposed Brackish Extraction Well i ~ • ~. Proposed Injection Well I $ Activ e Large-System Production Well $ Inactiv e Production \.\lell 0 $ Mo nitoring Well ~ . • Multiport Mo nforing Well i Other Act iv e Production Well . • i Alamitos Injection Well -Alanitos Injection Supply Pipeline ~. LI Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach ! i Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge ~ 0 2,000 4,000 . ~ Feet • ,_ri, $ $ $ i$ '* $ $ $ N w s • $ $ $ Edin er venue Bolsa Chica Meas ---==~- OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-11 12.5 NEWPORT MESA Chloride concentrations in the Beta/Lambda aquifers beneath the Newport Mesa east of the Talbert Gap have either remained stable or decreased over the last 10 years even though groundwater elevations have typically been below sea level in these aquifers in this area. Chloride concentrations in the underlying Main aquifer in this area have either decreased or have remained relatively stable for the last 10 years. A proposed extension of the Talbert Barrier eastward along Adams Avenue onto the Newport Mesa has been preliminarily evaluated and modeled by OCWD staff using the Talbert Model. Such a project would serve to provide insurance against future intrusion in the Beta/Lambda and Main aquifers under lower basin conditions and would thus protect production wells owned by Mesa Water District in addition to replenishing the basin. Based on the stability of chloride concentrations in the Newport Mesa, there is no need to advance this project at this time. In 2014, OCWD constructed four new multi-depth monitoring wells (M51, M52, M53, MRSH) farther east on the Newport Mesa, as shown on Figure 12-10. These four well sites are now a part of OCWD’s coastal monitoring program for both groundwater levels and seawater intrusion sampling. The East Newport Mesa area is at the southern margin of the groundwater basin, which geologic formations (including the aquifers with them) have been faulted, uplifted, and eroded. It has been a data gap in which the aquifer stratigraphy and groundwater flow patterns were not well understood. To further characterize this complex portion of the basin, OCWD plans to install a multi-depth cluster of monitoring wells east of John Wayne Airport in early 2022. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-12 Figure 12-10: Newport Mesa Chloride Contours, 2020 12.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF SEAWATER INTRUSION PREVENTION POLICY Implementation of OCWD’s seawater intrusion prevention policy is summarized below. These programs enable OCWD to continue sustainably managing the groundwater basin to prevent significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion. 12.6.1 Effective Barrier Operations The effective operation of the Talbert and Alamitos barriers is critical to the protection of the basin aquifers from seawater intrusion. This program includes, but is not limited to, the following activities: $ $ I Talbert Gap Aquifer ~ Mergence Zones ~. l I ! I ~t 1 ___J Talbert and Alpha Ta lbert and Beta Fall 2020 Mai n Aqu ife r Chlori de Concentrat ion contou rs t::J Talbert and Lambda __ 250 mg /L c::::J Talbert and Beta-Lambda __ 500 mgl l c::J Lambda and Upper Rho __ 1,000 mgl l c::J Lambda and Om icron w N ' $ , $ $ $ Q$ $ $ (:) $ $ $$ $ $$ $ ~ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ill Ill Ad dito nal Monitori ng Well (since 2016) Ac tive Large-Syste m Prcxlucbo n VVe ll Ac tive Sma ll -System Pr oductio n We ll Ot her Ac tive Pr oductio n VVe ll Mo nitorin g Wel l ~ 0 5,000 10,000 ~l_J~~~~~====~F~e:'.e~t------~s:_ _____ ~i..-----~~---------~=============:J ~ Injection Well OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-13 1. Injection of sufficient water quantities combined with other basin management programs, such that protective groundwater elevations are established and maintained, where applicable, based on local hydrogeologic characteristics. 2. Regular maintenance of injection facilities to provide sufficient injection quantities. Such maintenance includes backwashing, redevelopment, and replacement (if necessary) of injection wells and operational fitness checks/repairs of flow meters, pressure reducing valves, and telemetry equipment. 3. Regular communications and coordination between operations, hydrogeology, and engineering staff on barrier operations and activities. 4. Annual reporting on barrier facilities status and operations. The reports include recommendations, as necessary, for barrier improvements to achieve policy objectives. 12.6.2 Barrier Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluating barrier performance provides the basis on which to determine if the barriers are preventing seawater intrusion from occurring. This program consists of the following activities: 1. Semi-annual sampling and testing of designated monitoring wells in the vicinity of the seawater barriers. Testing includes parameters such as TDS, chloride, and electrical conductivity as indicators of seawater intrusion. Wells have been designated to provide adequate spatial coverage, particularly near likely seawater pathways and near the interface between seawater and freshwater. 2. Quarterly water level measurements at designated monitoring wells in the vicinity of the seawater barriers. More frequent measurements will be collected as needed at key locations. 3. Installation of monitoring wells in areas where it is determined that data gaps exist near the seawater barriers that may allow seawater intrusion to go undetected or would otherwise significantly impede the ability to assess barrier performance. 4. Annual evaluation and reporting of barrier performance based on surrounding groundwater level and quality data. 12.6.3 Susceptible Coastal Area Monitoring and Evaluation This program addresses the assessment and ongoing monitoring of the coastal gaps and other areas that are not currently protected from seawater intrusion by the Talbert and Alamitos barriers. These areas include the Bolsa and Sunset gaps and adjacent mesas. This program includes the following activities: 1. Semi-annual sampling and testing of designated monitoring wells. Testing includes parameters such as TDS, chloride, and electrical conductivity as indicators of seawater OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion 12-14 intrusion. Wells have been designated to provide adequate spatial coverage, particularly near likely seawater pathways. 2. Quarterly water level measurements at designated monitoring wells. More frequent measurements will be collected as needed at key locations. 3. Installation of monitoring wells in areas where it is determined that data gaps exist that may allow seawater intrusion to go undetected or would significantly impede the ability to understand the location of and trends in seawater intrusion. 4. Annual evaluation and reporting of the coastal area monitoring program, including recommendations, as needed, for further investigation or other potential actions to address seawater intrusion. 12.6.4 Coastal Groundwater Management In addition to operating the seawater barriers, OCWD has implemented other basin management activities to lessen the potential for seawater intrusion. These activities have included the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program, Coastal In-Lieu Program, and maintaining basin storage levels within the operating range. Each of these activities shall continue to be considered and implemented as deemed necessary along with other potential actions to complement and enhance the OCWD seawater prevention program. 12.7 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE SEAWATER INTRUSION As explained above, OCWD conducts comprehensive programs to protect the groundwater basin from the undesirable effect of significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusion in the OCWD Management Area would be considered significant and unreasonable if a significant and continuing reduction in usable storage volume in the groundwater basin occurs as a result of increased salinity due to seawater intrusion. 12.8 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS The minimum threshold for seawater intrusion that defines an undesirable result is (1) the shutdown of active large system production wells due to seawater-derived salinity, and (2) continuing loss of a significant amount of basin storage due to seawater-derived salinity. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Land Subsidence 13-1 SECTION 13 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO LAND SUBSIDENCE Management of the groundwater basin by maintaining storage levels within OCWD’s established operating range has prevented significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface uses. Within the OCWD Management Area there is no evidence of continuing irreversible land subsidence, nor is there evidence that land subsidence has interfered with surface uses. Therefore, the undesirable result of “significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface uses” is not present and is not anticipated to occur in the OCWD Management Area in the future. Subsidence due to changes in groundwater conditions in the Orange County groundwater basin is variable and does not show a pattern of irreversible permanent lowering of the ground surface. Some subsidence may have occurred before OCWD began refilling the groundwater basin in the late 1950s after storage conditions reached a historic low (Morton, et al., 1976); however, the magnitude and scope of this subsidence is uncertain, and it is not clear if this subsidence was permanent. Since this time OCWD has operated the groundwater basin within the established operating range. More recent data show a consistent pattern of the ground surface rising and falling in tandem with groundwater levels and overall changes in basin groundwater storage. This is referred to as elastic subsidence. Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data collected from satellites and data collected by the Orange County Surveyor (Surveyor) show that ground surface elevations in Orange County both rise and fall in response to groundwater recharge and withdrawals. InSAR data during the period 1993-1999 shows temporary seasonal land surface changes of up to 4.3 inches (total seasonal amplitude from high to low) in the Los Angeles- Orange County area and a net decline of approximately 0.5 inch/year near Santa Ana over the period 1993 to 1999, which happened to coincide with a period of a net decrease in groundwater storage in the basin (Bawden, 2001; 2003). The 2017 Alternative presented GPS data collected by the Orange County Surveyor’s office. These data showed that ground surface elevation changes at selected sites from 2002 to 2014 correlate well with changes in groundwater storage. Recently, as part of DWR's SGMA technical assistance to provide important SGMA-relevant data to Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s (GSAs) for Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) development and implementation, DWR contracted with TRE ALTAMIRA, Inc. to provide vertical displacement estimates derived from InSAR data that are collected by the European Space Agency (ESA) Sentinel-1A satellite. The DWR-commissioned dataset represents measurements of vertical ground surface displacement in more than 200 of the high-use and populated groundwater basins across the California between January 2015 and October 2020. InSAR data coverage began in late 2014 for parts of California, and coverage for the entire study area began on June 13, 2015. Included OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Land Subsidence 13-2 in this dataset are point data that represent average vertical displacement values for 100 square meter areas, as well as GIS rasters that were interpolated from the point data; rasters for total vertical displacement relative to June 13, 2015, and rasters for annual vertical displacement rates with earlier coverage for some areas, both in monthly time steps. The level of accuracy is approximately 0.05 feet. To show subsidence in Basin 8-1, OCWD used the used a layer showing the total land subsidence since the start of the InSAR data on 6/13/2015 and ending on 7/1/2020, which corresponds to the end of the OCWD water year. The GIS layer used was: https://gis.water.ca.gov/arcgisimg/rest/services/SAR/Vertical_Displacement_TRE_ALTAMIRA_v 2020_Total_Since_20150613_20200701/ImageServer Figure 13-1 shows the total land displacement in Basin 8-1 from June 2015 to July 2020. During this time period as shown on Figure 1-3, basin storage increased from 381,000 acre-feet below full conditions to 200,000 acre-feet below full conditions; that is, basin storage increased by 181,000 acre-feet. In addition to increasing groundwater levels, this rise in groundwater storage manifests itself as a rise in ground surface elevation over much of the basin, particularly in the center of the basin where there was as much as 0.15 feet of rise. A localized area of downward (negative) displacement was observed in Tustin centered around production well T-ED. This is a relatively new well that came on-line in October 2016. Due to pumping of this well, water levels in the Principal Aquifer in the vicinity of the well declined by approximately 60 feet from June 2015 to July 2020. The small decline in ground surface in the vicinity of this well is not surprising given that it is a new well and the relatively fine-grained nature of the aquifer sediments in the area. As with other locations in the basin, we expect the impact of this well to stabilize with future displacements expected to be small. Finally, there is little potential for future widespread permanent, irreversible subsidence given OCWD’s commitment to sustainable groundwater management and policy of maintaining groundwater storage levels within a specified operating range. Nevertheless, OCWD will continue to review InSAR data and other data sources to evaluate ground surface fluctuations within OCWD’s service area. If irreversible subsidence was found to occur in a localized area in relation to groundwater pumping patterns or groundwater storage conditions, OCWD would coordinate with local officials to investigate and develop an approach to address the subsidence. This could include OCWD managing the basin at higher groundwater storage levels. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Land Subsidence 13-3 Figure 13-1: Total Vertical Ground Surface Displacement from June 2015 to July 2020 13.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LAND SUBSIDENCE THAT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERES WITH SURFACE USES As stated above, data indicates that there is no inelastic land subsidence within the OCWD Management Area due to changes in groundwater elevation or groundwater storage levels. Land subsidence would be considered to be significant and unreasonable if ground surface elevation changes are determined to be inelastic over a significant period of time, these elevation changes are attributed to declines in groundwater storage, and these changes are likely to significantly interfere with surface uses. I I ~ ~ e LOS ANGELES COUNTY !• i, LJ DWR Basin 8-1 { Vertica l Groun d Surface ! Displaceme nt 6 /13 /2015 to ~ 7/1/202 0 j --0.15to-0.1 fee t j -0 .1 to -0.05 fee t i D -0 .05 to 0 fee t ~. -0 to 0.05 feet • i -0.05 to 0.1 fee t ~ .0.1 to0.15feet •--c::==::l Miles SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY J :1 RIVERS IDE COUNTY ~ L__--------------------=~---------__J OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management: Land Subsidence 13-4 13.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS The minimum threshold for land subsidence that defines an undesirable result is a sustained lowering of ground surface elevation that is attributable to lowering of groundwater storage in the basin and is likely to significantly interfere with surface uses. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Sustainable Management Groundwater Depletions 14-1 SECTION 14 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE WATER There are no surface water bodies within the OCWD Management Area that are interconnected and dependent on groundwater basin conditions. Therefore, the undesirable result of “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water due to groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin” is not present and in the future is not anticipated to occur in the OCWD Management Area due to OCWD’s management programs. The two main surface water sources in Orange County are the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The Santa Ana River in Orange County flows through a highly urbanized environment. Flood protection infrastructure has constrained the flow of the river with engineered levees along most of its course. Santiago Creek, a major tributary of the Santa Ana River, is the primary drainage for the northwest portion of the Santa Ana Mountains. Under natural conditions, the creek is ephemeral, with dry conditions predominant during most of the year. Additional information on these sources can be found in the 2017 Alternative. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Protocols for Monitoring Programs 15-1 SECTION 15 PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS Protocols that trigger a change in a monitoring program include: • a recommendation by the GWRS Independent Advisory Panel for resampling or increased monitoring of a particular constituent of concern; • a recommendation by the Independent Advisory Panel that reviews OCWD use of Santa Ana River water for groundwater recharge and related water quality; • a change in regulation or anticipation of a change in regulation; • a constituent in a sample approaches or exceeds a regulatory water quality limit or Maximum Contaminant Level, notification level, or first-time detection of a constituent; • the computer program built by OCWD to validate water quality data prior to transfer to the WRMS data base flags a variation in historical data that may indicate a statistically significant change in water quality; • analysis of water quality trends conducted by water quality, hydrogeology, or recycled water production staff indicate a need to change monitoring; or • OCWD initiates a special study, such as quantifying the removal of contaminants using treatment wetlands or testing the infiltration rate of a proposed new recharge basins. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Evaluation of Potential Projects 16-1 SECTION 16 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS As described in the 2017 Alternative, OCWD regularly evaluates potential projects, conducts studies and prepares reports and plans (e.g., Long Term Facilities Plan) to continue to sustainably manage the groundwater basin and advance the mission of OCWD. Described below are a few of the key projects and activities OCWD has undertaken over the last five years. Key activities/projects that were completed in the last five years include: • Four deep mid-basin injection wells were constructed in Santa Ana (MBI wells). The wells are injecting approximately 8-10 mgd of GWRS water into the center of the basin where groundwater levels tend to be the lowest. • Alamitos Barrier Improvement Project: 17 new injection wells were constructed at the Alamitos Seawater Barrier to reduce the spacing between wells to improve barrier performance. The additional 1.4-mgd of injection capacity has raised water levels near or at protective elevations. • Shallow geophysical exploration of the Lower Off-River Channel to characterize the shallow subsurface sediments. This data will be useful in assessing whether or not it is feasible to remove areas of fine-grained sediments to increase facility recharge rates. • Continued testing of the Riverbed Filtration System (RFS), which is a shallow underdrain system designed to filter SAR water prior to delivery to a recharge basin. Testing conducted thus far shows it has the potential to double the capacity of a receiving basin. Work is also ongoing on how to potentially expand the RFS to the main SAR channel. • Geophysical evaluation of deeper sediments in the lower SAR to assess the potential of installing a horizonal collector well (e.g., Ranney well) that would be used for recharge of GWRS water. Modeling was also conducted to assess the potential recharge capacity of a “Ranney” type well. Key activities/projects that are underway include: • Final expansion of the GWRS to 130 mgd capacity. This is scheduled to be complete in 2023. This project will provide OCWD 30 mgd of new water supply. • Construction of water treatment facilities at production wells currently impacted by PFAS is ongoing. This is scheduled to be complete by 2024. • Continued assessment of potential seawater intrusion in the Sunset Gap, including installation of additional monitoring wells, modeling, and feasibility studies. • Completion of the Integrated Santa Ana River Watershed Model (ISARM), which is the integration of several surface and groundwater models in the upper SAR watershed above Prado Dam. This model will assist OCWD and other upper SAR OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Evaluation of Potential Projects 16-2 watershed stakeholders in determining potential future SAR flows arriving at Prado Dam and the potential impact of future projects on these flows. • A study to examine the use of Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) at Prado Dam. A Preliminary Viability Assessment (PVA) was completed in July 2021, which showed that FIRO is viable at Prado Dam and able to provide an average of up to 7,000 acre-feet of water depending on how much water can be temporarily impounded (Ralph et al., 2021). Work on the Final Viability Assessment (FVA) is underway and scheduled for completion in mid-2023. In parallel to the FVA is work with the US Army Corps of Engineers to test FIRO at Prado Dam (through a minor deviation from the approved Water Control Plan) for a five-year period, starting in fall 2023. Future anticipated activities and projects: • Additional treatment systems may need to be constructed on production wells based on water quality results or changes in regulations. • Projects may need to be constructed to improve water quality during recharge, such as sorbents to remove contaminants during recharge. • Projects may needed to facilitate implementation of FIRO at Prado Dam or at Santiago Basins. ▪ Additional groundwater monitoring wells may need to be constructed to fill data gaps, including the Sunset Gap, and other areas in the basin. ▪ Design and construction of a potential seawater barrier at the Sunset Gap. ▪ Implementation of a groundwater contamination remedy in the South Basin area. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE References 17-1 SECTION 17 REFERENCES Bawden, Gerald W., Wayne Thatcher, Ross S. Stein, Ken W. Hudnut, and Gilles Peltzer, 2001. Tectonic Contraction Across Los Angeles After Removal of Groundwater Pumping Effects, Nature, Vol. 412, pp. 812-815. Bawden, G.W., 2003. Separating groundwater and hydrocarbon-induced surface deformation from geodetic tectonic contraction measurements across metropolitan Los Angeles, California. In K.R. Prince and Galloway, D.L., eds., U.S. Geological Survey subsidence interest group conference, proceedings of the technical meeting, Galveston, Texas, November 27-29, 2001. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-308. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr03-308/. Boyle Engineering Corporation and Orange County Water District, 1997. Coastal Groundwater Management Investigation. California Department of Water Resources, 1966. Ground Water Basin Protection Project: Santa Ana Gap Salinity Barrier, Orange County, Bulletin No. 147-1. ***** 1967. Progress Report on the Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County. ***** 1968. Sea-Water Intrusion: Bolsa-Sunset Area, Orange County, Bulletin No. 63-2. ***** 2014. California Water Plan Update. October 2014. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), 2004. Order No. R8-2004-0002, Producer/User Water Recycling Requirements and Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Orange County Water District Interim Water Factory 21 and Groundwater Replenishment System Groundwater Recharge and Reuse at Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier and Kraemer/Miller Basins. March 12, 2004. ***** 2008. Order No. R8-2008-0058 Fairchild, F.B. and Wiebe, K.H., 1976. Subsidence of organic soils and salinity barrier design in coastal Orange County, California. In A.I. Johnson, ed., Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Land Subsidence, Anaheim, California, December 13– 17,1976, International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication 121, 334-346. Freeze, R. Allan and John A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 604 pp. Ghyben, W.B. 1888. Nota in verband met de voorgenomen putboring nabij Amsterdam. Tijdschrift van Let Koninklijk Inst. Van Ing. Hardt, William F. and E. H. Cordes, 1971. Analysis of Ground-Water System in Orange County, California by Use of an Electrical Analog Model, USGS Open-File Report. Herzberg, A. 1901. Die Wasserversorgung einiger Nordseebader. J. Gasbeleucht. Wasserversorg., 44, pp. 815-819. Intera, Inc., 2010. Alamitos Barrier Model Final Report, prepared for OCWD. OCWD Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE References 17-2 McGillicuddy, Kevin B., 1989. Ground Water Underflow Beneath Los Angeles-Orange County Line, unpubl. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Southern California Dept. of Geological Sciences. Morton, Paul K., et al., 1976. Environmental Geology of Orange County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report No. 79-8 LA. Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2016. Technical Memorandum on Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap Analysis, prepared by CDM Smith for MWDOC, April 20, 2016. Orange County Water District, 1997. Issues Paper – Development of the Colored Water Zone. June 1997. ***** 2003. Orange County Water District Recharge Study. ***** 2005. Board of Directors Resolution No. 05-4-40: Establishing a GWR System Buffer Area around the GWR System injection operation at the Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier, April 20, 2005, Fountain Valley, California. ***** 2007. Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy. ***** 2016. Salt and Nitrate Projections for Orange County Management Zone, Final Technical Memorandum by Greg Woodside, July 18, 2016. ***** 2020. Salt and Nitrate Projections for Orange County Management Zone, Technical Memorandum by Adam Hutchinson and Kevin O’Toole, December 28, 2020. Pollack, D.W., 1994. User’s Guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 3: A particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW, the U. S. Geological Survey finite- difference ground-water flow model, USGS Open File Report 94-464. Ralph, F. M., Woodside, G., Anderson, M., Cleary-Rose, K., Haynes, A., Jasperse, J., Sweeten,J., Talbot, C.,Tyler, J.,Vermeeren, R., 2021. Prado Dam Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations Preliminary Viability Assessment. UC San Diego. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/13091539. U.S. Geological Survey, 1967. An Investigation of Potential Salt-Water Intrusion from Inland Waterways in the Shallow Alluvial and Coastal Deposits of Sunset and Bolsa Gaps, Orange County, California, USGS Water Resources Division, Open-File Report, July 17, 1967. Water Systems Consulting, Inc., 2020. Technical Memorandum: Recomputation of Ambient Water Quality in the Santa Ana Watershed for the Period 1999 to 2018. Irvine Ranch WATER DISTRICT Five Year Update to: Basin 8-1 Alternative South East Management Area Prepared for the Department of Water Resources, pursuant to Water Code §10733.6(b)(3) January 1, 2022 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-0 Section Page CONTENTS 2.1 HISTORY OF AGENCIES IN SOUTH EAST BASIN MANAGEMENT AREA .............. 2-1 2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ................................................. 2-1 2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 BUDGET ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 3.1 SOUTH EAST SERVICE AREA .................................................................................. 3-1 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES ........................................................................ 3-1 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 3-1 3.2.1 GROUNDWATER LEVELS .................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.2 REGIONAL PUMPING PATTERNS ..................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3 GROUNDWATER STORAGE DATA .................................................................... 3-7 3.2.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ......................................................... 3-7 3.2.5 LAND SUBSIDENCE ............................................................................................ 3-8 3.2.6 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER INTERACTIONS AND GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS ....................................................... 3-10 4.1 BUDGET COMPONENTS ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 RECHARGE ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION ........................................................................ 4-1 4.1.3 SUBSURFACE OUTFLOW .................................................................................. 4-2 4.2 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE .............................................................. 4-2 4.3 WATER YEAR TYPE .................................................................................................. 4-2 4.4 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD ........................................................................ 4-2 4.5 CURRENT, HISTORICAL, AND PROJECTED WATER BUDGET .............................. 4-2 5.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS .......................................................... 5-1 5.3 OTHER MONITORING PROGRAMS .......................................................................... 5-1 9.1 HISTORY .................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS ........................................................... 9-1 i 1-1SECTION 1 . EX ECUT IVE SUM f\·JARY .............................................................................. . SECTION 2. AGENCY INFORMATION ............................................................................ 2-1 SECTION 3. MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION ........................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 3.1.2 SECTION 4. WATER BUDGET. ....................................................................................... .4-1 SECTION 5. WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS ...................................... 5-1 SECTION 6. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................................. 6-1 SECTION 7. NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION ................................................................ 7-1 SECTION 8. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT APPROACH .............................................. 8-1 SECTION 9. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS9-1 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-1 9.3 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS .................................................................................... 9-1 9.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ....................................................... 9-1 10.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION IN STORAGE ............................................................................................................ 10-1 10.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................................... 10-1 11.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGREDATION OF WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................................... 11-1 15.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR WATER QUALITY ............................... 15-1 Figures Figure 1-1: Agencies in the South East Management Area ............................................ 1-1 Figure 3-1: Groundwater Production Wells (Active and Inactive) ................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2:Historic Groundwater Levels in South East Management Area, 1991-2021 3-4 Figure 3-3: Current Groundwater Levels in South East Management Area, 2020-21 .... 3-4 Figure 3-4: Monthly Groundwater Pumping Pattern in Well LF-2, 2016-2021 ............... 3-6 Figure 3-5: Total Annual Pumping for Well LF-2, Water Year 2016-2021 ...................... 3-7 Figure 3-6: Total Vertial Ground Surface Displacement ................................................ 3-10 Tables Table 1-1: Agencies in South East Management Area and Area Covered ..................... 1-3 Table 3-1: Wells and Flow Data ..................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-2: Annual Pumping Average 2016-2021 ........................................................... 3-6 Table 3-3: Ground Water Quality in Selected Wells ....................................................... 3-8 Table 4-1: Average Annual Groundwater Budget ........................................................... 4-1 ii ...11-1 .1-1 .1-1 1-1 1-1 16-1 17-1 SECTION 10 . SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO BASIN STORAGE ........... 10-1 SECTION 1 i . S STA I NAB LE ~lANAG EM E T R.ELAT:E □· TO Wl\ TER. 0 UA LI TY ......... . SECT ION 12:. S STAIN ABLE rAANAGEME r-.l T RELJffE.D TO SEAWATER IN TRUSION SECT ION 13. SUSTAIN ABLE MA NAGE MENT RELATED TO LA ND S.U BS IDE NC.E ,,,,, SECTION 14. MANAGING GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SU RF ACE YVATER ...................................................................................... . SECT ION 15. PROT OCO LS FOR MOID I FYI NG MONITOR ! NG P OG RA.MS ............... . SECT ION 16. P OCESS TO EVA LU ATE NEW PROJECTS ........................................ . SECT ION 17. REFERE NCIES .......................................................................................... . South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The South East Management Area is located in the south east portion of the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin 8 -1). The South East Management Area consists of several small, fringe areas south east of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Management Area. These areas fall within the boundaries of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), El Toro Water District (ETWD) and the City of Orange service areas. Figure 1-1 shows the IRWD, ETWD and City of Orange areas within the boundaries of the South East Management Area along with the OCWD Management Area. Figure 1-1: Agencies in the South East Management Area 1-1 SECTION 1. Legend =Cieek1andCtwinrwl• -OCV.OBoundlJ'f Fringe Area Agencies -El Toro ware, Di5trlet -Irvin• R¥1Ch Wiler 0151/ld City of Orange • ~n~~~cr.eek ;::: "<--r -r South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-3 Table 1-1 shows the area (in acres) associated with each agency within the South East Management Area. The South East Management Area covers approximately 4.4 percent of Basin 8-1, which has a total area of 223,600 acres. Table 1-1: Agencies in South East Management Area and Area Covered Agency Area (acres) Irvine Ranch Water District 8,870 El Toro Water District 762 City of Orange 134 Total Area 9,766 Update to 2017 Alternative This document provides any updates to the 2017 Alternative for the South East Management Area plan, submitted by OCWD on December 2, 2016. The 2017 Alternative, including the South East Management Area was reviewed by the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in July 2019. Based on DWR’s assessment, the 2017 Alternative was found to meet the requirements under SGMA and was approved. Approved alternatives are required to submit annual reports to DWR on April 1 of each year. Annual reports for Basin 8-1 were submitted to DWR as follows: •Water Year 2016-17, Submitted on March 29, 2018 •Water Year 2017-18, Submitted on March 29, 2019 •Water Year 2018-19, Submitted on March 30, 2020 •Water Year 2019-20, Submitted on March 30, 2021 According to Water Code §10733.8, “At least every five years after initial submission of a plan pursuant to Section 10733.4, the department shall review any available groundwater sustainability plan or alternative submitted in accordance with Section 10733.6, and the implementation of the corresponding groundwater sustainability program for consistency with this part, including achieving the sustainability goal. The department shall issue an assessment for each basin for which a plan or alternative has been submitted in accordance with this chapter, with an emphasis on assessing progress in achieving the sustainability goal within the basin. The assessment may include recommended corrective actions to address any deficiencies identified by the department.” This document represents the first five-year update, which is due January 1, 2022. 1-2 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-4 For purposes of this report, the Basin 8-1 Alternative submitted on December 22, 2016, will be referred to as the 2017 Alternative. The first five-year update will be referred to as the 2022 Update for ease of reference. The 2017 Alternative was a comprehensive document showing that Basin 8-1 had been managed sustainably for more than 10 years. For the 2022 Update, the focus is on documenting that the basin has been continued to be sustainably managed during the five years since the 2017 Alternative was submitted and to present any new information from the last five years. As such, the 2017 Alternative is considered a key reference document with background information that is not duplicated in the 2022 Update. The water resources in the South East Management Area include surface water from Serrano Creek and numerous smaller tributaries, groundwater and imported water. Serrano Creek provides surface waters that flow into and/or out of the IRWD’s Lake Forest portion of the South East Management Area (Boyle, 2002). Historically, groundwater production has been a minor source of water supply for the South East Management Area and there has been no groundwater production since February 2018. Imported water received through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is the primary water supply source to meet the water demands within the South East Management Area. Historically, IRWD has produced groundwater from six wells located in the city of Lake Forest. Groundwater production within the South East Management Area has historically represented less than 2 percent of the potable water supply for IRWD’s Lake Forest area and less than 0.2 percent of IRWD’s overall potable water supply. Due to the relatively low yield of the Aquifer in the South East Management Area, groundwater production is expected to remain a relatively insignificant water supply source for the area. None of IRWD’s six wells have been active since February 2018. At the time of the preparation of the Basin-8 Alternative, IRWD was pumping groundwater from only one active well (Well LF-2) in the South East Management Area. In early 2018, due to poor water quality of the well water, IRWD ceased well pumping and the well has been inactive since. IRWD has plans to rehabilitate Well LF-2 and resume groundwater production in the future. In addition, in February 2020, well LF-5 was destroyed due to low water production and high salinity and to also make way for a new pump station on the site where the well was located. While no plans are currently in place, placement for a potential new well was included with the pump station siting. The five remaining wells within IRWD’s Lake Forest portion of the Management Area are currently monitored for groundwater levels on a monthly basis. There are no other programs in the South East Management Area responsible for managing or monitoring groundwater resources at this time. As of the beginning of 2018, the monthly water quality monitoring of the operational well was halted temporarily due to lack of production. Sampling and water quality monitoring will resume at this well when the planned well rehabilitation project is completed. In addition, two wells are to be designated as Important Note: 1-3 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-5 groundwater level monitoring wells (LF-1 and LF-4) and added to the Basin 8-1 SGMA monitoring program. The groundwater levels at these wells will be monitored on a monthly basis with the results transmitted to DWR as part of the Basin 8-1 monitoring program. The approach to sustainably managing the South East Management Area is to continue to monitor groundwater levels and production to ensure that groundwater pumping does not lead to significant and unreasonable conditions such as (1) chronic lowering of groundwater levels, (2) chronic reduction in storage, (3) groundwater quality degradation, (4) inelastic land subsidence or (5) unreasonable adverse effect on surface water resources. Descriptions of these undesirable results can be found in Sections 8 through 14. 1-4 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 2-6 AGENCY INFORMATION 2.1 HISTORY OF AGENCIES IN SOUTH EAST BASIN MANAGEMENT AREA No update since the 2017 Alternative – See 2017 Alternative. 2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE No update since the 2017 Alternative – See 2017 Alternative. 2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY No update since the 2017 Alternative – See 2017 Alternative. 2.4 BUDGET The budget required to monitor and report groundwater information for the South East Management Area has not been defined. As part of its standard operations, IRWD regularly collects and maintains information on its groundwater production, groundwater levels and water quality testing. Funding for well monitoring, operation, and rehabilitation where applicable is defined in the IRWD’s operating or capital budgets. Since the preparation of the 2017 Alternative, there continues to be no groundwater production within ETWD or City of Orange areas of the South East Management Area, therefore these agencies are not be responsible for monitoring and reporting groundwater information. For this 2022 update, it should be noted that two monit oring wells (LF-1 and LF-4) will be designated to report on monthly water levels which will be transmitted to DWR as part of the Basin 8-1 SGMA monitoring program. 2-1 SECTION 2. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-7 MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION 3.1 SOUTH EAST SERVICE AREA No update since the 2017 Alternative – See 2017 Alternative. Jurisdictional Boundaries No update since the 2017 Alternative – See 2017 Alternative. Land Use Designations No update since the 2017 Alternative – See 2017 Alternative. 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater level trends in the South East Management Area are relatively stable, or rising, consistent with the limited recent groundwater production in the area. Of the six groundwater production wells IRWD has in the area, only one is active and that well is currently not pumping due to groundwater quality issues and required maintenance (see Figure 3-1). As there is no current groundwater pumping and only limited planned future groundwater development, the stable or rising groundwater level trends are expected to continue. 3 -1 SECTION 3. 3.1.1 3.1.2 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-8 Figure 2 Figure 3-1: Groundwater Production Wells (Active and Inactive) A study completed in 2002 assessed the potential of the development of future wells in the IRWD Lake Forest area, which is located in the eastern portion of the South East Management Area. It was noted that based on available well driller’s logs there was considerable clay in the alluvium and that the specific capacity of these wells is very low. Based on the very low specific capacity results, it appears that the alluvium is characterized by low permeability. This seems to be reflected in the low production capacity of the wells (Boyle 2002). Since the preparation of the 2017 Alternative, only well LF-2 was operational up through January 2018. Due to water quality issues related to iron and manganese, well LF-2 was taken offline in early 2018 and IRWD plans to rehabilitate the well and construct treatment for the removal of iron and manganese. The rehabilitation project is planned to be performed in late 2022 and depending on the performance and water quality testing results from the well, IRWD may construct a treatment facility to remove iron and manganese. While well LF-2 has not been active in the last few years, it is shown as 3 -2 Legend -== =-== Creeks and Chllmel, ~ ¢5 I -OCWD Botmaty c:J seM-.Bourdary South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-9 “active” on Figure 3-1 because IRWD plans to put well LF-2 back into production once it is rehabilitated and treatment facilities are constructed. In 2020, well LF-5 was destroyed to make way for a new planned pump station on the site. Well LF-5 was previously used to supplement water in IRWD’s recycled water system. However, due to continual poor water production and high salinity, IRWD ceased the operation of well LF-5, and in February 2020, IRWD destroyed the well. At the site, IRWD plans to construct a new recycled water pump station. Although construction and operation of a new well is not a currently planned project, space is being allocated on the existing site adjacent to the pump station to accommodate a potential new well in the future. 3.2.1 Groundwater Levels The range of observed groundwater levels in the South East Management Area from 2016 to 2021 are summarized in Figure 3-2. It is noted that no groundwater level data exists in the ETWD and City of Orange portions of the South East Management Area. Historic and estimated groundwater levels from 1991 to 2021 for IRWD’s Lake Forest wells are shown in Figure 3-2. Historic groundwater level data is available from 1991 through 2001, after which there is no data available until 2015. More recent groundwater level data is available from 2015 to present. Monthly groundwater levels from IRWD’s Lake Forest wells for 2020 to 2021 are shown in Figure 3-3. In all IRWD wells, groundwater levels are the same or higher in 2021 than they were in 2017. With the exception of LF-1, groundwater levels show a rising trend, indicating that recharge to the area exceeds the discharge. Well LF-1 shows a stable groundwater level trend. 3 -3 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-10 Figure 3Figure 3-2:Historic Groundwater Levels in South East Management Area, 1991 -2021 Figure 4Figure 3-3: Current Groundwater Levels in South East Management Area, 2020-21 3 -4 0 -50 -100 ~ 00 .0 t ~ cii -150 > ~ ~ "' 3: "Cl -200 C :, e \!l -250 -300 -350 0 -20 -40 l!l "' -100 ~ C :, e \!l -120 -140 -160 '" N "' ..,. U) <D ,-.. "' "' "' "' "' "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -LF-1 Historic SEMA Groundwater Levels (1991-2021) <X) "' 0 0 N "' ..,. U) <D ,-.. <X) "' 0 N "' ..,. U) <D ,-.. <X) "' 0 ;;. "' "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ~ "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -LF-2 -LF-3 LF-4 -LF-5 -LF-7 Groundwater Levels (2020-2021) t t I I t t Month --LF-1 --LF-2 --LF-3 --LF-4 --LF-5 --LF-7 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-11 3.2.2 Regional Pumping Patterns Table 3-1 summarizes information on all of the wells that are known to exist within the South East Management Area by agency. As presented, well design flows range from 125 to 350 gallons per minute (gpm) and well depths range from 675 to 1,000 feet below ground surface (ft-bgs). Table 2Table 3-1: Wells and Flow Data Agency Well State Well No. System Status Design Flow (gpm) Drilled Depth (ft- bgs) Perforated Intervals (ft) IRWD LF-1 06S/08W- 15A00 Nonpotable Inactive 300 1989 800 200-790 IRWD LF-2 06S/08W- 12Q02 Potable Inactive 300 1957, redrilled 2010 675 200-675 IRWD LF-3 06S/08W- 12J01 Potable Inactive 350 1950 800 270-395; 400-785 IRWD LF-4 06S/08W- 12L02 Nonpotable Inactive 200 1993 810 350-470 510-790 IRWD LF-5 06S/08W- 12A01 Nonpotable N/A 140 1997 800 350-780 IRWD LF-7 06S/08W- 12E00 Potable Inactive 125 1994 1000 430-980 ETWD N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A City of Orange N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A For the 2022 Update, Table 3-2 summarizes average annual pumping from 2016-2021 within the South East Management Area by agency. As shown, ETWD and City of Orange did not pump any groundwater from the South East Management Area during this time period. In IRWD’s portion of the South East Management Area none of the existing wells are currently active. Over the last 5 years, well LF-2 annual pumping ranged from 0 acre-feet to 389 acre-feet and averaged approximately 90 acre-feet. 3 -5 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-12 Table 3 Table 3-2: Annual Pumping Average 2016-2021 Agency Average Annual Production (acre-feet/yr.) IRWD 90 ETWD 0 City of Orange 0 Total 90 In the last five years, pumping from LF-2 occurred in 2016 and 2018, after which LF-2 was taken offline. Figure 3-4 shows monthly pumping patterns for LF-2 from 2016 to 2021. Figure 3-5 shows annual pumping by water year (October-September) for 2017 through 2021. Figure 5Figure 3-4: Monthly Groundwater Pumping Pattern in Well LF-2, 2016-2021 3 -6 40 35 -; 30 .. ~ ~ V .!!. 25 c ::, 0 E ~ '"'20 C ·c. E ::, Q. 15 10 5 0 ■ JAN FEB 2016-2021 Monthly Groundwater Pumping Patterns for LF -2 - MAR APR MAY JUNE Month JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV ■ 2016 ■ 2017 ■ 2018 ■ 2019 ■ 2020 2021 DEC South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-13 Figure 6Figure 3-5: Total Annual Pumping for Well LF-2, (Water Year 2016-2021)1 1 All data shown for 2017 on this chart occurs between October and December 2016 of the water year. 3.2.3 Groundwater Storage Data No update since the 2017 Alternative – See 2017 Alternative. 3.2.4 Groundwater Quality Conditions Historically, only three of the six IRWD Lake Forest wells were permitted for potable use as the other three Lake Forest wells have had elevated levels of iron(Pb), manganese (Mn), electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solids (TDS). Recent groundwater quality data for the South East Management Area which includes arsenic (As) is presented in Table 3-3. As presented, no other water quality data exists for the ETWD and City of Orange areas within the South East Management Area. 3 -7 350 300 .; 250 QI .!! QI .. 200 V ..!. .... C :I 150 0 E <C WI 100 C "ii E :I 50 0. 0 "' ci N t-- ci N Total Annual Groundwater Pumping for LF-2 Water Year 2016 -2021 0:, 0) ci ci N N Water Year (October -September) 0 ;;; N 0 0 N N South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-814 Table 4 Table 3-3: Ground Water Quality in Selected Wells Agency Well Name Well Use Date Range Avg TDS (#)1 (mg/L) Avg As (ug/L) Avg Pb (ug/L) Avg Mn (mg/L) IRWD LF-2 Production 2016-2018* 602 0.42 0.51 22.3 IRWD LF-1 Production 1961-2000 >500 (21) IRWD LF-4 Production 1993-2000 >500 (12) IRWD LF-5 Production 1997-2001 >500 (5) IRWD LF-3 Production 1991-1998 >500 (12) IRWD LF-7 Production 1994-2001 <500 (12) City of Orange N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ETWD N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 # = Number of Samples * LF-2 Turned Offline in February 2018 3.2.5 Land Subsidence Non-recoverable land subsidence has not been observed since 2015 in the South East Management Area (see Figure 3-6). The area is not susceptible to land subsidence given the following: 1.Minimal groundwater development exists in the South East Management Area. 2.Groundwater levels are stable or rising and have been for at least the last 10 years. 3.Low risk of future groundwater level declines due to limited planned groundwater production. As shown in Figure 3-6, the South East Management Area experienced between -0.05 and 0.05 feet of vertical displacement across years 2015 to 2020 with an accuracy of approximately 0.05 feet in data readings. Recently, as part of DWR's SGMA technical assistance to provide important SGMA- relevant data to Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s (GSAs) for Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) development and implementation, DWR contracted with TRE ALTAMIRA, Inc. to provide vertical displacement estimates are derived from InSAR data that are collected by the European Space Agency (ESA) Sentinel-1A satellite. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-3-95 This dataset represents measurements of vertical ground surface displacement in more than 200 of the high-use and populated groundwater basins across the State of California between January of 2015 and October of 2020. InSAR data coverage began in late 2014 for parts of California, and coverage for the entire study area began in June 13, 2015. Included in this dataset are point data that represent average vertical displacement values for 100 meter by 100 meter areas, as well as GIS rasters that were interpolated from the point data; rasters for total vertical displacement relative to June 13, 2015, and rasters for annual vertical displacement rates with earlier coverage for some areas, both in monthly time steps. The level of accuracy is approximately 0.05 feet. To show subsidence in Basin 8-1, the layer showing total land subsidence since the start of the InSAR data on 6/13/2015 and ending on 7/1/2020, which corresponds to the end of the water year was used. (GIS layer used: https://gis.water.ca.gov/arcgisimg/rest/services/SAR/Vertical_Displacement_TRE_ALTA MIRA_v2020_Total_Since_20150613_20200701/ImageServer.) South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE -3-1016 3.2.6 Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems The primary surface water drainage in the South East Management Area is Serrano Creek. Serrano Creek is an intermittent stream that only flows during the rainy season following storm events. The predominant interaction between the surface flow in the creek and groundwater is percolation from the creek and recharge of the groundwater (see Boyle 2002 Groundwater Supply Evaluation study). Groundwater does not typically discharge at the land surface near the creek. Data from the California Department of Figure 7. Figure 3-6: Total Vertial Ground Surface Displacement from June 2015 to July 2020 D DWR Basin 8-1 Vertical Ground Surface Displacement 611312015 to 71112020 --0 .15to -0.1 feet --0.1 to -0.05 feet -0 .05 to O feet -Oto 0.05 feet -0 .05 to 0.1 feet -0 .1 to0 .15feet •---===::::!Mne, South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Water Resources (CDWR) NC dataset viewer indicates that there are some areas along Serrano Creek that are designated as groundwater dependent ecosystems (https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/NCDatasetViewer/). Planned future groundwater pumping in IRWD’s Lake Forest portion of the South East Management Area from Well LF-2 will not occur in areas of groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). Some of IRWD’s inactive wells are located near the Serrano Creek drainage, but outside the GDE areas. With the exception of Well LF-5, there are no plans to pump groundwater from any of these wells in the future. Well LF-2, which may be pumped in the future, is located outside the Serrano Creek drainage and is not expected to have an impact on GDEs within the Serrano Creek drainage. In the event that a replacement well is constructed near the existing Well LF-5, groundwater monitoring will be implemented to ensure the production from that well does not have an undesirable result on the GDE along Serrano Creek. 33 ---11 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 4-18 WATER BUDGET An average annual groundwater budget for the South East Management Area for the last 5 years is presented in Table 4-1. The simple water budget for the IRWD portion of the South East Management Area is based on measured groundwater production and the subsurface flow calculated by the numerical model for the OCWD Management Area (Basin 8-1 Alternative 2017). The development of individual components in the average annual groundwater budget are described in the following subsections. 4.1 BUDGET COMPONENTS For IRWD’s Lake Forest portion of the South East Management Area, the components of the groundwater budget are presented in Table 4-1 and described below. Groundwater Production includes an average from 2016-2021. As of 2018, the groundwater production is zero until the LF-2 well can be rehabilitated and placed back in service. Table 5 Table 4-1: Average Annual Groundwater Budget South East Management Area Groundwater Budget 2016-2021 (acre-feet) Item Total (acre-feet) Recharge 2,900 Total Inflow 2,900 Groundwater Production 90 Subsurface Outflow 2,810 Total Outflow 2,900 Change in Storage 0 4.1.1 Recharge Recharge includes infiltration from ephemeral creeks, precipitation and return flow recharge from irrigation. It was estimated to equal the total outflow as summarized in Table 4-1. 4.1.2 Groundwater Production Groundwater production was taken from measured records by IRWD as summarized in Table 4-1. In the base period 2016 to 2021, groundwater production was only conducted by IRWD’s Well LF-2. Groundwater production in this well ranged from 0 to 389 acre-ft/yr. from 2016 to 2021 with an average of approximately 90 acre-ft/yr. 4 -1 SECTION 4. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 4-19 4.1.3 Subsurface Outflow Subsurface outflow from the South East Management Area into the OCWD Management Area was estimated using the OCWD groundwater flow model (Basin 8-1 Alternative 2017). 4.2 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE Changes in groundwater storage within the South East Management Area since 2015 have been positive reflecting the rising groundwater levels measured in the wells. As indicated in Section 3.2.1, groundwater levels are the same or higher in 2021 than they were in 2017. With the exception of LF-1, groundwater levels show a rising trend, indicating that recharge to the area exceeds the discharge. Well LF-1 shows a stable groundwater level trend. These trends have persisted despite multiple years of below normal precipitation. As presented in Section 4.1, groundwater pumping in the South East Management Area is relatively minor and averages only 125 acre-feet per year over the previous 10 years (2006-2015), and 90 acre-feet in the last six years (2016-2021). The groundwater level and pumping data indicate groundwater production is below the sustainable yield of the basin. 4.3 WATER YEAR TYPE No update since the 2017 Alternative – See 2017 Alternative. 4.4 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD The sustainable yield of the South East Management Area is approximated by the volume of average annual recharge that is estimated to enter the basin (approximately 2,900 acre-ft), as shown in Table 4-1. Average annual groundwater production over the last 5 years, ranging from 0 acre-feet to 389 acre-feet and averaging approximately 90 acre-feet, is significantly below the sustainable yield, which is supported by rising groundwater levels in the area over the same time period. Due to production rate limitations and groundwater quality issues, it is unlikely groundwater production in the South East Management Area will ever increase to the sustainable yield. 4.5 CURRENT, HISTORICAL, AND PROJECTED GROUNDWATER BUDGET IRWD does not plan any significant changes to groundwater use in the South East Management Area that would change the water budget. The historical water budget is 4 -2 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 4-20 discussed in Section 4.1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Currently, there is no groundwater production in the South East Management Area. Future groundwater production could include bringing Well LF-2 online, replacing Well LF-5, and developing two new wells (see Section 16). No projected groundwater production is currently anticipated within the ETWD and city of Orange portions of the South East Management Area. Any future groundwater production will be managed within the sustainable yield of the aquifer system. 4 -3 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 5-21 WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS 5.1 OVERVIEW This section describes surface and groundwater monitoring programs in the South East Management Area 5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS No groundwater development exists in the ETWD and City of Orange portions of the South East Management Area. In IRWD’s Lake Forest portion of the South East Management Area the existing five wells (whether active or inactive) have been, and will continue to be, used to monitor the groundwater levels on a monthly basis. Section 3.2.1 provides information on the South East Management Area groundwater levels, and Figure 3-1 shows the locations of the Lake Forest wells within the South East Management Area. 5.3 OTHER MONITORING PROGRAMS IRWD monitors groundwater quality in LF-2, when operating, as required by the California Code of Regulation (Title 22) and California Division of Drinking Water, Santa Ana District. In addition, as of 2021 two monitoring wells will be designated (LF-1 and LF- 4) for the monitoring and reporting groundwater elevations in the South East Management Area which will be transmitted to the DWR under the SGMA monitoring program for Basin 8-1. DWR currently requires bi-annual reporting for well monitoring data. 5 -1 SECTION 5. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 6-22 WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IRWD works with ETWD and City of Orange on plans for groundwater development within the South East Management Area and updates demand projections and the water budget accordingly. IRWD: The compilation of land use data is the basis for IRWD’s water resource planning including its portion of the South East Management Area. Per IRWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the land use data obtained from multiple jurisdictions in IRWD’s service area is used in conjunction with IRWD’s applied water use factors in order to estimate water requirements. ETWD: ETWD’s water resource planning is based on the 2020 UWMP demand projections. Regional demands are forecasted by the Municipal Water District of Orange County and are then tailored to ETWD’s service area using available data for land use, population, and economic growth, intermixed with a trajectory of conservation, which includes both additional future passive measures and active measures. City of Orange: The City of Orange’s current UWMP (2020) provides the basis for water resource planning in Orange’s water service area. The UWMP, in conjunction with applicable water use factors, form the basis for any potential water use estimates required for potential planning use in the service area. 6 -1 SECTION 6. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 7-23 NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION There are three agencies within the South East Management Area, as follows: •IRWD •ETWD •City of Orange On September 30, 2021, OCWD sent a letter via email to all of the Basin 8 -1 agencies, including each of the agencies listed above to let them know that the 2017 Alternative was being updated and would be available for review and comment. No comments were received by any of the agencies contacted. The three South East Management Area agencies coordinated with OCWD and the other management areas to prepare the 2022 Update, in accordance with SGMA requirements. A draft 2022 Update was presented to OCWD staff and posted on the OCWD website on November 17, 2021 to allow for public review and comment. The final 2022 Update was received and filed by the OCWD board in December 2021 . 7 -1 SECTION 7. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 8-24 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT APPROACH The Sustainable Management Approach for the South East Management Area is to continue monitoring sustainable conditions and monitor to ensure that conditions do not lead to significant and unreasonable (1) lowering of groundwater levels, (2) reduction in storage, (3) water quality degradation, or (4) inelastic land subsidence or (5) unreasonable adverse effect on surface water resources. 8 -1 SECTION 8. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 9-25 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS 9.1 HISTORY As shown on Figure 3-2 historical groundwater levels in the IRWD’s Lake Forest portion of the South East Management Area have shown stable or rising trends and are, in all cases, at the same level or higher than they were in 2017. Because future groundwater pumping in the South East Management Area is expected to be limited, groundwater levels are expected to remain relatively steady in the future. 9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS Groundwater levels are currently monitored in the five wells located in IRWD’s Lake Forest portion of the South East Management Area on a monthly basis. This monitoring will continue into the future. 9.3 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS Significant and unreasonable lowering of groundwater levels is defined as a long-term chronic lowering of groundwater levels, despite changes in precipitation patterns. No long-term reduction in groundwater levels in the South East Management Area is expected to occur. 9.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS It is not possible to determine a minimum threshold at this time since no undesirable effects due to groundwater levels have occurred in the past and are not foreseen in the future. Nevertheless, the South East Management Area well monitoring program is expected to continue to monitor water levels and groundwater quality in the future. If water levels start to show a consistent, long-term decline and undesirable results are observed, action would be taken and minimum thresholds would be evaluated and established as appropriate. 9 -1 SECTION 9. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 10-26 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO BASIN STORAGE No groundwater development exists in the ETWD and City of Orange portions of the South East Management Area. The total volume of groundwater storage in IRWD’s portion of the South East Management Area has been estimated to be approximately 360,000 acre-feet (see Section 3.2.3). 10.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION IN STORAGE No significant long-term reduction in groundwater storage is expected to occur in the South East Management Area because of the limited groundwater use. However, a decline in groundwater storage may be determined unreasonable if one more of the following occurred: 1.Significant loss of well production capacity. 2.Degradation of water quality that significantly impacts the use of groundwater. 10.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS A minimum threshold for the reduction of groundwater storage in the South East Management Area is not anticipated since no undesirable effects have occurred in the past and are not foreseen in the future. Nevertheless, IRWD’s Lake Forest monitoring program continuously tracks water levels and groundwater quality. If water levels show a consistent decline, IRWD’s Lake Forest monitoring program would be expanded to examine any potential impacts and action would be taken to identify minimum thresholds as appropriate. 10 -1 SECTION 10. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 11-27 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO WATER QUALITY No groundwater development exists in the ETWD and City of Orange portions of the South East Management Area. Groundwater quality in IRWD’s portion of the South East Management Area is affected by the quality of recharge from Serrano Creek and precipitation and incidental recharge from irrigation. Groundwater from subsurface inflow could contain naturally elevated concentrations of TDS and manganese. IRWD has the ability to utilize water produced from non-potable wells to supplement its extensive recycled water system which serves irrigation demands. 11.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGREDATION OF WATER QUALITY There are three elements that must be considered when evaluating the impact of groundwater quality degradation. The first element is considering the causal nexus between groundwater management activities and groundwater quality. For example, groundwater contamination due to improper handling of toxic materials impacts groundwater quality; however, this water quality degradation is not caused by groundwater management activities. The second element is the beneficial uses of the groundwater and water quality regulations, such as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and other potable water quality requirements. The third element that must be considered is the volume of groundwater impacted by groundwater quality degradation. If small volumes are negatively affected that don’t materially affect the use of the aquifer or basin for its existing beneficial uses, then this would not represent a significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality. However, if the impacted volume grows, then it could reach a level that it becomes significant and unreasonable. When considering all three elements, the definition of significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality is defined as degradation of groundwater quality in the South East Management Area to the extent that a significant volume of groundwater becomes unusable for its designated beneficial uses. 11.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS The minimum thresholds for groundwater quality are exceedances of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or other applicable regulatory limits that are directly attributable to groundwater management actions in the South East Management Area that prevents the use of groundwater for its designated beneficial uses 11 -1 SECTION 11. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 12-28 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO SEAWATER INTRUSION The South East Management Area is located far from the ocean and thus there is no reason to consider the potential impact of seawater intrusion in this management area. 12-1 SECTION 12. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 9 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO LAND SUBSIDENCE Subsidence is not an issue for the South East Management Area given the following: •Minimal groundwater development exists in the South East Management Area. •Groundwater levels are stable or rising and have been for at least 10 years. •Low risk of future groundwater level declines due to limited planned groundwater production. As discussed previously in Section 3, the Basin 8-1 area will continue to be monitored for changes in InSAR data (via OCWD and consultants) to evaluate ground surface fluctuations within the service area. If irreversible subsidence was found to occur in a localized area in relation to groundwater pumping patterns or groundwater storage conditions, the South East Management Area managers would coordinate with local officials to investigate and develop an approach to address the subsidence. 113-1 SECTION 13. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 14-30 MANAGING GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE WATER Although IRWD does not have immediate plans for groundwater pumping in areas of GDEs, in the event that replacement or new wells are constructed near sensitive areas, groundwater monitoring will be implemented to ensure the groundwater production does not have an undesirable result on the GDE along Serrano Creek. 14 -1 SECTION 14. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 15-31 PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS Protocols for modifying monitoring programs are based on changes from historical conditions or changes in water quality that begin to approach or exceed regulatory limits. 15.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR WATER QUALITY Protocols for modifying monitoring programs are described in the 2017 Alternative. 15 -1 SECTION 15. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 16-12 PROCESS TO EVALUATE NEW PROJECTS When new projects are proposed within the South East Management Area, the agency proposing the project will be responsible for preparing a CEQA document to ensure alternatives have been evaluated and any significant and unreasonable results are mitigated. Plans to rehabilitate the well are currently going out for construction bid with potential construction expected to start in fall of 2022. The project may include facilities to remove high levels of iron and manganese as needed to meet potable water quality requirements. There are a number of potential well projects currently in development in the South East Management Area. These include: •LF-1 and LF-4 designated monitoring well operations. •LF-2 rehabilitation and water quality treatment planned construction in 2022. •LF-5 (replacement) future projects may include the possible development of a new production well on or near the existing decommissioned site. •General well rehabilitation and monitoring projects across the S outh East Management Area, with approved funding allocated in the capital budgets approved for 2021-2023. In IRWD’s Lake Forest portion of the South East Management Area, a 2002 study by Boyle Engineering Corporation and 2015 study by Dudek were performe d in order to assess the potential for development of two future wells, LF-6 and LF-8, as well as the re-drilling of existing inactive wells. Although IRWD has no near-term plans to drill wells LF-6 and LF-8, it has included a capital project for the design, construction and equipping of LF-1. A capital project for the design, construction and equipping of LF-1 has been included in IRWD’s most recent capital budget, however, there are no plans to begin this specific project. IRWD also has no near-term plans to drill wells LF-6 and LF-8. In 2000, its last active year, LF-1 pumped approximately 230 acre-feet. Over the last 5 years well LF-2 annual pumping has ranged from 0 acre-feet to 389 acre- feet and averaged approximately 90 acre-feet including years of non-operation. It is expected that when LF-1 is redrilled, groundwater production from IRWD’s southern portion of the South East Management Area could increase. Water produced from LF-1 could be used to provide supply to the nearby lake which currently is supplied by untreated imported water. Water produced could also potentially be pumped and conveyed to the Baker Water Treatment Plant for SECTION 16. South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3 treatment if needed (Dudek, 2015). Due to the consistently lower yields from the aquifer in this area, it is expected that additional production from LF-1 will continue to be considered supplemental, and therefore insignificant in terms of IRWD’s overall water supply for its Lake Forest area. As of 2021, LF-1 is still currently off line although there are future plans to potentially re-drill and rehabilitate the well in the future. 1616 -- 2 South East Management Area BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 17-34 REFERENCES Following are references and technical studies for the South East Management Area. •Basin 8-1 Alternative, 2017 •Communication with OCWD. Email dated November 28, 2016. •Communication with OCWD. Email dated October 21, 2021. •Communication with OCWD. Email dated November 17, 2021. •Geohydrology and Acritical-Recharge Potential of the Irvine Area Orange County, California. J. A. Singer, January 8,1973. •Groundwater Supply Evaluation for the Los Alisos System Phase 1. Boyle Engineering Corporation, July 2002. •Ground Water Management, Irvine Area, Orange County, California. Harvey O. Banks, Consulting Engineer, Inc. •Lake Forest Groundwater Conveyance Analysis Results. Dudek, November 5, 2015. •2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Irvine Ranch Water District, 2016 •2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Irvine Ranch Water District, 2021 17 -1 SECTION 17. Basin 8-1 Alternative Santa Ana Canyon Management Area 2022 Update Prepared by: Orange County Water District January 1, 2021 SINCE 1 933 Basin 8-1 Alternative 2022 Update Santa Ana Canyon Management Area Adam Hutchinson, P.G., C.Hg. Recharge Planning Manager Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Prepared for the Department of Water Resources, pursuant to Water Code §10733.6(b)(3),(c) and §10733.8 January 1, 2022 SINCE 1933 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE i Section Page 2.1 HISTORY OF AGENCIES IN SANTA ANA CANYON MANAGEMENT AREA ........ 2-1 2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ............................................. 2-1 2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 BUDGET ................................................................................................................. 2-2 3.1 SANTA ANA CANYON MANAGEMENT AREA ...................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Jurisdictional Boundaries ................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.2 Existing Land Use Designations ...................................................................... 3-3 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 3-4 3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation .................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Groundwater Beneficial Uses and Regional Pumping Patterns ........................ 3-5 3.2.3 Groundwater Storage Data .............................................................................. 3-7 3.2.4 Groundwater Quality Conditions ...................................................................... 3-7 3.2.5 Land Subsidence ............................................................................................. 3-7 3.2.6 Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems ..................................................................................................... 3-7 4.1 BUDGET COMPONENTS ...................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Subsurface Inflow/Outflow ............................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2 Infiltrated Santa Ana River Base Flow .............................................................. 4-2 4.1.3 Evapotranspiration ........................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.4 Groundwater Production .................................................................................. 4-2 4.2 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE .......................................................... 4-2 4.3 WATER YEAR TYPE .............................................................................................. 4-3 4.4 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD ................................................................... 4-3 4.5 CURRENT, HISTORICAL, AND PROJECTED WATER BUDGET .......................... 4-3 5.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 5-1 SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1-1 SECTION 2. AGENCY INFORMATION ............................................................................ 2-1 SECTION 3. MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION ........................................................ 3-1 SECTION 4. WATER BUDGET. ....................................................................................... .4-1 SECTION 5. WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS ...................................... 5-1 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE ii 5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS ..................................................... 5-1 5.3 OTHER MONITORING PROGRAMS...................................................................... 5-3 9.1 HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 9-1 9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS ....................................................... 9-1 9.3 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS .................................................................................... 9-1 9.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS .................................................. 9-1 10.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION IN STORAGE ............................................................................................................................. 10-1 10.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................................ 10-1 11.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................................. 11-1 11.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................................ 11-1 SECTION 6. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................................... 6-1 SECTION 7. NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION ................................................................ 7-1 SECTION 8. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT APPROACH .............................................. 8-1 SECTION 9. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS9-1 SECTION 10. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO BASIN STORAGE ........... 10-1 SECTION 11. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO BASIN WATER QUALITY11-1 SECTION 12. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO SEAWATER INTRUSION 12-1 SECTION 13. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO LAND SUBSIDENCE ....... 13-1 SECTION 14. MANAGING GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE WATER 14-1 SECTION 15. PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS .................. 15-1 SECTION 16 . PROCESS TO EVALUATE NEW PROJECTS ........................................... 16-1 SECTION 17. REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 17-1 Table of Contents BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE iii Figure Figure 1-1: Agencies in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area ......................................... 1-1 Figure 3-1: Boundary of Santa Ana Canyon Management Area .............................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2: Groundwater Production Wells (Active and Inactive) ............................................. 3-3 Figure 3-3: Water Level Hydrographs of Selected Wells ......................................................... 3-5 Figure 5-1: Wells Used to Monitor Groundwater Levels .......................................................... 5-2 Figure 13-1: Total Vertical Ground Surface Displacement from June 2015 to July 2020 ....... 13-2 Table Table 1-1: Agencies in Santa Ana Canyon Management Area .................................... 1-3 Table 1-2: Water Budget, 5-Year Average (2016-21) ................................................... 1-3 Table 3-1: Production Wells, Flow-Meter Status, and 5 Year Average Production ...... 3-6 Table 5-1: Wells Monitored for Water Quality ............................................................... 5-3 Executive Summary BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-1 SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Santa Ana Canyon Management Area covers the easternmost extent of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Basin 8-1, Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). This Management Area was created for this Alternative (under 23 CCR 354.20) because of the unique characteristics of the Santa Ana Canyon and the appropriateness of developing different management objectives and strategies for this portion of the Basin. These different objectives and management approaches, as described in this Section, account for the significant differences in groundwater use, geology, aquifer characteristics, and other factors which distinguish Santa Ana Canyon from other portions of the Basin. Figure 1-1 shows the extent of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area and the agencies with jurisdiction in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Table 1-1 lists the agencies shown on Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1: Agencies in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area ORANGE COUNTY SAN BERNARD INO COUNTY I I I I I \ \ ' I / I I I ! I I ,-----_____ ) ''!. RIVERSIDE COUNTY D City of Yorba Linda - Orange County (Unincorporated Area ) D g~:t~i~~ County water \ \ \ \ \ \ Executive Summary BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-2 The agencies within Basin 8-1 collaborated to prepare and submit an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). In accordance with Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), the Alternative presented an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrated that the Basin had operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. The Alternative was submitted to DWR on December 22, 2016. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative satisfied SGMA objectives and was therefore approved. Agencies with approved alternatives are required to submit annual reports to DWR by April 1 of each year. Annual reports for Basin 8-1 were submitted to DWR as follows: • Water Year 2016-17, submitted on March 29, 2018 • Water Year 2017-18, submitted on March 29, 2019 • Water Year 2018-19, submitted on March 30, 2020 • Water Year 2019-20, submitted on March 30, 2021 According to Water Code §10733.8, “At least every five years after initial submission of a plan pursuant to Section 10733.4, the department shall review any available groundwater sustainability plan or alternative submitted in accordance with Section 10733.6, and the implementation of the corresponding groundwater sustainability program for consistency with this part, including achieving the sustainability goal. The department shall issue an assessment for each basin for which a plan or alternative has been submitted in accordance with this chapter, with an emphasis on assessing progress in achieving the sustainability goal within the basin. The assessment may include recommended corrective actions to address any deficiencies identified by the department.” This document, called the 2022 Update, represents the first five-year update, which is due January 1, 2022. For purposes of this report, the Basin 8-1 Alternative submitted on December 22, 2016, will be referred to as the 2017 Alternative. The first five-year update will be referred to as the 2022 Update for ease of reference. The 2017 Alternative was a comprehensive document showing that Basin 8-1 had been managed sustainably for more than 10 years. For the 2022 Update, the focus is on documenting that the basin has been sustainably managed during the five years since the 2017 Alternative was submitted and to present relevant new information from the last five years. As such, the 2017 Alternative is considered a key reference document with background information that is not duplicated in the 2022 Update. The water resources in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area include the Santa Ana River and limited groundwater. Groundwater is primarily located in a thin alluvial aquifer that is 90 to 100 feet thick and is a combination of infiltrated Santa Ana River water and subsurface inflow from the adjacent foothills. Groundwater produced from the alluvial aquifer is primarily used for irrigation, but some is also used for potable purposes. The volume of produced groundwater represents less than one percent of the total available water supply to the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area due to the significantly larger flow of the Santa Ana River as shown on Table 1-2. Even under projected dry conditions, groundwater production is expected to be less than Executive Summary BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-3 four percent of the total available water supply (see 2017 Alternative, Santa Ana Canyon Management Area). Table 1-1: Agencies in Santa Ana Canyon Management Area Agency City of Anaheim City of Chino Hills City of Yorba Linda City of Corona Orange County Water District County of Orange Riverside County Yorba Linda Water District Table 1-2: Water Budget, 5-Year Average (2016-21) Flow Component 5-Yr Avg: 2016-21 (afy) INFLOW Santa Ana River Base Flow 76,860 Santa Ana River Storm Flow 78,750 Subsurface Inflow 6,000 TOTAL INFLOW 161,610 OUTFLOW Santa Ana River Base Flow 76,120 Santa Ana River Storm Flow 78,750 Evapotranspiration 740 Groundwater Production 1,000 Subsurface Outflow 5,000 TOTAL OUTFLOW 161,610 Per the monitoring discussed in Section 5, groundwater levels in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area are relatively stable, having been consistently 20 to 30 feet below ground surface since 1991, indicating that the supply of subsurface inflow and surface water from the Santa Ana River is more than sufficient to sustain local groundwater production. Groundwater quality is suitable for irrigation and potable uses. Native groundwater from the surrounding foothills tends to have naturally elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) and manganese concentrations. Most wells in the canyon appear to produce a blend of infiltrated Santa Ana River water and native groundwater, with some wells producing more infiltrated Santa Ana River water than others. Executive Summary BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-4 The Orange County Water District (OCWD) monitors Santa Ana River flow and quality as well as groundwater levels, quality, and production in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area (see Section 5). Moreover, OCWD has a wide variety of water resource management programs that cover the OCWD Management Area as well as programs in the upper Santa Ana River watershed to address Santa Ana River flow and quality (see Section 6). These programs are important in protecting the quality of the Santa Ana River, which has a significant influence on the groundwater quality in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. The approach to managing the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is for OCWD, in cooperation with the County of Orange, to continue monitoring groundwater levels and quality to ensure that no significant and unreasonable undesirable results occur in the future, both in the Santa Ana Canyon portion of the Basin and in the other hydrologically connected portions of the Basin. Due to the conditions documented within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area, it will not be difficult to prevent conditions that could lead to significant and unreasonable undesirable results due to the low risk of increased groundwater production, little available developable land, and continued high flows of the Santa Ana River relative to the amount of groundwater production. A summary of the applicable undesirable results that must be prevented under SGMA is presented below. A more detailed description of these can be found in Sections 8 to 13. 1. Water Levels: Long-term reduction in groundwater levels in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area are not expected given the high volume of Santa Ana River flow relative to the amount of groundwater production and the ability of the shallow alluvial aquifer to be recharged as a result of continuous and abundant surface flow in the Santa Ana Canyon; however, if an unforeseen long-term reduction in groundwater levels were to occur, water levels could reach a significant and unreasonable level if one or more of the following occurred as a result of reduced groundwater levels: a. Significant loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Ana River. b. Significant loss of well production capacity (in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area). c. Degradation of water quality that significantly impacts the beneficial uses of groundwater. 2. Storage: As with groundwater levels, long-term reduction in groundwater storage in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is not projected to occur; however, an unforeseen decline in groundwater storage could reach a significant and unreasonable level if such a decline caused one or more of the following: a. Loss of significant riparian habitat along the Santa Ana River. b. Significant loss of well production capacity. c. Degradation of water quality that significantly impacts the beneficial uses of groundwater. 3. Water Quality: The significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality is defined as the degradation of groundwater quality in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area that is attributable to groundwater production or recharge practices within the Santa Ana Executive Summary BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 1-5 Canyon Management Area that cause a significant volume of groundwater to become unusable for its designated beneficial uses. 4. Seawater Intrusion: This does not apply to the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area because this area if far removed from the coastline. 5. Subsidence: No vertical changes have been noted using DWR-supplied InSAR data. It is unlikely that this will occur in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area due to: a. The presence of shale and sandstone bedrock underlying the alluvial aquifer. b. The alluvial aquifer is thin, generally less than 100 feet, and comprised mainly of sand and gravel with little clay. c. Groundwater levels and groundwater storage are stable. d. Very low risk of substantial groundwater level declines due to a de minimis amount of groundwater production relative to the overall inflow of water to the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. 6. Groundwater Depletions Impacting Surface Water: Due to hydrogeologic conditions and land use limitations, groundwater production in the Santa Ana Canyon Management area has had and is projected to have a de minimis effect on groundwater conditions and flows of surface water through the canyon. Therefore, this factor does not apply to the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Agency Information BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 2-1 SECTION 2. AGENCY INFORMATION 2.1 HISTORY OF AGENCIES IN SANTA ANA CANYON MANAGEMENT AREA As shown on Figure 1-1, eight agencies have jurisdiction within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. The footprint of the various agencies within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area has not changed since the 2017 Alternative. Table 1-1 lists the agencies and the approximate area covered by each. The Santa Ana Canyon Management Area covers 2.6 percent of Basin 8-1, which has a total area of 223,600 acres or 350 mi2. 2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE There are currently no groundwater withdrawals or plans for withdrawals within the portions of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area that are within the City of Anaheim, City of Chino Hills, City of Yorba Linda, Riverside County, and the Yorba Linda Water District. Key reasons for the lack of significant groundwater production are the lack of demands in these areas, the relatively high mineral content of groundwater in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area, and lack of developable land due to land use limitations. In addition, there are no groundwater withdrawals or plans for withdrawals by the City of Corona. Although there are existing groundwater withdrawals within the Corona service area, the wells are owned and operated by the County of Orange for golf course irrigation. As mentioned above, Corona delivers water from sources outside of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Accordingly, no additional groundwater governance and management structure is needed for the areas in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area beyond the existing monitoring program that OCWD already carries out in accordance with its authorities under the OCWD Act, in cooperation with the other jurisdictional agencies. The governance and management structure of OCWD is described in the OCWD Management Area part of this report. As will be shown later in this section, groundwater withdrawals by the County of Orange and private well owner within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area are de minimis compared to the overall flow of water through the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area, and they are expected to remain at current sustainable levels. As a result, there is no need for other agencies to establish groundwater governance or management in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area beyond the existing groundwater production, level and quality data collection and reporting to DWR by OCWD per SGMA requirements. 2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY The legal authority of OCWD is described in the OCWD Management Area part of this report. As described in the OCWD Management Area part of the report, OCWD has obtained water rights from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to all of the flows in the Santa Ana River arriving at Prado Dam. As a result, any future groundwater production within the Agency Information BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 2-2 Santa Ana Canyon Management Area would be reviewed by OCWD and the SWRCB to ensure it does not interfere with OCWD’s existing water rights. Moreover, though outside of OCWD’s boundaries, OCWD currently monitors portions of Santa Ana Canyon pursuant to its authority under Section 2, subparagraphs 5, 6, 7 and 14, of the OCWD Act. The Orange County Well Ordinance (County Ordinance No. 2607) requires that a permit be obtained from Orange County prior to the construction or destruction of any well. In unincorporated areas and in 29 of 34 Orange County cities, the Orange County Health Officer is responsible for enforcement of the well ordinance. In the remaining five cities (Anaheim, Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Orange and San Clemente), well ordinances are enforced by city personnel. Any plans for wells in areas covered by Riverside and San Bernardino Counties would be reviewed by OCWD to ensure they did not interfere with OCWD’s rights to Santa Ana River flows. 2.4 BUDGET OCWD’s costs for data collection within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area are contained within OCWD’s budget for data collection in the OCWD Management Area, which is presented in the OCWD Management Area portion of this report. The County of Orange is responsible for costs associated with collecting production data from wells used to irrigate the County-owned Green River Golf Course. The other agencies within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area do not incur any additional data collection costs since no further monitoring other that already undertaken by OCWD, and Orange County is believed needed in order to prevent undesirable results from occurring. As a result, an estimated budget for other agencies has not been prepared for the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area due to the minimal nature of the effort to collect and report groundwater production, level and water quality data. Management Area Description BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-1 SECTION 3. MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION 3.1 SANTA ANA CANYON MANAGEMENT AREA The Santa Ana Canyon is a narrow east-west trending canyon between the Santa Ana Mountains to the south and the Chino Hills to the north near the intersection of Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. As shown on Figure 3-1, a key feature is the Santa Ana River. Just upstream of the Santa Ana Canyon is Prado Dam, which was constructed by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 1941 to reduce flood risks to Orange County. Detailed geologic information, including cross sections, is presented in the 2017 Alternative. The Santa Ana Canyon Management Area covers the area of alluvial deposits in the Santa Ana Canyon east of Imperial Highway (Hwy 90), as shown on Figure 3-1. Imperial Highway was selected as the western boundary of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area because this is where the groundwater basin transitions from a relatively thin alluvial aquifer to a deep multi- layered alluvial basin. Moreover, Imperial Highway is the approximate boundary of OCWD’s groundwater flow model, allowing subsurface outflows from the entire Santa Ana Canyon Management Area to be readily quantified for purposes of the water budget and monitoring groundwater in storage. Previously published reports indicated that the alluvial deposits in Santa Ana Canyon ranged from 90 to 100 feet thick (USGS, 1964). Cross-sections presented in the 2017 Alternative using more recent data showed that the thickness of the alluvial deposits in the Santa Ana Canyon are consistent with those reported by the USGS (1964). Management Area Description BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-2 Figure 3-1: Boundary of Santa Ana Canyon Management Area ORANGE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY I I L __ _ RIVERSIDE COUNTY CJ OCWD Management A rea D Santa Ana Canyon Management Area 4,000 8,000 -•••lli::====:l Fe et Management Area Description BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-3 Figure 3-2: Groundwater Production Wells (Active and Inactive) 3.1.1 Jurisdictional Boundaries As described in Section 2, there are eight agencies with jurisdiction in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area as shown on Figure 2-1. The western boundary of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area coincides with Imperial Highway and is within OCWD’s jurisdiction. 3.1.2 Existing Land Use Designations As described in the OCWD Management Area part of this report, much of the land use in Orange County is urban. The Santa Ana Canyon Management Area has some dedicated open- space due to the presence of the Santa Ana River and adjacent floodplain and the Chino Hills State Park, located in the far northeastern portion of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. The Green River Golf Club owned by the County of Orange covers approximately 220 acres along the river near the intersections of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Land use has remained essentially unchanged in the last five years. ORANGE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ,--------- 'z GRGC-YL 14 ',, G~~M '-, GR GR LSE GRGG 2- I I I L __ Active SmaleSystem Production VI/ell Inactive Production Well Other Active Production VI/ell D O\/"vR Basin 8-1 D County Boundaries -Orange County Water District Management Area LJ Santa Ana Canyon Management Area 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY \ \ \ \ N _ ... 2,000 4,000 Feet Management Area Description BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-4 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area occurs in a narrow canyon within a relatively thin alluvial aquifer that is less than 100 feet thick in most places. 3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation Groundwater elevations in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area tend to be stable. Hydrographs from four wells show that water levels vary over a narrow range as shown on Figure 3-3. Well locations are shown on Figure 3-2 and cover the eastern (GRV-RSIR), south- central (FPRK-YLE/SILV-YL), and western (SCE-YLCS, EMA-AH5) areas of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Maximum water level elevations in many wells were recorded in 2004, which was a record- breaking wet year with very high sustained flows in the Santa Ana River. Low water levels appear to be primarily related to short-term local pumping. In the vicinity of all the wells, groundwater is approximately 20 to 30 feet below ground surface. Since the Santa Ana River channel is incised in some areas by 10 to 15 feet below the surrounding area, the depth to groundwater is even shallower directly beneath the river channel where it is not covered by the river itself. The consistent, stable nature of groundwater elevations in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area shows that the aquifer is generally full and at equilibrium, which is consistent with the finding that here are no measurable losses of flows between Prado Dam upstream and OCWD’s diversion to its recharge system just below Imperial Highway. Within the last five years, OCWD, in cooperation with the County of Orange, began collecting groundwater elevation data at selected wells at the Green River Golf Course to complement existing groundwater elevation monitoring data. Note that wells SILV-YL and SCE-YLCS were formerly monitored for the CASGEM program. Well SCE-YLCS was destroyed and replaced by well EMA-AH5. As a result, water level data from SILV-YL and EMA-AH5 will be included in annual reports required to comply with SGMA. Management Area Description BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-5 Figure 3-3: Water Level Hydrographs of Selected Wells 3.2.2 Groundwater Beneficial Uses and Regional Pumping Patterns The Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is within the Santa Ana Region of the California Water Boards and is subject to the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan (January 24, 2014; updated July 2014). The Basin Plan designates zones related to groundwater management. The Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is included in the Orange County Management Zone. Within this Zone, groundwater has been designated for municipal, agricultural, and industrial (service supply and process) beneficial uses. Currently, local groundwater provides primarily irrigation supply with some residential drinking water (RV Park) and domestic uses. There are 18 wells that can withdraw groundwater within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area as shown on Figure 3-2; however, some of the wells shown are not currently being used (e.g., inactive). At the time the 2017 Alternative was prepared, some wells, namely those owned by the County of Orange to supply irrigation water to the Green River Golf Course, were not metered. OCWD worked with the County of Orange to have all their wells metered and production reported to OCWD. Prior estimates of pumping before meters were installed was on the order of 1,000 acre-feet per year (Personal Communication, Merrie Weinstock, County of Orange). Data collected in recent years shows that total production is less, averaging just over 600 acre-feet per year. As shown on Table 3-1, total groundwater production within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area over the last 5 years has averaged just over 1,000 acre-feet per year. Table 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 Jan-92 Jan-02 Jan-12 Jan-22 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( f e e t m s l ) GRV-RSIR (RP Elev: 430 ft msl) FPRK-YLE (RP Elev: 382.59 ft msl) SILV-YL (RP Elev: 381.84 ft msl) SCE-YLCS (RP Elev: 340.67 ft msl) EMA-AH5 (RP Elev: 309.66 ft ms) ' ' ' ' i ---.~ ...... ----+-...... ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : ...... .. Management Area Description BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-6 3-1 lists the production wells, meter status, and 5-year average production for wells located within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Table 3-1: Production Wells, Flow-Meter Status, and 5-Year Average Production Well Name Well Use Owner Metered Production 5-Yr Avg 2016-21 (afy)* Notes BYNT-YLSE IR Neff Ranch, Ltd Yes 69.8 EMA-AH5 IR County Of Orange Yes 118.2 SGMA monitoring well. FPRK-YLE DW/IR Canyon RV Park Yes 79.5 FPRK-YLW DW/IR Canyon RV Park Yes 36.9 GARD-A IR Kindred Outreach Ministries Yes 1 GRGC-CO1 IR OCFCD Yes 82.2 Monthly metering started Jan. 2019. Avg based on Jan. 2019-June 2021. GRGC- COR1 IR OCFCD Yes 295.0 Monthly metering started Jan. 2019. Avg based on Jan. 2019-June 2021 GRGC- YL14 IR OCFCD Yes Inactive GRGC- YL15 IR OCFCD No Inactive, only used for emergencies. GRGC- YL16 IR OCFCD Yes 161.0 Monthly metering started Jan. 2019. Avg based on Jan. 2019-June 2021 GRGC-YL4 IR OCFCD Yes 75.5 Monthly metering started Jan. 2019. Avg based on Jan. 2019-June 2021 GRGC-YL9 IR OCFCD Yes Inactive GRGC- YLA1 IR OCFCD Yes Inactive GRV-RSIR IR Green River Village Yes 6.2 LKVG-YL IR Eastlake Village HOA Yes 70.8 ROBSN- PD2 IR Robertson Ready Mix Yes 5.4 Monthly metering started Jan. 2018. Avg based on Jan. 2018-June 2021 ROBSN- YL1 IR Robertson Ready Mix Yes Inactive WALL-A DOM Kindred Outreach Ministries No Inactive Total 1,007 *Five-year average except where noted. IR= Irrigation; DW=Drinking Water; DOM=Domestic OCFCD = Orange County Flood Control District Management Area Description BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 3-7 3.2.3 Groundwater Storage Data Groundwater storage in Basin 8-1 is estimated at 66 million acre-feet (OCWD, 2007), which does not include the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. To estimate the amount of storage in the alluvial aquifer within Santa Ana Canyon Management Area, all well data were used and depths to bedrock estimated. The thickness of the alluvial deposits is assumed to be zero at the basin margin. Using a Topo to Raster Interpolation function in ArcGIS, the total volume of alluvial deposits was estimated at 174,000 acre-feet. Assuming a porosity of 25 percent gives a total potential groundwater storage volume of 43,500 acre-feet. The actual volume of groundwater in storage is smaller given that this estimate does not take into account that the depth to groundwater is typically 20 to 30 feet below ground surface. 3.2.4 Groundwater Quality Conditions Groundwater quality in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is generally good and suitable to meet beneficial uses. Groundwater in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is a mixture of infiltrated Santa Ana River water and subsurface inflow. Detailed water quality information is presented in the 2017 Alternative. No substantive changes in groundwater quality have occurred within the last five years. 3.2.5 Land Subsidence Land subsidence measurements derived from InSAR data provided by DWR show that land displacement in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area from June 2015 to July 2020 is within the accuracy of the method (0 to 0.05 ft). This is not surprising given the following: 1. The presence of shale and sandstone bedrock underlying the alluvial aquifer is not thought to be sufficiently compressible to cause inelastic subsidence. 2. The alluvial aquifer is thin, generally less than 100 feet, and composed mainly of sand and gravel with only minor amounts of clay. 3. Groundwater levels and storage volumes have not changed significantly over the last five years. 3.2.6 Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Groundwater within the Santa Ana Canyon alluvial aquifer is consistently 20 to 30 feet below ground surface and even shallower in the incised portions of the Santa Ana River channel. As described in Section 4, Water Budget, the flow of surface water through the canyon dwarfs the documented groundwater production. As a result, groundwater production has a de minimis impact on groundwater conditions and flows of surface water through the canyon. This in turn demonstrates that groundwater production in the Santa Ana Canyon has little to no impact on local groundwater dependent ecosystems in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Water Budget BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 4-1 SECTION 4. WATER BUDGET The water budget of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is dominated by surface flows of the Santa Ana River with a minor contribution of subsurface inflow, return flows from irrigation, and a small amount of groundwater production. Table 1-2 presents the water budget for the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area for the last five years. Additional water budget information was presented in the 2017 Alternative. The water budget contains both surface water and groundwater components and is not used to analyze change in groundwater storage. The purpose of presenting this water budget is to show the relative contributions of different sources in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Groundwater level data suggest that groundwater conditions in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area are essentially at steady state conditions with inflow equaling outflow and no change in groundwater storage. Inflow to the shallow alluvial aquifer includes subsurface inflow and infiltrated Santa Ana River water. Outflow includes evapotranspiration, groundwater production and subsurface outflow. Table 4-1 presents the groundwater budget for the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Table 4-1: Groundwater Budget, 5-Year Average (2016-21) Flow Component 5-Yr Avg: 2016-21 (afy) INFLOW Subsurface Inflow (1) 6,000 Infiltrated Santa Ana River Flow (2) 740 TOTAL INFLOW 6,740 OUTFLOW Evapotranspiration (3) 740 Groundwater Production 1,000 Subsurface Outflow to OCWD Management Area (4) 5,000 TOTAL OUTFLOW 6,740 NET CHANGE 0 (1) Subsurface inflow is estimated and includes irrigation return flow and areal recharge from precipitation. (2) Estimated infiltration of Santa Ana River flow to balance outflow. (3) Evapotranspiration is based on 370 acres of riparian habitat and a usage rate of 2 afy/acre of habitat per Santa Ana River Watermaster Reports. (4) Subsurface outflow is based on OCWD’s calibrated groundwater flow model. 4.1 BUDGET COMPONENTS The components of the groundwater budget are described below. Water Budget BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 4-2 4.1.1 Subsurface Inflow/Outflow In the 2017 Alternative, the estimated subsurface outflow was 4,000 acre-feet per year based on the steady state groundwater flow model. More recent transient groundwater flow modeling using the period 1999 to 2017, showed that average outflow from the Santa Ana Canyon to the main basin to be approximately 5,000 acre-feet per year. As a result, the water budget tables have been updated accordingly. Subsurface inflow is a combination of subsurface mountain front recharge, areal recharge from precipitation, and irrigation return flow. It is estimated to be approximately 6,000 acre-feet per year. 4.1.2 Infiltrated Santa Ana River Flow Water quality data suggests that some of the groundwater produced from wells in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is a blend of subsurface inflow and infiltrated Santa Ana River water; however, there is not enough data to determine the relative contribution of each source. For purposes of the groundwater budget, the amount of infiltrated Santa Ana River flow is the amount necessary to balance the water budget assuming subsurface inflow is 6,000 acre-feet per year. If the assumed amount of subsurface inflow were to change, the amount of infiltrated Santa Ana River water needed to balance the water budget would change accordingly. Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration is assumed to be due to riparian vegetation adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The County of Orange, as part of developing a Habitat Management Plan (HMP), established a baseline of 370 acres of riparian vegetation within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area (County of Orange, 2016). The Santa Ana River Watermaster reports that riparian vegetation consumes approximately 2 acre-feet per year per acre of vegetated area. Using this approach, the estimated evapotranspiration within the Santa Ana Canyon Management area is estimated to be 740 acre- feet per year. 4.1.3 Groundwater Production As described in Section 3.2.2, there are 18 wells that can withdraw groundwater within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area (Figure 3-2); however, some of the wells shown are not currently being used (e.g., inactive). Groundwater production from these wells is summarized in Table 3-1. 4.2 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE As shown in Figure 3-3, groundwater levels in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area are stable, indicating that the thin, alluvial aquifer is generally always in a near-full equilibrium condition. Therefore, any changes in groundwater storage are small and insignificant. Water Budget BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 4-3 4.3 WATER YEAR TYPE The water year type has little impact on the water budget in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area given the minimal changes in groundwater level observed through time due to the ever-present Santa Ana River flow and subsurface inflow. Water budgets for wet and dry year water types are presented in the 2017 Alternative. 4.4 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD As described in Table 4-1, average groundwater production over the last five years is less than one percent of the total inflow to the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. This condition is the same as what was presented in the 2017 Alternative. It is clear the sustainable yield of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is much greater than current production levels. Nevertheless, there are no plans for additional wells or groundwater production in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area, and it is highly unlikely that groundwater demands would rise to the level of changing the water budget of this area significantly. In terms of sustainable yield, it is more appropriate to look at Basin 8-1 as a whole. 4.5 CURRENT, HISTORICAL, AND PROJECTED WATER BUDGET Current water budgets are presented in presented in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Historical and projected water budgets, including Dry and Wet Year Water Budgets, are presented in the 2017 Alternative. Water Resource Monitoring Programs BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 5-1 SECTION 5. WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS 5.1 OVERVIEW This section describes OCWD’s surface water and groundwater monitoring programs in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. 5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS OCWD monitors groundwater levels, quality and production in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. As shown on Figure 5-1, groundwater levels are monitored at six wells. Within the last five years, well SCE-YLCS was destroyed and replaced in the monitoring network by well EMA-AH5. Water level data from wells SILV-YL and EMA-AH5 will be reported annually to DWR in compliance with SGMA. In addition, OCWD worked with the County of Orange to install meters on wells used to supply Green River Golf Course and to begin collecting and reporting production data. Data provided in this report utilizes metered data for all wells that pump groundwater in the Santa Ana Canyon Management area. Water Resource Monitoring Programs BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 5-2 Figure 5-1: Wells Used to Monitor Groundwater Levels For wells within OCWD’s boundaries, groundwater production must be reported at a minimum frequency of every 6 months. Groundwater production volumes from the County of Orange’s wells that supply the Green River Golf Course are now being collected monthly. OCWD also monitors groundwater quality in selected wells in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Table 5-1 lists the wells monitored and the groundwater quality monitoring program each well is part of, which is based on its use (e.g., irrigation, potable). Wells used for irrigation are sampled every year for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and every three years for general minerals (major cations and anions), 1,4-dioxane, and perchlorate (ClO4). The two wells in Featherly Park used for potable supplies are monitored in accordance with drinking water regulations. ORANGE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY " Active Small•System Production Well • Destroyed and Sealed Well Other Active Production VI/ell i \ l \ \ I ' I I I I RIVERSIDE COUNTY \ \ \ \ [:] 0\/vR Basin 8-1 N D County Boundaries W"'i_1",.;-'~'jrE - Orange County water District ~ Management Area s 0 2,000 4,000 Water Resource Monitoring Programs BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 5-3 Table 5-1: Wells Monitored for Water Quality Well Name Water Quality Monitoring Program IRRIGATION WELLS BYNT-YLSE Annual: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Every 3 yrs: General Minerals, 1,4-Dioxane, and ClO4 EMA-AH5 GARD-A GRGC-CO1 GRGC-COR1 GRGC-YL15 GRGC-YL16 GRGC-YL4 GRV-RSIR LKVG-YL ROBSN-PD2 POTABLE USE WELLS FPRK-YLE FPRK-YLW Annual: NO3, ClO4, 1,4-Dioxane, Mn, TDS, EC Atrazine/Simazine: every 3 yrs Title 22 Inorganics: every 3 yrs CN: every 9 yrs CrIV: every 3 yrs Radioactivity: every 6 yrs (Gross Alpha, Uranium) Radioactivity: every 9 yrs (Radium 226 & Radium 228) 5.3 OTHER MONITORING PROGRAMS OCWD monitors the quantity and quality of water in the Santa Ana River just below Prado Dam. The flow of the Santa Ana River below Prado Dam is measured by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) at station No. 11074000 (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/dv/?site_no=11074000). In addition to flow, the USGS measures the electrical conductivity (EC) of the water as well as sampling the water two times per month for TDS. One use of these data is to calculate the flow-weighted average TDS of base and storm flow discharged from Prado Dam. The flow and quality data are collected for the Santa Ana River Watermaster, which was formed to implement the Stipulated Judgement in the case of Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al., Case No. 1172628-County of Orange, entered by the court on April 17, 1969. Copies of the watermaster reports can be found on OCWD’s website at http://www.ocwd.com. In addition to OCWD, the Santa Ana River Watermaster is comprised of representatives from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and Western Municipal Water District. The significance of the 1969 Judgment is that it guarantees a minimum base flow at Prado Dam of 42,000 acre-feet per year; however, per the terms of the Judgment, the upstream agencies have received (and will continue to receive) credits when base flows exceed of 42,000 acre-feet at Prado. With these cumulative credits, the required minimum base flow is 34,000 acre-feet. As a point of reference, the base flow in Water Year 2020-21 was estimated to be 76,000 acre- feet (Note that this is an OCWD estimate to be finalized in a future SAR Watermaster Report). OCWD also closely monitors the quality of water in the Santa Ana River before it is diverted into OCWD’s recharge system below Imperial Highway. More information about this program can be found in Section 5 of the OCWD Management Area section of this report. Water Resource Management Programs BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 6-1 SECTION 6. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS OCWD has a wide variety of water resource management programs that cover the main groundwater basin as well as the upper Santa Ana River watershed to address Santa Ana River flow and quality. These programs are important in protecting the quality of the Santa Ana River, which affects groundwater quality in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. These programs are described in detail in Section 6 of the OCWD Management Area part of the 2017 Alternative. Notice and Communication BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 7-1 SECTION 7. NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION There are eight stakeholder agencies within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area, including the following: • City of Anaheim • City of Chino Hills • City of Yorba Linda • City of Corona • Orange County Water District • County of Orange • Riverside County • Yorba Linda Water District On September 30, 2021, OCWD sent a letter via email to all of the Basin 8-1 agencies, including each of the agencies listed above to let them know that the 2017 Alternative was being updated and would be available for review and comment. No comments were received by any of the agencies contacted. A draft of the 2022 Update was presented to the OCWD Board and posted on the OCWD website on November 18, 2021, to allow for public review and comment. The final 2022 Update was presented to the OCWD Board on December 15, 2021. At this board meeting, a resolution was adopted to support the submission of the 2022 Update to DWR. Sustainable Management Approach BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 8-1 SECTION 8. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT APPROACH The approach to sustainably managing the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is to continue monitoring conditions to ensure that no significant and unreasonable results occur in the future. Sustainable Management Related to Groundwater Levels BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 9-1 SECTION 9. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS 9.1 HISTORY As shown on Figure 3-3, groundwater levels in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area have been steady over the last 20 years. Given the large amount of surface inflow to the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area relative to the amount of groundwater production, groundwater levels are expected to remain steady in the future. 9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS OCWD monitors groundwater levels at multiple wells in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area and will continue to do so in the future. Within the last five years, several wells at the Green River Golf Course were added to the OCWD monitoring network and destroyed well SCE-YLCS was replaced in the network by well EMA-AH5. 9.3 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS No long-term reduction in groundwater levels is foreseen in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area; however, if that were to occur, a decline in groundwater levels could reach a significant and unreasonable level if one more of the following occurred as a result of reduced groundwater levels: 1. Significant and unreasonable loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Ana River. 2. Significant and unreasonable loss of well production capacity. 3. Degradation of water quality that significantly impacts the beneficial uses of groundwater. 9.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS It is not possible to determine a minimum threshold at this time since no undesirable effects due to water levels have occurred in the past and are not foreseen. Nevertheless, OCWD’s monitoring program continuously tracks water levels and groundwater quality in the Management Area. If water levels started to show a consistent long-term decline, OCWD’s monitoring program would be expanded to examine potential impacts to riparian habitat, well yields, and groundwater quality. If impacts were observed, action would be taken, and minimum thresholds would be evaluated and established as appropriate. Sustainable Management Related to Basin Storage BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 10-1 SECTION 10. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO BASIN STORAGE The total volume of groundwater storage in the OCWD Basin is estimated to be 66 million acre- feet (OCWD, 2007). The total potential storage volume in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is estimated to be 43,500 acre-feet, as described in Section 3.2.3. 10.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION IN STORAGE As with groundwater levels, no long-term reduction in groundwater storage is foreseen in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area; however, if that were to occur, a decline in groundwater storage could reach a significant and unreasonable level if one more of the following occurred due to a reduction in storage: 1. Significant and unreasonable loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Ana River. 2. Significant and unreasonable loss of well production capacity. 3. Degradation of water quality that significantly impacts the beneficial uses of groundwater. 10.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS It is not possible to determine a minimum threshold at this time since no undesirable effects due to a change in groundwater storage levels have occurred in the past and are not foreseen in the future. Nevertheless, OCWD’s monitoring program continuously tracks water levels, which is a proxy for groundwater storage, and groundwater quality in the Management Area. If water levels showed a consistent long-term decline, OCWD’s monitoring program would be expanded to examine potential impacts to riparian habitat, well yields and groundwater quality. If impacts were observed, action would be taken, and minimum thresholds would be evaluated and established as appropriate. Sustainable Management Related to Basin Water Quality BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 11-1 SECTION 11. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO BASIN WATER QUALITY Groundwater quality in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is affected by the quality of Santa Ana River water and subsurface inflow from the surrounding foothills. As mentioned in Section 6, Water Resource Programs, OCWD is involved in multiple programs to protect and improve the quality of water in the Santa Ana River. Groundwater from subsurface inflow contains naturally elevated concentrations of TDS and manganese. OCWD has an extensive groundwater monitoring program in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area as described in Section 5, Water Resource Monitoring Programs. 11.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY There are three elements that must be considered when evaluating the impact of groundwater quality degradation. The first element is considering the causal nexus between local groundwater management activities and groundwater quality. For example, if subsurface inflow from the surrounding foothills increases during a wet period, TDS and manganese levels could increase; however, this increase is not caused by groundwater management activities, but by natural events. A similar situation applies to the quality of Santa Ana River water. Although OCWD is involved in many programs to protect and improve the quality of Santa Ana River water, there could be changes in water quality that are outside of the control of Santa Ana Canyon Management Area stakeholders. The second element to consider is if the beneficial uses of the groundwater have been negatively affected and/or if water quality regulations, such as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and other potable water quality requirements have been exceeded. The third element that must be considered is the volume of groundwater impacted by groundwater quality degradation. If small volumes are negatively affected yet do not materially affect the use of the aquifer for its existing beneficial uses, then this would not represent a significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality. However, if the impacted volume grows, then it could reach a level that it becomes significant and unreasonable. When considering all three elements, “significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality” is defined as degradation of groundwater quality in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area that is attributable to groundwater production or recharge practices within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area and to the extent that a significant volume of groundwater becomes unusable for its designated beneficial uses. 11.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS The minimum thresholds for groundwater quality are exceedances of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or other applicable regulatory limits that are directly attributable to groundwater Sustainable Management Related to Basin Water Quality BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 11-2 production and recharge practices in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area that prevents the use of groundwater for its designated beneficial uses. Sustainable Management Related to Seawater Intrusion BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 12-1 SECTION 12. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO SEAWATER INTRUSION The Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is located far from the ocean and thus there is no reason to consider the potential impact of seawater intrusion in this management area. Sustainable Management Related to Land Subsidence BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 13-1 SECTION 13. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO LAND SUBSIDENCE Recently, as part of DWR's SGMA technical assistance to provide important SGMA-relevant data to Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s (GSAs) for Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) development and implementation, DWR contracted with TRE ALTAMIRA, Inc. to provide vertical displacement estimates are derived from InSAR data that are collected by the European Space Agency (ESA) Sentinel-1A satellite. This dataset represents measurements of vertical ground surface displacement in more than 200 of the high-use and populated groundwater basins across the State of California between January of 2015 and October of 2020. InSAR data coverage began in late 2014 for parts of California, and coverage for the entire study area began on June 13, 2015. Included in this dataset are point data that represent average vertical displacement values for 100 square meter areas, as well as GIS rasters that were interpolated from the point data; rasters for total vertical displacement relative to June 13, 2015, and rasters for annual vertical displacement rates with earlier coverage for some areas, both in monthly time steps. The level of accuracy is approximately 0.05 feet. To show subsidence in Basin 8-1, OCWD used the used a layer showing the total land subsidence since the start of the InSAR data on 6/13/2015 and ending on 7/1/2020, which corresponds to the end of the OCWD water year. The GIS layer used was: https://gis.water.ca.gov/arcgisimg/rest/services/SAR/Vertical_Displacement_TRE_ALTAMIRA_v 2020_Total_Since_20150613_20200701/ImageServer Figure 13-1 shows the total land displacement in Basin 8-1 from June 2015 to July 2020. In the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area, vertical displacement is essentially unchanged and within the accuracy of the method (0 to 0.05 ft). This is not surprising given the following: • The presence of shale and sandstone bedrock underlying the alluvial aquifer is not thought to be sufficiently compressible to cause inelastic subsidence. • The alluvial aquifer is thin, generally less than 100 feet, and composed mainly of sand and gravel with only minor amounts of clay. • Groundwater levels and storage volumes are stable. • Substantial groundwater level declines are highly unlikely due to the de minimis amount of groundwater production relative to the overall inflow of water to the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Sustainable Management Related to Land Subsidence BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 13-2 Figure 13-1: Total Vertical Ground Surface Displacement from June 2015 to July 2020 LOS ANGELES COUNTY D DWR Bas in 8-1 Vertica l G rou nd Surface Di sp laceme nt 6/13/2015 to 7/1/2020 --0.15to-0.1 feet -0 .1 to -0.05 feet D -0 .05 to 0 f eet -0 to 0.05 feet -0.05 to 0.1 feet -0.1 to 0.1 5 feet •--c::==:::I Miles SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Managing Groundwater Depletions Impacting Surface Water BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 14-1 SECTION 14. MANAGING GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE WATER The primary surface water feature in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is the Santa Ana River. In the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area, the Santa Ana River is a soft-bottomed channel that supports riparian habitat. Riparian habitat is dependent on river water released through Prado Dam, which is predominantly treated wastewater discharged in the upper watershed when storm flow is not present. Groundwater within the Santa Ana Canyon alluvial aquifer is consistently 20 to 30 feet below ground surface and even shallower in the incised portions of the Santa Ana River channel. As described in Section 4, Water Budget, the flow of surface water through the canyon is two orders of magnitude larger than groundwater production. As a result, groundwater production has a de minimis impact on groundwater conditions and the flows of surface water through the canyon. This, in turn, means that groundwater production in the Santa Ana Canyon has a de minimis impact on the groundwater dependent ecosystems in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. Therefore, the undesirable result of “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water due to groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin” does not apply. Protocols for Modifying Monitoring Programs BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 15-1 SECTION 15. PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS Protocols for modifying monitoring programs are described in the 2017 Alternative. Process to Elevate New Projects BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 16-1 SECTION 16. PROCESS TO EVALUATE NEW PROJECTS For projects within OCWD, the process described in the OCWD Management Area part of this report applies. If new projects are proposed by others outside of OCWD’s boundaries, OCWD would collaborate with the agency proposing the project to ensure that any proposed project would not cause significant and unreasonable results. Moreover, OCWD would review proposed projects through the CEQA process (i.e., reviewing and commenting on draft CEQA documents). References BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE 17-1 SECTION 17. REFERENCES County of Orange, 2016. County of Orange, Santa Ana River Canyon and Brush Canyon Habitat Management Areas, 2016 Annual Monitoring Report, June 2016. OCWD, 2007. Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy, February 2007. USGS, 1964. Geology and Oil Resources of the Eastern Puente Hills Area, Southern California. By D.L. Durham and R.F. Yerkes. USGS Professional Paper 420-B. Attachment 1 Department of Water Resources (DWR) Comments on 2017 Alternative and Responses Responses to DWR Comments on Alternative Plan This section provides comments to DWR’s Alternative Assessment Staff report, dated July 17, 2019. In addition, responses are provided for the four suggested recommended actions listed in the staff report (Section IV, B). OCWD Comments on DWR Alternative Assessment Staff Report, July 17, 2019. Page 7, Part IV, D, Basin coverage. DWR is correct in that the three agencies that collaborated in preparing the Alternative do not cover the entire basin; however, all other agencies with jurisdiction, such as the County of Orange, City of Corona, City of Yorba Linda, City of Anaheim and others were notified and offered the opportunity to be involved. No comments were received from any of the contacted agencies. It is our opinion, that through this process, OCWD, La Habra and IRWD did achieve complete coverage of Basin 8-1. Page 14, Part V, B.2, Groundwater Conditions DWR staff mentioned that monitoring data showing that there are no depletions of interconnected surface water that will cause significant and unreasonable impacts on beneficial users of surface water is not provided, per Page 9 of the Alternative. Page 9 of the Alternative is part of the Overview of the entire report and does not contain detailed information Detailed monitoring information, including 10 years of water level data (Page 364), water budget information, etc. is presented in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area section of the Alternative. The information presented in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area section of the report supports the conclusion that there are no depletions of interconnected surface water that will cause significant and unreasonable impacts on beneficial users of surface water. Additional information has been provided below in response to Recommendation No. 1. Page 16,. Part V, B.4, Management Areas. At the time the 2017 Alternative was submitted, the City of La Habra Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) was contemplating preparing a GSP to be submitted in 2020. However, the City of La Habra GSA has elected to continue contributing to the Basin 8-1 Alternative. Response to DWR’s Recommended Actions. Pages 32-33, Part IV, B, Recommended Actions. DWR Recommended Action 1. Staff recommend the Agencies clarify the basis for the determination that depletions of interconnected surface water in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area are de minimis, while considering the volume of pumping, the extent of the interconnection between groundwater and surface water, and the beneficial users of the surface water. Staff recommend clarifying whether surface water bodies in the La Habra-Brea Management Area are interconnected with groundwater and whether groundwater- dependent ecosystems exist within the Santa Ana Canyon and La Habra Management Areas. OCWD Response: OCWD provided several lines of evidence for the determination that depletions of interconnected surface water in the Santa Ana Canyon area are insignificant (i.e., de minimis). 1. The large disparity in the supply of surface water to the Santa Ana Canyon area compared to the amount of pumping. The annual flow in the Santa Ana River is much greater than the amount of annual groundwater production. When the 2017 Alternative was prepared, some production wells in the Santa Ana Canyon were estimated, namely production wells supplying irrigation water to the Green River Golf Course. OCWD and Orange County Department of Public Works have worked together to install meters on wells supplying the Green River Golf Course. Now all production wells in the Santa Ana Canyon are metered. This effort resulted in a reduction in pumping as prior estimates were too high. For the 2022 Update, the 5-year water budget is presented in Table 1-2 in the Santa Ana Canyon section (reproduced below). This water budget is a combined surface and groundwater water budget for the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. As shown on this table, groundwater production over this five-year period is approximately 0.6 percent of the total inflow to the canyon area. Table1-2: Water Budget, 5-Year Average (2016-21) Flow Component 5-Yr Avg: 2016-21 (afy) INFLOW Santa Ana River Base Flow 76,860 Santa Ana River Storm Flow 78,750 Subsurface Inflow 6,000 TOTAL INFLOW 161,610 OUTFLOW Santa Ana River Base Flow 76,120 Santa Ana River Storm Flow 78,750 Evapotranspiration 740 Groundwater Production 1,000 Subsurface Outflow 5,000 TOTAL OUTFLOW 161,610 2. The second line of evidence is the stability of groundwater levels as shown in Figure 3-3 in the Santa Ana Canyon section of the report. This figure is reproduced below. The consistent, stable nature of groundwater elevations in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area shows that the aquifer is generally full and at equilibrium, which is consistent with the finding that here are no measurable losses of flows between Prado Dam upstream and OCWD’s diversion to its recharge system just below Imperial Highway. 3. The third line of evidence, mentioned above, is the finding that there are no measurable losses of flows between Prado Dam and OCWD’s diversion at the Imperial Rubber Dam. The location of these two measuring locations is shown in the figure below. The measuring location below Prado Dam is operated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and is identified as US11074000, Santa Ana R BL Prado Dam, CA. The USGS carefully reviews data from this location and publishes it annually as it is of interest to multiple stakeholders, including OCWD, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and a number of agencies upstream of Prado Dam. Figure 3-3: Water Level Hydrographs of Selected Wells 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 Jan-92 Jan-02 Jan-12 Jan-22 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( f e e t m s l ) GRV-RSIR (RP Elev: 430 ft msl) FPRK-YLE (RP Elev: 382.59 ft msl) SILV-YL (RP Elev: 381.84 ft msl) SCE-YLCS (RP Elev: 340.67 ft msl) EMA-AH5 (RP Elev: 309.66 ft ms) Location of USGS gauging station below Prado Dam and OCWD Imperial Rubber Dam Inflow from the Santa Ana River to OCWD’s recharge system is measured at the Imperial Rubber Dam (see figure). When flows are less than 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), the rubber dam remains fully inflated and all surface flows are either diverted from the river to downstream recharge basins or it is bypassed around the dam and placed back into the river channel. Flows that are diverted from the river pass through a Parshall flume, which measures the flow rate. Flows that are bypassed around the dam are measured using sonic flowmeters installed in the bypass pipelines. This arrangement ensures that all flows received by OCWD under 1,000 cfs are measured accurately. OCWD staff routinely check the accuracy of these two measuring stations. OCWD data from the Imperial Rubber Dam location provide data on total flow of the Santa Ana River on a daily basis. OCWD compiled daily flow measurements for the USGS gauge below Prado Dam (11074000) and at OCWD’s Imperial Rubber Dam for the period July 2015 to October 2021. During the winter months, there can be rainfall that occurs between Prado Dam and the Imperial Rubber Dam, resulting in ungauged inflow in this reach. To screen out these periods, the flow data for May through October is used and shown in the graph below. This graph shows there is very good agreement between the outflow at Prado Dam and what is received at the Imperial • USGS Stream Gauge ■ OCWD Impe rial Dam OCWD Recharge Faci liti es 2 w◊• Miles $ Rubber Dam (r2 =0.99). This demonstrates that there are no net losses in flow between these two locations, at least within the margin of error in the measurement accuracy. The conclusion is that the flow measurements at the two gauges are consistent with the water level data that show that the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is in hydrologic equilibrium, and also that the volume of groundwater pumping is relatively small so as to not measurably reduce surface water volumes through the canyon. DWR has made a dataset, called “Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) Dataset” available at NC Dataset Viewer (ca.gov). This dataset shows that there is riparian vegetation located in the Santa Ana Management Area along the SAR channel. The evapotranspiration associated with the riparian vegetation was estimated to be 740 afy as shown in Table 1-2. La Habra GSA Response: Requested information on whether surface water bodies in the La Habra-Brea Management Area are interconnected with groundwater and whether groundwater-dependent ecosystems exist within the La Habra Management Area is included in the 2022 Update. y = 1.02x R² = 0.9895 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Im p e r i a l D a m I n f l o w ( c f s ) Prado Dam Outflow (cfs) Comparison of Prado Outflow vs Imperial Dam Inflow (May-October, 2015-2021) CJ DWR Recommended Action 2. Staff recommend a basin-wide water budget utilizing inflow and outflow information from each management area or a water budget for each management area be provided in accordance with the GSP regulations (CCR 23 Section 354.18). OWWD Response: Over the years, OCWD has developed a comprehensive data collection system to characterize basin inflows and outflows. In an average year, approximately 80 percent of the inflow to the basin is measured and all of the groundwater production is measured and accounted for. In addition, every year, the change in groundwater storage is estimated based on water level changes in the three basin aquifers. This process defines the current storage condition in the basin and refines the net incidental (unmeasured) recharge portion of the water budget. Section 4 of the OCWD Management Area section of the Alternative describes the various elements of the water budget. The five-year water budget presented in the OCWD Management Area of the report is reproduced below. Table 4-1: Water Budget, WY2016-17 to 2020-21 (OCWD Management Area) FLOW COMPONENT 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 INFLOW Santa Ana River baseflow 70,000 65,400 98,000 74,500 76,400 Santa Ana River stormflow 65,400 24,100 63,700 79,500 36,600 Recycled Water (GWRS/Alamitos Barrier) 98,000 106,400 97,200 99,700 101,700 Imported Water 50,400 66,100 40,300 18,100 0 Net Estimated Unmeasured or Incidental Recharge* 67,900 26,200 45,600 41,400 19,100 TOTAL INFLOW: 351,700 288,200 344,800 313,200 233,800 OUTFLOW Groundwater Production 300,700 237,200 303,800 277,200 281,800 TOTAL OUTFLOW: 300,700 237,200 303,800 277,200 281,800 CHANGE IN STORAGE: 51,000 51,000 41,000 36,000 (48,000) The water budget presented in Table 4-1 is essentially the water budget for Basin 8-1, except for the La Habra Management Area. The water budget for the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area shows that this area provides a net source of water to the OCWD Management area that is captured in the surface water recharge component and net estimated unmeasured recharge (via subsurface inflow). The water budget for the South East Management area is captured in the net unmeasured recharge (via subsurface inflow) minus any groundwater production in this area. Groundwater production in the South East Management area is so small, it is inconsequential in terms of the overall water budget. Starting in April 2022, OCWD and other agencies within Basin 8-1 will be presenting the various water budget components as defined in CCR 23 Section 354.18 as part of the annual reporting process. La Habra GSA Response: Additional information regarding the water budget in the La Habra-Brea Management Area is included in the 2022 Update. DWR Recommended Action 3. Staff recommend that the Agencies provide the agreements among the different jurisdictions which commit the Agencies to conduct monitoring and implement the Alternative within their management areas. If no GSP is developed for the La Habra-Brea Management Area, the next Alternative update should provide additional explanation and quantification of the management approaches, sustainable management criteria, and evidence for the presence or absence of undesirable results for the La Habra-Brea Management Area. Response: The response to this recommended action comes in two parts. The first addresses the commitment of the Agencies to conduct monitoring and implement the Alternative within their management areas. The second addresses additional information requested for the La Habra-Brea Management Area. Part 1: Commitment to Conduct Monitoring and Implement Alternative: As part of the process of developing the Basin 8-1 Alternative, OCWD collaborated with the City of La Habra Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Both of these agencies committed resources to prepare their respective sections of the Alternative and submitted letters of support for the Alternative. The letters of support and OCWD’s resolution of support were submitted to DWR along with the Alternative in December 2016. These same agencies have committed resources to updating the Alternative and OCWD has again adopted a resolution of support to submit the updated Alternative to DWR. This process demonstrates the continued commitment of the agencies to comply with SGMA and take necessary actions to continue sustainably managing Basin 8-1. In terms of groundwater monitoring, OCWD has an extensive monitoring well network. A subset of these wells was part of the CASGEM program. As described in the 2022 Update, this well network was updated and is now part of the Monitoring Well Network (MWN), which has replaced CASGEM. Included in the MWN are two wells owned by IRWD that are located in the South East Management Area. As a result, water level data submitted twice a year by OCWD covers all of Basin 8-1 except for the La Habra-Brea Management Area. The City of La Habra GSA will be submitting water level data for their area separately. In addition to groundwater level monitoring, the agencies are committed to continuing to conduct monitoring of water quality, groundwater production, subsidence, and any other monitoring that may be required to satisfy sustainable management criteria. Part 2: Additional Information for La Habra-Brea Management Area The City of La Habra GSA incorporated additional information into the La Habra-Brea Management Area section, including additional explanation and quantification of the management approaches, sustainable management criteria, and clarifying the evidence for the absence of undesirable results for the La Habra-Brea Management Area. Additionally, data gaps within the monitoring network are discussed in the 2022 Update, including steps currently being taken to address and fill the gaps. DWR Recommended Action 4. Staff recommend the Agencies explain the timeframe that the Basin can safely operate, without experiencing undesirable results, after exceeding 500,000 AF below full conditions (23 CCR Section 354.26(b)(2)) and clarify the wells used to calculate the change in groundwater in storage and the overall groundwater in storage. Response: It is important to reiterate that exceeding 500,000 acre-feet from full is a hypothetical situation and is not an intended action under normal basin management circumstances. Such a hypothetical situation is considered an extraordinary circumstance; for example, an extended drought that is exacerbated by a lengthy shutdown of imported water into southern California due to a catastrophic event such as a major earthquake. This hypothetical situation would not be expected to last more than one year; however, other worse hypothetical cases can be conceived. Because the cause(s) and magnitude of a hypothetical temporary storage exceedance beyond 500,000 acre-feet below full are unknown, it is difficult to quantify a precise timeframe that the Basin can operate without experiencing undesirable results. That said, a cumulative exceedance of no more than 200,000 acre-feet beyond 500,000 acre- feet below full conditions over five consecutive years is suggested as a general guideline. This means that the average exceedance would be no more than 40,000 acre-feet during a maximum five-year period. If the period of exceedance was two years, then the average exceedance would be 100,000 acre-feet. As a general guideline, limiting the magnitude and duration of the exceedance will lessen the potential for undesirable results, as described below: 1. The rate of inland movement of seawater intrusion with the basin at 500,000 acre-feet below full conditions and with the seawater barriers is expected to be on the order of 1-2 feet per day. Over a 5-year period, this could represent a brackish water encroachment of roughly ½ mile into some of the coastal gaps. While this encroachment could cause localized water quality degradation, it is unlikely to reach production wells which are farther inland. Once the storage exceedance ends, and the basin storage is within the established operating range, the seawater barriers’ performance would be expected to recover to their design conditions and subsequently halt and reverse the brackish groundwater inland encroachment. 2. Reduction of pore pressures in and drainage of water from thick, compressible confining layers is a slow process due to the low permeability of the confining layers. Therefore, a maximum five-year period of basin storage exceeding 500,000 acre-feet from full would not be expected to cause significant inelastic land subsidence. 3. Lowering of groundwater levels could temporarily reduce or halt the production potential of an unknown number of water supply wells; however, assuming the distribution of lower groundwater levels is distributed across the Basin, the magnitude of reduced groundwater levels would be lessened, and the number of temporarily-impacted wells would likely be manageable. Note that this discussion applies to the OCWD portion of the groundwater basin. Storage conditions in the La Habra-Brea Management Area are separate. OCWD uses a large network of wells to obtain water levels in June every year, including: 1. OCWD owned wells (including multi-port monitoring wells) 2. Groundwater producer wells (must be turned off for 24 hours in advance) 3. Selected wells in Geotracker The wells/monitoring points used for the June 2021 contour maps of the Shallow, Principal and Deep Aquifers are attached. For 2021, 350 wells/monitoring points were used for the Shallow Aquifer, 421 wells/monitoring points for the Principal Aquifer, and 61 wells/monitoring points for the Deep Aquifer. There may be small changes in this well/monitoring point list on an annual basis. List of Wells/Monitoring Points Used for June 2021 Water Level Contour Map of Orange County Groundwater Basin (OCWD Management Area) Wells Used to Develop 2021 Groundwater Contour Maps in Orange County Groundwater Basin Shallow Aquifer Wells (Model Layer 1) STAID1 WELLNM STAID STANAME OWNERNM NAD83_X NAD83_Y GIS_SYMNM PERF_ZONE SHORTDATE WLELEV_2021 19013 CSF-1 19127 CSF-1/1/WB1/MP1 CA. STATE UNIV., FULLERTON 6064343.084 2270822.497 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (132)<Null><Null> 1092 FPRK-YLE 1093 FPRK-YLE/1 CANYON RV PARK 6119133.638 2263083.811 Active Small-System Production Well 60-84 6/29/2021 360.79 1090 FPRK-YLW 1091 FPRK-YLW/1 CANYON RV PARK 6119044.248 2263049.927 Active Small-System Production Well 48-80 6/29/2021 359.55 1136 SULY-OA4 1137 SULY-OA4/1 CHANDLER'S SAND & GRAVEL 6094796.046 2243793.122 Inactive Production Well -<Null><Null> 23723 CHEV-MW15B 23724 CHEV-MW15B/1 CHEVRON MANAGEMENT COMPANY 6072572.119 2277343.802 Monitoring Well 90-130 <Null><Null> 15561 CNXT-NBES2 15562 CNXT-NBES2/1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC.6071916.005 2188840.827 Monitoring Well 21-41 5/27/2021 21.63 15734 CNXT-NBES3A 15735 CNXT-NBES3A/1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC.6071601.336 2188635.986 Monitoring Well 23.9-44.3 5/27/2021 21.43 15571 CNXT-NBES4B 15572 CNXT-NBES4B/1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC.6071542.899 2188493.017 Monitoring Well 23-43 <Null><Null> 15569 CNXT-NBES6 15570 CNXT-NBES6/1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC.6071620.501 2188443.488 Monitoring Well 25-40 <Null><Null> 8610 CNXT-NBMW29 8611 CNXT-NBMW29/1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC.6071755.155 2189235.843 Monitoring Well 21-40 <Null><Null> 8608 CNXT-NBMW30 8609 CNXT-NBMW30/1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC.6071902.892 2189098.302 Monitoring Well 21-42 <Null><Null> 14611 SILV-YL 14612 SILV-YL/1 COUNTY OF ORANGE 6117870.025 2262814.346 Other Active Production Well 40-66 6/30/2021 359.99 15932 DAVI-O 15933 DAVI-O/1 DAVIDSON, TOM & CINDY 6090897.443 2241414.862 Other Active Production Well -<Null><Null> 23713 DLA-GTMW04 23714 DLA-GTMW04/1 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 6087208.914 2219923.944 Monitoring Well 90-110 7/7/2021 48.06 4156 OCWD-BS103 5213 OCWD-BS103/1 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 6027754.184 2208435.987 Monitoring Well 43-78 6/29/2021 -4.68 5218 OCWD-BS105 5219 OCWD-BS105/1 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 6022947.616 2207365.785 Monitoring Well 69-85 7/7/2021 -8.97 3071 OCWD-BS106 5222 OCWD-BS106/1 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 6024891.085 2211245.522 Monitoring Well 50-92 6/30/2021 -6.17 5133 OCWD-SA10 5134 OCWD-SA10/1 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 6039247.362 2190515.118 Monitoring Well 90-120 6/28/2021 3.249 5139 OCWD-SA12 5140 OCWD-SA12/1 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 6040581.662 2205805.671 Monitoring Well 86-126 6/30/2021 8.88 5115 OCWD-SA3 5116 OCWD-SA3/1 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 6034107.028 2196075.864 Monitoring Well 100-160 6/28/2021 2.631 1620 CMIL-A 3108 CMIL-A/1 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK 6101671.628 2260355.691 Destroyed and Sealed Well 21-101 <Null><Null> 39 GG-28 2687 GG-28/1 GARDEN GROVE 6049374.528 2232905.514 Inactive Production Well 130-240 6/30/2021 59 1407 WWGC-SAK3 1408 WWGC-SAK3/1 GARDEN GROVE 6056974.671 2220835.054 Other Active Production Well 149-170 6/28/2021 50.85 9522 SCWC-YLCO2 9523 SCWC-YLCO2/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY 6091725.912 2261952.552 Inactive Production Well 100-480 5/25/2021 254 506 ETCH-AL2 507 ETCH-AL2/1 GOODWIN MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 6086723.02 2261993.771 Inactive Production Well 85-185 6/29/2021 236.58 23034 HEUL-A 23035 HEUL-A/1 HEULER, BARTON 6060159.382 2256110.939 Other Active Production Well 125-145 <Null><Null> 2830 OCWD-HH2 2832 OCWD-HH2/2 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORPORATION 6012383.001 2212193.192 Monitoring Well 85-95 6/29/2021 -8.893 2845 OCWD-HH3 2847 OCWD-HH3/2 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORPORATION 6012242.137 2210674.48 Monitoring Well 75-85 6/29/2021 -7.988 4242 OCWD-HH5 4245 OCWD-HH5/3 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORPORATION 6013929.084 2207761.949 Monitoring Well 63-73 6/29/2021 -5.877 20312 OCWD-HH6B 20313 OCWD-HH6B/1 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORPORATION 6011785.354 2213862.346 Monitoring Well 90-100 7/1/2021 -10.411 1200 HYNS-S2 1201 HYNS-S2/1 HYNES ESTATES, INC.6032783.88 2236398.43 Destroyed and Sealed Well 162-182 <Null><Null> 23616 IRWD-MICH11 23617 IRWD-MICH11/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 6078141.044 2188888.245 Other Active Production Well 21-69 <Null><Null> 23618 IRWD-MICH12 23622 IRWD-MICH12/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 6078209.142 2188963.633 Other Active Production Well 19-63 <Null><Null> 23623 IRWD-MICH13 23624 IRWD-MICH13/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 6078263.018 2188904.583 Other Active Production Well 21-67 <Null><Null> 23625 IRWD-MICH14 23626 IRWD-MICH14/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 6078303.831 2188587.342 Other Active Production Well -<Null><Null> 23627 IRWD-MICH15 23628 IRWD-MICH15/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 6078219.918 2188672.325 Other Active Production Well -<Null><Null> 23495 CREA-YL 23496 CREA-YL/1 JOHN CREANGA 6078734.136 2277902.352 Other Active Production Well 135-175 6/30/2021 302.223 1211 ITO-LA 1212 ITO-LA/1 JOINT FORCES TRAINING BASE LOS ALAMITOS 6014444.094 2233893.201 Other Active Production Well 70-710 6/29/2021 14.26 432 W-432 433 W-432/1 KATHY BONANNO 6080325.38 2272580.463 Inactive Production Well 117-137 6/30/2021 286.993 1759 MKAW-FV 3235 MKAW-FV/1 KAWAGUCHI ENTERPRISES, LP 6051164.175 2210349.133 Other Active Production Well 185-225 <Null><Null> 11544 LAC-33Y10 11545 LAC-33Y10/1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 6000026.997 2231221.991 Monitoring Well 75-115 <Null><Null> 1160 GHAV-GG 1161 GHAV-GG/1 MAGILL, STANLEY R.6059608.702 2232220.109 Other Active Production Well 168-188 6/28/2021 61.3 22691 HMW-01 22692 HMW-01/1 MANHEIM CALIFORNIA (COX ENTERPRISES)6078590.494 2262972.301 Monitoring Well 55-75 <Null><Null> 19926 USMC-16MW11 19927 USMC-16MW11/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6110625.131 2193056.413 Monitoring Well 160-180 <Null><Null> 18840 USMC-16MW2 18841 USMC-16MW2/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6110221.201 2193322.5 Monitoring Well 153-178 <Null><Null> 19957 USMC-24EX11 19958 USMC-24EX11/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6104523.31 2191224.413 Monitoring Well 135-180 <Null><Null> 19959 USMC-24EX12A 19960 USMC-24EX12A/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6105720.54 2190982.863 Monitoring Well 115-160 <Null><Null> 19965 USMC-24EX13A 19966 USMC-24EX13A/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6107553.141 2190629.843 Monitoring Well 110-160 <Null><Null> 19971 USMC-24EX14 19972 USMC-24EX14/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6104912.99 2191678.953 Monitoring Well 115-185 <Null><Null> 19953 USMC-24EX9 19954 USMC-24EX9/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6108691.53 2189395.353 Monitoring Well 120-200 <Null><Null> 20253 USMC-24MW10AB 20255 USMC-24MW10AB/2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6107253.063 2191367.404 Monitoring Well 130-140 <Null><Null> 20269 USMC-24MW9AB 20271 USMC-24MW9AB/2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6106891.198 2190845.415 Monitoring Well 140-150 <Null><Null> 18621 USMC-24NEW7 18622 USMC-24NEW7/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6108983.5 2190576.7 Monitoring Well 118-158 <Null><Null> 18619 USMC-24NEW8 18620 USMC-24NEW8/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6109711.5 2190269.7 Monitoring Well 122-162 <Null><Null> 13875 USMC-MW03E 13876 USMC-MW03E/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6109510.523 2188847.525 Monitoring Well 124-164 <Null><Null> 13833 USMC-MW19E 13834 USMC-MW19E/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6104580.874 2194499.736 Monitoring Well 98-138 <Null><Null> 14336 USMC-MW23 14337 USMC-MW23/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6105584.809 2185916.035 Monitoring Well 64-104 <Null><Null> 18586 USMC-MW29A 18587 USMC-MW29A/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6110133.9 2187312.33 Monitoring Well 75-100 <Null><Null> 22910 USMC-MW2D2 22911 USMC-MW2D2/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6081840.685 2206480.568 Monitoring Well 76-86 <Null><Null> 13861 USMC-MW31 13862 USMC-MW31/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6107617.015 2189648.229 Monitoring Well 105-145 <Null><Null> 13859 USMC-MW37 13860 USMC-MW37/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6108153.508 2188707.479 Monitoring Well 89-130 <Null><Null> 22617 USMC-MW43B 22618 USMC-MW43B/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6110701.167 2188814.201 Monitoring Well 100.41-140.91 <Null><Null> 13817 USMC-MW51 13818 USMC-MW51/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6107153.052 2192582.528 Monitoring Well 125-165 <Null><Null> 13877 USMC-MW70 13878 USMC-MW70/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6110644.542 2189446.258 Monitoring Well 125-165 <Null><Null> 13903 USMC-MW73 13904 USMC-MW73/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6109324.506 2187794.721 Monitoring Well 90-130 <Null><Null> 13889 USMC-MW91 13890 USMC-MW91/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6108291.003 2188258.73 Monitoring Well 110-150 <Null><Null> 7256 USMC-PS1 7257 USMC-PS1/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6106591.503 2189442.242 Monitoring Well 102-122 <Null><Null> 7258 USMC-PS2 7259 USMC-PS2/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6105657.052 2193519.226 Monitoring Well 103-133 <Null><Null> 18564 USMC-PS3A 18565 USMC-PS3A/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6109290.87 2187093.49 Monitoring Well 70-105 <Null><Null> 13849 USMC-MP06 14437 USMC-MP06/1/WB1/MP1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6100689.85 2194415.05 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (110)<Null><Null> 13851 USMC-MP08 14457 USMC-MP08/1/WB1/MP1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6105310.575 2187889.19 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (70)<Null><Null> 13853 USMC-MP10 14501 USMC-MP10/1/WB1/MP1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6089272.939 2200492.977 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (222)<Null><Null> 20296 USMC-24EX20B 20297 USMC-24EX20B/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6106098.39 2192979.513 Other Active Production Well 106.8-204.8 <Null><Null> 20015 USMC-SGU1 20016 USMC-SGU1/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6109366.294 2188607.434 Other Active Production Well 96-206 3/9/2021 153.37 20090 USMC-SGU16 20091 USMC-SGU16/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6108500.694 2189851.338 Other Active Production Well 105-185 3/9/2021 128.4 21967 USMC-SGU39 21968 USMC-SGU39/1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 6105829.364 2192700.994 Other Active Production Well 90-190 3/8/2021 108.56 15117 MCGN-BP1 15118 MCGN-BP1/1 MC GINNESS, BILL 6030378.839 2253137.368 Other Active Production Well 50-255 6/30/2021 39.29 14284 MSG-BP10L 14285 MSG-BP10L/1 MCCOLL SITE GROUP 6037931.453 2272258.752 Monitoring Well 247-257 6/30/2021 103.92 1134 SULY-OA1 1135 SULY-OA1/1 MILAN REI, LLC 6095028.945 2243462.53 Other Active Production Well -6/29/2021 <Null> 428 W-428 429 W-428/1 MONBRI, LLC 6074730.957 2271716.012 Inactive Production Well -<Null><Null> 3976 OCWD-P10 3977 OCWD-P10/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6044117.886 2186405.599 Destroyed and Sealed Well 90-130 <Null><Null> 19007 OCWD-BIO1 19008 OCWD-BIO1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6082730.975 2257183.878 Inactive Production Well 25-115 7/7/2021 229.84 20858 OCWD-EW2 20859 OCWD-EW2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6053332.928 2263207.928 Inactive Production Well 130-196 <Null><Null> 20851 OCWD-EW2A 20852 OCWD-EW2A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6049376.318 2263317.874 Inactive Production Well 122-188 <Null><Null> 22619 OCWD-EW3A 22620 OCWD-EW3A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6050896.1 2260365.9 Inactive Production Well 235-290 <Null><Null> 21041 OCWD-EW4 21042 OCWD-EW4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6053819.546 2259558.892 Inactive Production Well 130-255 <Null><Null> 18056 OCWD-I26A 18057 OCWD-I26A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6048813.793 2200416.667 Injection Well 60-195 7/6/2021 5.49 19465 OCWD-I27A 19466 OCWD-I27A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6036244.383 2199722.281 Injection Well 78-148 <Null><Null> 19469 OCWD-I28A 19470 OCWD-I28A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6036238.41 2199048.656 Injection Well 80-140 7/6/2021 3 19697 OCWD-I29A 19698 OCWD-I29A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6034766.9 2200360.103 Injection Well 90-120 <Null><Null> 19701 OCWD-I30A 19702 OCWD-I30A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6034047.2 2200278.003 Injection Well 95-160 6/28/2021 2.53 19711 OCWD-I31A 19712 OCWD-I31A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6033586.7 2201013.903 Injection Well 90-165 7/6/2021 1.67 19707 OCWD-I32A 19708 OCWD-I32A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6033114.8 2200599.403 Injection Well 90-155 <Null><Null> 19654 OCWD-I33A 19655 OCWD-I33A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045921.5 2194432.303 Injection Well 61-156 6/30/2021 5.16 19656 OCWD-I34A 19657 OCWD-I34A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045756.9 2193917.303 Injection Well 60-135 <Null><Null> 19658 OCWD-I35A 19659 OCWD-I35A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045558.2 2193150.603 Injection Well 60-115 6/30/2021 7.89 19678 OCWD-I36A 19679 OCWD-I36A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045421.1 2192575.403 Injection Well 60-110 <Null><Null> 1018 AM-1 1019 AM-1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6090472.39 2264185.952 Monitoring Well 97-115 6/30/2021 245.03 1 of 4 Wells Used to Develop 2021 Groundwater Contour Maps in Orange County Groundwater Basin Shallow Aquifer Wells (Model Layer 1) STAID1 WELLNM STAID STANAME OWNERNM NAD83_X NAD83_Y GIS_SYMNM PERF_ZONE SHORTDATE WLELEV_2021 545 AM-10 546 AM-10/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6071304.771 2257813.261 Monitoring Well 217-235 7/7/2021 121.51 557 AM-11 558 AM-11/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6072499.755 2255656.617 Monitoring Well 218-240 6/30/2021 121.98 555 AM-12 556 AM-12/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6070962.221 2255565.488 Monitoring Well 210-225 7/7/2021 113.56 553 AM-13 554 AM-13/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6072701.528 2256964.39 Monitoring Well 252-270 6/30/2021 128.38 2744 AM-15A 2745 AM-15A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6062585.788 2256914.422 Monitoring Well 214-220 6/25/2021 89.81 2895 AM-19A 2896 AM-19A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6065134.464 2236977.559 Monitoring Well 115-123 6/25/2021 77.56 1022 AM-2 1023 AM-2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6091404.587 2263383.522 Monitoring Well 87-100 6/30/2021 246.46 6515 AM-21A 6516 AM-21A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6067232.542 2241283.088 Monitoring Well 157-165 6/25/2021 90.52 7011 AM-25A 7012 AM-25A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6060775.248 2252483.682 Monitoring Well 188-195 6/25/2021 84.41 1020 AM-3 1021 AM-3/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6090425.411 2261850.384 Monitoring Well 91-107 6/30/2021 245.62 7543 AM-30A 7544 AM-30A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6046015.103 2255909.924 Monitoring Well 152-159 6/25/2021 55.16 22901 AM-31AR 22902 AM-31AR/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6052258.095 2257683 Monitoring Well 150-170 7/8/2021 69.05 8904 AM-39A 8905 AM-39A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6057788.178 2260561.644 Monitoring Well 115-135 6/29/2021 82.15 549 AM-4 550 AM-4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6078257.417 2258629.141 Monitoring Well 187-205 7/7/2021 166.388 8908 AM-40A 8909 AM-40A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6057765.028 2259083.041 Monitoring Well 145-165 6/25/2021 83.08 10147 AM-41A 10148 AM-41A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6055818.758 2261031.665 Monitoring Well 156-166 6/30/2021 77.7 8232 AM-42A 8233 AM-42A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6057305.512 2258837.864 Monitoring Well 115-130 <Null><Null> 14615 AM-44 14616 AM-44/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6075009.801 2261947.637 Monitoring Well 140-160 6/30/2021 168.75 15331 AM-45 15332 AM-45/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6071037.809 2252432.19 Monitoring Well 102-132 7/7/2021 104.04 15329 AM-46 15330 AM-46/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6073338.847 2254329.24 Monitoring Well 94-124 7/7/2021 124.15 20711 AM-47A 20712 AM-47A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6054345.1 2258323.2 Monitoring Well 160-170 6/25/2021 73.68 20703 AM-48A 20704 AM-48A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6069389.1 2259146.8 Monitoring Well 116-146 7/8/2021 114.1 20760 AM-49 20761 AM-49/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6068833 2259389.2 Monitoring Well 120-150 6/30/2021 112.28 22372 AM-50 22373 AM-50/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6075090.3 2260329.2 Monitoring Well 140-150 7/1/2021 158.68 22714 AM-51 22715 AM-51/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6078407.7 2256724.2 Monitoring Well 105-125 7/1/2021 176.413 23001 AM-52 23002 AM-52/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6074643.8 2257784.5 Monitoring Well 140-150 7/1/2021 145.33 22939 AM-53 22940 AM-53/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6076000.9 2255632.4 Monitoring Well 35-50 6/30/2021 199.08 23209 AM-54A 23210 AM-54A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6055949.4 2259518.7 Monitoring Well 102-117 6/25/2021 77.92 2732 AM-5A 2733 AM-5A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6078678.675 2259935.902 Monitoring Well 168-175 7/7/2021 166.45 551 AM-6 552 AM-6/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6075037.515 2257301.421 Monitoring Well 232-250 7/7/2021 143.29 2734 AM-7 2735 AM-7/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6071731.515 2260900.336 Monitoring Well 210-225 7/7/2021 131.58 2736 AM-8 2737 AM-8/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6069027.597 2259867.528 Monitoring Well 268-285 7/7/2021 112.8 2738 AM-9 2739 AM-9/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6068551.962 2256957.039 Monitoring Well 285-303 6/30/2021 106.16 14585 AMD-9 14586 AMD-9/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6075825.081 2261784.701 Monitoring Well 200-220 7/1/2021 158.94 18333 FM-10A 18334 FM-10A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6057594.391 2262015.979 Monitoring Well 151-171 6/29/2021 80.97 18337 FM-11A 18338 FM-11A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6054079.666 2261018.177 Monitoring Well 134-154 6/30/2021 73.93 18341 FM-12A 18342 FM-12A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6058082.287 2263020.488 Monitoring Well 135-155 6/29/2021 82.13 18345 FM-13A 18346 FM-13A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6064721.254 2262602.268 Monitoring Well 140-160 7/1/2021 93.9 18349 FM-14A 18350 FM-14A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6064616.249 2263074.072 Monitoring Well 147-167 7/2/2021 93.36 18353 FM-15A 18354 FM-15A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6054101.553 2262617.193 Monitoring Well 120-140 6/29/2021 71.92 18414 FM-16A 18415 FM-16A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6063638.746 2262326.768 Monitoring Well 125-145 7/3/2021 91.85 19614 FM-18A 19615 FM-18A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6049386.482 2263643.669 Monitoring Well 120.5-150.5 6/29/2021 63.93 19618 FM-19A 19619 FM-19A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6051553.311 2262443.484 Monitoring Well 115-135 6/29/2021 68.63 7019 FM-1A 7020 FM-1A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6053145.617 2258731.83 Monitoring Well 164-172 6/25/2021 71.88 20764 FM-20A 20765 FM-20A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6053785.7 2263876.3 Monitoring Well 130-150 6/29/2021 72.54 20768 FM-21A 20769 FM-21A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6047768.5 2262675.5 Monitoring Well 140-160 6/29/2021 60.141 20753 FM-22A 20754 FM-22A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6051124.3 2260372.1 Monitoring Well 150-170 6/25/2021 67.28 20884 FM-23A 20885 FM-23A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6054153.6 2260625.1 Monitoring Well 128-143 6/29/2021 74.3 20701 FM-24A 20702 FM-24A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6051431.3 2258787.9 Monitoring Well 154-174 6/25/2021 67.61 20316 FM-25 20317 FM-25/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6068593.3 2262774.2 Monitoring Well 132-152 6/30/2021 110.53 20878 FM-26 20879 FM-26/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6053369.5 2263220 Monitoring Well 145-155 <Null><Null> 20894 FM-27 20895 FM-27/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6054575.1 2263550.9 Monitoring Well 105-125 6/29/2021 74.86 23221 FM-29A 23222 FM-29A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6048986.6 2262406 Monitoring Well 150-170 6/29/2021 62.36 23571 FM-30A 23572 FM-30A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6061066.47 2263552.561 Monitoring Well 106-126 6/29/2021 86.65 23227 FM-31A 23228 FM-31A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6054066.6 2261852.6 Monitoring Well 122-137 6/29/2021 73.97 23231 FM-32A 23232 FM-32A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045296.9 2263968.8 Monitoring Well 135-155 6/29/2021 56.56 23483 FM-33A 23484 FM-33A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6052364.7 2264780 Monitoring Well 135-155 6/29/2021 69.67 23575 FM-34A 23576 FM-34A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6057208.2 2265369.9 Monitoring Well 114-124 7/8/2021 81.62 23894 FM-35A 23895 FM-35A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6062993.381 2262539.528 Monitoring Well 180.1-195.1 7/6/2021 89.8 7521 FM-4A 7522 FM-4A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6048400.799 2258801.821 Monitoring Well 142-160 6/25/2021 60.89 7932 FM-5 7933 FM-5/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6059389.1 2261084.6 Monitoring Well 121-141 6/29/2021 85 9947 FM-6 9948 FM-6/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6053264.065 2274113.568 Monitoring Well 150-310 6/30/2021 175.28 10145 FM-7A 10146 FM-7A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6054314.136 2259267.565 Monitoring Well 160-170 6/25/2021 74.11 18325 FM-8 18326 FM-8/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6059585.097 2263564.489 Monitoring Well 114-134 6/29/2021 84.74 18329 FM-9A 18330 FM-9A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6063388.839 2262959.974 Monitoring Well 166-186 6/30/2021 89 19009 IDM-3 19010 IDM-3/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6099726.882 2201438.084 Monitoring Well 174-194 6/28/2021 94.682 19404 IDM-4 19405 IDM-4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6103585.541 2200230.218 Monitoring Well 136-156 6/28/2021 107.205 19478 IDP-2R 19479 IDP-2R/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6106015.21 2193086.752 Monitoring Well 155-195 6/28/2021 115.845 721 KBS-1 998 KBS-1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6074374.124 2260345.831 Monitoring Well 209-219 7/1/2021 154.21 14600 KBS-4 14601 KBS-4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6073595.666 2262004.207 Monitoring Well 138-158 7/7/2021 154.88 1360 MCAS-4 1361 MCAS-4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6098189.884 2189446.916 Monitoring Well 181-238 6/28/2021 95.46 10217 MCAS-5A 10218 MCAS-5A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6101340.027 2187474.726 Monitoring Well 120-130 6/28/2021 118.26 21062 OCWD-34X40 21063 OCWD-34X40/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6005285 2228276.5 Monitoring Well 88-113 <Null><Null> 23057 OCWD-34Y01 23058 OCWD-34Y01/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6001790.9 2226024.1 Monitoring Well 60-80 7/6/2021 2.734 5410 OCWD-35H11 5413 OCWD-35H11/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6002891.562 2224892.037 Monitoring Well 44-77 7/6/2021 -1.064 5414 OCWD-35N01 5416 OCWD-35N01/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6001915.345 2223579.533 Monitoring Well 39-79 <Null><Null> 2859 OCWD-AIR1 2860 OCWD-AIR1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6037614.933 2265072.135 Monitoring Well 200-250 6/29/2021 39.807 3327 OCWD-AN2 3328 OCWD-AN2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6078166.807 2262263.165 Monitoring Well 35-115 6/28/2021 174.34 3317 OCWD-BP3 3318 OCWD-BP3/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6069054.595 2245231.281 Monitoring Well 185-205 7/7/2021 97.415 3311 OCWD-BP4 3312 OCWD-BP4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6070719.841 2250468.164 Monitoring Well 140-180 7/7/2021 91.57 20224 OCWD-BP5 20226 OCWD-BP5/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6069894.721 2249887.593 Monitoring Well 146.5-166.5 7/7/2021 125.41 20227 OCWD-BP6 20228 OCWD-BP6/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6069328.8 2249065.103 Monitoring Well 148-168 7/7/2021 102.79 20229 OCWD-BP7 20231 OCWD-BP7/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6069218.53 2247697.383 Monitoring Well 148-168 7/7/2021 101.76 22323 OCWD-BS10 22324 OCWD-BS10/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6013179.752 2219396.307 Monitoring Well 100-110 7/1/2021 -13.06 22330 OCWD-BS11 22331 OCWD-BS11/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6008506.1 2221300 Monitoring Well 95-115 7/1/2021 -9.453 22774 OCWD-BS12 22968 OCWD-BS12/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6015660.3 2214181.8 Monitoring Well 115-125 7/1/2021 -12.659 23682 OCWD-BS13A 23683 OCWD-BS13A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6009763.8 2214240.5 Monitoring Well 127-132 7/1/2021 -10.876 22776 OCWD-BS14 22912 OCWD-BS14/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6003965.9 2221842.9 Monitoring Well 75-85 7/1/2021 -4.65 19673 OCWD-BS16 19674 OCWD-BS16/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6021997.663 2201854.703 Monitoring Well 60-80 7/1/2021 -9.627 19675 OCWD-BS18 19676 OCWD-BS18/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6018119.189 2205526.66 Monitoring Well 72-82 7/1/2021 -11.001 22899 OCWD-BS18B 22900 OCWD-BS18B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6018114.308 2205521.438 Monitoring Well 52-62 7/1/2021 -11.192 19854 OCWD-BS19 19855 OCWD-BS19/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6019002.9 2203605.503 Monitoring Well 62.5-82.5 7/1/2021 -9.346 20140 OCWD-BS20B 20141 OCWD-BS20B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6018514.448 2207922.493 Monitoring Well 70.8-80.8 6/24/2021 -9.28 22778 OCWD-BS21 22895 OCWD-BS21/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6004262.7 2223732.4 Monitoring Well 65-85 6/29/2021 -2.96 23498 OCWD-BS24A 23500 OCWD-BS24A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6005236.2 2219558.6 Monitoring Well 87.5-92.5 7/1/2021 -8.055 2867 OCWD-CTG1 2868 OCWD-CTG1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6061970.346 2206073.478 Monitoring Well 160-260 6/30/2021 32.73 3309 OCWD-FC2 3310 OCWD-FC2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6072303.404 2252609.097 Monitoring Well 95-115 7/7/2021 105.49 3305 OCWD-FH1 3306 OCWD-FH1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6081695.772 2257027.264 Monitoring Well 120-140 7/7/2021 213.83 2 of 4 Wells Used to Develop 2021 Groundwater Contour Maps in Orange County Groundwater Basin Shallow Aquifer Wells (Model Layer 1) STAID1 WELLNM STAID STANAME OWNERNM NAD83_X NAD83_Y GIS_SYMNM PERF_ZONE SHORTDATE WLELEV_2021 7056 OCWD-GA2 7057 OCWD-GA2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6024924.606 2202223.668 Monitoring Well 30-40 6/24/2021 -4.615 23477 OCWD-HG2 23478 OCWD-HG2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6090811.6 2258833 Monitoring Well 43-48 7/7/2021 258.38 543 OCWD-KB1 544 OCWD-KB1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6073294.322 2259903.951 Monitoring Well 180-200 7/7/2021 141.77 20232 OCWD-LB1 20234 OCWD-LB1/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6070964.86 2251336.473 Monitoring Well 148-168 7/7/2021 97.07 20237 OCWD-LB3 20239 OCWD-LB3/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6071277.961 2250678.833 Monitoring Well 145-165 7/7/2021 93.26 21196 OCWD-LB4 21198 OCWD-LB4/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6070798.52 2250812.078 Monitoring Well 78-88 7/7/2021 121.19 3303 OCWD-LV1 3304 OCWD-LV1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6085675.722 2259327.385 Monitoring Well 135-155 7/7/2021 237.5 3020 OCWD-M1 3021 OCWD-M1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6042016.978 2187264.062 Monitoring Well 75-110 6/30/2021 2.55 2906 OCWD-M10 2907 OCWD-M10/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6038138.474 2201788.445 Monitoring Well 80-160 6/29/2021 2.175 2911 OCWD-M11 2912 OCWD-M11/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6040661.307 2201457.181 Monitoring Well 70-105 6/30/2021 3.83 2924 OCWD-M12 2925 OCWD-M12/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6043375.718 2201517.376 Monitoring Well 70-110 6/30/2021 5.775 2929 OCWD-M13 2930 OCWD-M13/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045991.781 2201410.369 Monitoring Well 65-95 6/30/2021 10.798 2947 OCWD-M14A 2948 OCWD-M14A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6046612.239 2200062.034 Monitoring Well 60-90 6/28/2021 7.94 2954 OCWD-M15A 2955 OCWD-M15A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6046620.011 2199773.098 Monitoring Well 60-85 6/28/2021 6.96 2961 OCWD-M16 2962 OCWD-M16/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6046615.518 2199268.584 Monitoring Well 65-90 6/28/2021 4.264 2966 OCWD-M17A 2967 OCWD-M17A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6046331.102 2200365.515 Monitoring Well 60-95 6/28/2021 7.867 2934 OCWD-M19 2935 OCWD-M19/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6046001.209 2200836.043 Monitoring Well 60-110 6/30/2021 8.575 3022 OCWD-M2 3023 OCWD-M2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6039248.099 2187144.76 Monitoring Well 85-150 6/28/2021 4.202 2938 OCWD-M20 2939 OCWD-M20/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045975.835 2200531.536 Monitoring Well 60-105 6/30/2021 8.088 4395 OCWD-M21 4398 OCWD-M21/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6046004.999 2200239.171 Monitoring Well 65-100 6/30/2021 7.39 2976 OCWD-M22 2977 OCWD-M22/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6046004.496 2199936.42 Monitoring Well 70-105 6/30/2021 7.525 2987 OCWD-M24 2988 OCWD-M24/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045442.857 2199803.456 Monitoring Well 70-95 6/24/2021 6.605 3026 OCWD-M25 3027 OCWD-M25/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6033478.884 2192672.122 Monitoring Well 65-185 6/30/2021 4.323 3014 OCWD-M26 3015 OCWD-M26/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6040602.649 2193477.553 Monitoring Well 70-135 7/1/2021 3.386 3016 OCWD-M27 3017 OCWD-M27/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6043039.524 2189845.444 Monitoring Well 60-110 6/30/2021 3.357 3030 OCWD-M28 3031 OCWD-M28/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6040384.981 2184652.638 Monitoring Well 80-145 6/30/2021 3.808 3018 OCWD-M30 3019 OCWD-M30/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6043301.989 2183249.013 Monitoring Well 90-110 6/28/2021 3.325 3024 OCWD-M31 3025 OCWD-M31/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6040492.197 2179496.985 Monitoring Well 82-162 6/28/2021 4.918 11859 OCWD-M36 11860 OCWD-M36/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6035356.833 2200840.246 Monitoring Well 80-90 6/28/2021 2.46 14515 OCWD-M37 14516 OCWD-M37/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6035034.164 2201302.677 Monitoring Well 120-130 6/28/2021 1.78 15127 OCWD-M38 15128 OCWD-M38/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6030736.262 2198146.213 Monitoring Well 94-104 6/30/2021 0.234 2992 OCWD-M4 2993 OCWD-M4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6049340.682 2199524.535 Monitoring Well 80-120 6/28/2021 3.04 16654 OCWD-M40 16655 OCWD-M40/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6051222.286 2195005.215 Monitoring Well 85-105 6/28/2021 0.72 18425 OCWD-M41 18427 OCWD-M41/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6031312.152 2196141.497 Monitoring Well 95-105 6/30/2021 1.256 18418 OCWD-M42 18419 OCWD-M42/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6030956.495 2201880.558 Monitoring Well 100-120 6/24/2021 -1.085 23769 OCWD-M43R 23770 OCWD-M43R/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6056258.4 2193225.9 Monitoring Well 75-95 6/28/2021 -10.84 20371 OCWD-M44 20372 OCWD-M44/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6048200.8 2193011.3 Monitoring Well 50-60 6/28/2021 5.089 19640 OCWD-M45 19641 OCWD-M45/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6040339.8 2203350.603 Monitoring Well 195-205 6/30/2021 1.11 18766 OCWD-M48 18767 OCWD-M48/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6059972.844 2188953.882 Monitoring Well 80-100 6/28/2021 -25.796 2942 OCWD-M5 2943 OCWD-M5/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6046006.801 2199404.116 Monitoring Well 65-95 6/30/2021 6.035 22780 OCWD-M51A 22847 OCWD-M51A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6065086.6 2189052.9 Monitoring Well 28-38 6/24/2021 6.643 22782 OCWD-M52A 22845 OCWD-M52A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6067063.8 2192832.5 Monitoring Well 46-56 6/24/2021 14.66 22783 OCWD-M53A 22849 OCWD-M53A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6070492.9 2196785 Monitoring Well 21.5-31.5 7/27/2021 21.502 22785 OCWD-M54A 22852 OCWD-M54A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6074213.9 2188681.7 Monitoring Well 38-43 6/24/2021 -18.326 23136 OCWD-M55B 23137 OCWD-M55B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6073271.8 2195029.2 Monitoring Well 57-67 6/24/2021 24.195 23138 OCWD-M56 23139 OCWD-M56/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6076007.2 2194374.4 Monitoring Well 106-116 6/24/2021 12.115 23819 OCWD-M57 23820 OCWD-M57/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6043815.8 2186794.1 Monitoring Well 80-130 6/28/2021 3.257 23888 OCWD-M58A 23889 OCWD-M58A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6038939.075 2198039.987 Monitoring Well 80-90 6/28/2021 2.69 2997 OCWD-M6A 2998 OCWD-M6A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6043358.318 2199431.427 Monitoring Well 65-125 6/30/2021 5.345 2916 OCWD-M7A 2917 OCWD-M7A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6040722.972 2199455.757 Monitoring Well 70-135 7/1/2021 4.75 3004 OCWD-M8 3005 OCWD-M8/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6036253.121 2199205.112 Monitoring Well 50-150 6/24/2021 4.403 3009 OCWD-M9 3011 OCWD-M9/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6033874.971 2200507.549 Monitoring Well 135-155 6/30/2021 2.905 22659 OCWD-SA22R 22661 OCWD-SA22R/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6036740.5 2194795.1 Monitoring Well 100-130 6/30/2021 2.618 3978 OCWD-T2 3980 OCWD-T2/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6035679.306 2192640.337 Monitoring Well 70-170 6/24/2021 3.624 4804 OCWD-T3 4805 OCWD-T3/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6035928.37 2192634.905 Monitoring Well 65-85 6/30/2021 2.581 3985 OCWD-T4 4846 OCWD-T4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6036181.511 2192629.058 Monitoring Well 68-168 6/30/2021 3.314 3982 OCWD-T5 3983 OCWD-T5/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6035375.819 2190450.423 Monitoring Well 110-190 6/30/2021 4.479 20892 OCWD-YLR3 20893 OCWD-YLR3/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6087613.912 2264061.986 Monitoring Well 31-36 6/30/2021 237.2 1052 OM-2A 1053 OM-2A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6064189.6 2231238.364 Monitoring Well 118-125 6/25/2021 63.638 1039 OM-4A 1040 OM-4A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6066713.864 2235618.971 Monitoring Well 112-117 6/23/2021 76.25 6519 OM-8A 6520 OM-8A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6068864.508 2240692.482 Monitoring Well 156-164 6/25/2021 89.55 20962 SAM-1 20964 SAM-1/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6074659.6 2209328.2 Monitoring Well 132-147 6/30/2021 40.67 23285 SAM-10C 23286 SAM-10C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6075362.1 2201059 Monitoring Well 77.5-82.5 7/1/2021 31.8 23291 SAM-11D 23292 SAM-11D/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6076595.5 2202810.9 Monitoring Well 90-100 6/30/2021 34.47 23297 SAM-13D 23298 SAM-13D/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6073031.3 2202354.5 Monitoring Well 91.5-101.5 6/30/2021 32.14 20984 SAM-2 20986 SAM-2/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6072812.2 2208121.4 Monitoring Well 121-131 6/30/2021 39.83 20958 SAM-3 20960 SAM-3/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6074219.9 2207608.9 Monitoring Well 122-142 6/30/2021 39.53 20970 SAM-4 20972 SAM-4/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6072905.5 2206698.6 Monitoring Well 120-135 6/30/2021 38.16 20966 SAM-5 20968 SAM-5/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6072894 2205886.2 Monitoring Well 115-130 6/30/2021 37.31 20948 SAM-6 20950 SAM-6/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6075457.3 2205983.5 Monitoring Well 114-134 <Null><Null> 23263 SAM-7C 23264 SAM-7C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6070824 2202542.5 Monitoring Well 106-111 7/1/2021 31.32 23301 SAM-8C 23302 SAM-8C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6072805.6 2199933 Monitoring Well 65.5-75.5 6/30/2021 28.61 23275 SAM-9C 23276 SAM-9C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6074482.7 2198350.3 Monitoring Well 58.5-63.5 6/30/2021 26.56 23824 SAR-14B 23825 SAR-14B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6099053.012 2261319.993 Monitoring Well 37-42 <Null><Null> 20926 SCS-11 20927 SCS-11/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6070448.4 2228003 Monitoring Well 156-166 7/8/2021 48.71 20929 SCS-12 20930 SCS-12/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6067610.6 2228198.9 Monitoring Well 170-180 7/8/2021 60.2 15392 SCS-6 15394 SCS-6/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6081489.879 2232585.107 Monitoring Well 147-152.5 7/8/2021 85.86 15395 SCS-7 15397 SCS-7/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6080943.41 2232168.833 Monitoring Well 125-140.5 7/8/2021 93.62 15398 SCS-8 15399 SCS-8/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6081887.799 2233776.982 Monitoring Well 108-128.5 7/8/2021 120.23 18179 SCS-9 18180 SCS-9/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6082464.896 2233574.788 Monitoring Well 153-173 7/8/2021 76 997 ABS-1 22665 ABS-1/1/WB2/MP3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6076226.851 2262977.612 Multiport Monitoring Well MP3 (257)7/7/2021 158.375 547 AMD-1 21135 AMD-1/1/WB2/MP3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6073916.932 2258572.091 Multiport Monitoring Well MP3 (182)6/30/2021 144.17 565 AMD-2 22202 AMD-2/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6066705.21 2254540.618 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (157)6/29/2021 99.56 6410 AMD-3 6433 AMD-3/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6057347.584 2256481.116 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (135)<Null><Null> 7295 AMD-5 7315 AMD-5/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6060070.244 2248962.576 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (201)6/28/2021 81.17 7293 AMD-6 7477 AMD-6/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6057374.729 2241092.645 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (152)6/28/2021 69.17 8596 AMD-7 8748 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6049188.026 2247218.215 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (121)6/28/2021 59.63 9682 AMD-8 9903 AMD-8/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6033488.697 2249624.328 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (180)7/12/2021 44.575 9831 BPM-1 9980 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6022348.508 2259541.566 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (129)7/12/2021 26.87 9832 BPM-2 10174 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6025195.413 2246739.597 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (181)7/12/2021 35.65 685 CB-1 8787 CB-1/1/WB2/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6044695.232 2253837.186 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (143)7/6/2021 53.15 5155 COSM-1 7143 COSM-1/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6055253.401 2197825.036 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (92)6/30/2021 2.01 18846 COSM-2 18860 COSM-2/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6052266.414 2199776.431 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (115)6/30/2021 8.62 719 FFS-1 14241 FFS-1/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6061436.461 2262022.62 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (181)7/6/2021 88.13 1291 FVM-1 15685 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6047178.815 2210990.613 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (173)6/22/2021 28.21 7297 GGM-1 10021 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045688.299 2230864.24 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (150)7/8/2021 51.65 8923 GGM-2 9045 GGM-2/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6026525.607 2230233.156 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (213)6/22/2021 26.83 8592 GGM-3 8661 GGM-3/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6037298.069 2237458.988 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (197)7/8/2021 43.98 3 of 4 Wells Used to Develop 2021 Groundwater Contour Maps in Orange County Groundwater Basin Shallow Aquifer Wells (Model Layer 1) STAID1 WELLNM STAID STANAME OWNERNM NAD83_X NAD83_Y GIS_SYMNM PERF_ZONE SHORTDATE WLELEV_2021 7178 HBM-1 8433 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6031700.722 2216385.252 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (91)7/2/2021 24.52 7086 HBM-2 7218 HBM-2/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6036228.737 2196532.383 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (112)7/2/2021 3.49 9200 HBM-4 9219 HBM-4/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6034095.825 2197123.319 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (120)7/2/2021 2.99 9688 HBM-5 9873 HBM-5/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6045744.869 2193971.856 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (76)7/2/2021 9.36 15088 HBM-6 15239 HBM-6/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6025106.578 2204548.969 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (53)7/2/2021 -6.84 720 IDM-1 18976 IDM-1/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6099572.243 2207081.537 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (86)7/7/2021 92.85 9830 IDM-2 10059 IDM-2/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6080705.598 2209836.046 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (129)7/7/2021 48.9 541 KBS-2 10226 KBS-2/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6073053.762 2260992.439 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (214)6/21/2021 144.53 11949 LAM-1 12020 LAM-1/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6009581.587 2238043.705 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (72)6/15/2021 13.07 1345 MCAS-1 5841 MCAS-1/1/WB2/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6098255.481 2192973.357 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (155)7/6/2021 97.79 759 MCAS-2 5926 MCAS-2/1/WB2/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6100360.442 2191167.958 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (135)7/6/2021 106.75 1339 MCAS-3 5882 MCAS-3/1/WB2/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6104434.428 2191276.758 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (166)7/6/2021 114.92 758 MCAS-7 11826 MCAS-7/1/WB3/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6093900.827 2194418.586 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (92)7/7/2021 83.2 756 SAR-1 9257 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6070684.206 2250425.314 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (162)6/29/2021 92.52 761 SAR-2 11984 SAR-2/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6069096.008 2245410.807 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (141)6/29/2021 99.88 762 SAR-3 9461 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6066892.02 2238409.284 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (164)6/24/2021 81.47 763 SAR-4 14628 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6065370.966 2233375.154 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (123)6/29/2021 70.47 1289 SAR-5 21217 SAR-5/1/WB3/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6062597.607 2227874.211 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (172)6/30/2021 58.48 996 SAR-7 19998 SAR-7/1/WB2/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6078049.17 2256383.048 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (171)6/21/2021 183.21 559 SAR-8 22591 SAR-8/1/WB2/MP3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6076100.201 2255671.218 Multiport Monitoring Well MP3 (161)6/21/2021 204.32 7181 SAR-9 9796 SAR-9/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6058380.802 2221450.982 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (150)6/30/2021 49.087 9686 SBM-1 9723 SBM-1/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6016566.11 2224523.54 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (79)6/15/2021 8.535 1000 SC-1 21651 SC-1/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6089555.444 2242038.806 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (47)<Null><Null> 1001 SC-2 18744 SC-2/1/WB2/MP3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6086489.295 2237887.557 Multiport Monitoring Well MP3 (148)<Null><Null> 2888 SC-4 6293 SC-4/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6082605.785 2235080.546 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (102)3/10/2021 164.02 2854 SC-5 6327 SC-5/1/WB1/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6077454.866 2225543.458 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (124)7/1/2021 59.96 9684 SC-6 9754 SC-6/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6066813.288 2216032.113 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (202)7/7/2021 47.93 1016 SCS-1 8863 SCS-1/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6088950.708 2237855.374 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (94)<Null><Null> 1014 SCS-2 22649 SCS-2/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6088207.123 2239962.183 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (139)<Null><Null> 1008 WBS-2A 10234 WBS-2A/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6082321.431 2259606.923 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (94)6/21/2021 208.44 1011 WBS-4 19982 WBS-4/1/WB2/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6080099.39 2256910.089 Multiport Monitoring Well MP2 (122)6/21/2021 193.21 1293 WMM-1 19877 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6038251.554 2221751.195 Multiport Monitoring Well MP1 (111)7/8/2021 35.73 1124 OCWD-BESS 1152 OCWD-BESS/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6080158.417 2258062.783 Other Active Production Well 172-189 7/7/2021 171.45 1399 OWOD-GG 1400 OWOD-GG/1 ORANGEWOOD ACADEMY 6057015.043 2226104.239 Other Active Production Well 159-179 6/28/2021 57.78 2268 W-2268 2270 W-2268/1 PRIVATE 6055379.538 2239905.999 Inactive Production Well 140-190 6/28/2021 65.1 2447 W-2447 2448 W-2447/1 PRIVATE 6039781.004 2230376.471 Inactive Production Well 157-178 6/30/2021 45.52 7046 W-7046 7047 W-7046/1 PRIVATE 6078609.174 2244437.793 Inactive Production Well -7/8/2021 83.04 23777 PRUD-MW49 23778 PRUD-MW49/1 PRUDENTIAL REALTY CORPORATION 6075571.865 2190248.213 Monitoring Well 22-32 <Null><Null> 23783 PRUD-TP07 23784 PRUD-TP07/1 PRUDENTIAL REALTY CORPORATION 6075439.364 2190268.695 Monitoring Well 22-32 <Null><Null> 23785 PRUD-TP10 23786 PRUD-TP10/1 PRUDENTIAL REALTY CORPORATION 6075138.851 2190153.723 Monitoring Well 35-45 <Null><Null> 22761 RAY-P07 22762 RAY-P07/1 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 6042051.6 2268371.59 Monitoring Well 107.7-129.6 6/30/2021 56.01 22763 RAY-P09 22764 RAY-P09/1 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 6042223.4 2268769.56 Monitoring Well 109.6-129.6 6/30/2021 68.63 1194 SANZ-C 1195 SANZ-C/1 SANCHEZ, AMELIA 6023494.753 2248016.248 Other Active Production Well 76-83 6/28/2021 42.58 1164 RODE-A 1165 RODE-A/1 SILICON SALVAGE 6035121.635 2259930.623 Other Active Production Well 178-208 6/28/2021 40.77 3743 TIC-127 3744 TIC-127/1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6098420.447 2188499.752 Monitoring Well -<Null><Null> 19683 BOE-MW31S 19684 BOE-MW31S/1 THE BOEING COMPANY 6017036.97 2217640.872 Monitoring Well 78-88 6/7/2021 -3.481 20244 BOE-EW102 20245 BOE-EW102/1 THE BOEING COMPANY 6017705 2219232.003 Other Active Production Well 62-81.7 <Null><Null> 1128 TMIX-O 1129 TMIX-O/1 TRANSIT MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY 6069953.158 2244552.046 Abandoned Well 76-288 6/29/2021 107.06 1370 T-NEWP 1371 T-NEWP/1 TUSTIN 6087882.616 2220782.263 Active Large-System Production Well 234-267 7/1/2021 31.06 21187 WRD-SEALBEACH-1 21188 WRD-SEALBEACH-1/1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT 6002807.228 2229796.158 Monitoring Well 60-70 6/7/2021 -0.287 23796 XER-MW3 23797 XER-MW3/1 XEROX CORPORATION 6074925.4 2191231.3 Destroyed and Sealed Well 29-34 <Null><Null> 23801 XER-MW5 23802 XER-MW5/1 XEROX CORPORATION 6076231.9 2191234.6 Monitoring Well 34.5-39.5 <Null><Null> 23803 XER-OW50 23804 XER-OW50/1 XEROX CORPORATION 6074926.467 2191241.45 Monitoring Well 35-47 <Null><Null> 7027 YLWD-16 7028 YLWD-16/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT 6123141.996 2265497.536 Destroyed and Sealed Well 40-60 <Null><Null> 7529 YLWD-17 7530 YLWD-17/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT 6123146.156 2265420.578 Destroyed and Sealed Well 42-82 <Null><Null> 1520 YLWD-15 1521 YLWD-15/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT 6085437.359 2260363.815 Standby Large-System Production Well 133-198 <Null><Null> 4 of 4 Wells Used to Develop 2021 Groundwater Contour Maps in Orange County Groundwater Basin Principal Aquifer Wells (Model Layer 2) STAID1 WELLNM STAID STANAME OWNERNM GIS_SYMNM NAD83_X NAD83_Y PERF_ZONE SHORTDATE WLELEV_2021 NOTES 15484 AVCC-P2 15485 AVCC-P2/1 ALTA VISTA COUNTRY CLUB Other Active Production Well 6075388.705 2267012.656 210-770 6/29/2021 83.575 <Null> 903 A-39 904 A-39/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6029597.629 2248076.493 540-1280 6/24/2021 0.95 <Null> 8 A-40 109 A-40/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6042665.936 2241510.291 505-1220 6/25/2021 0.99 <Null> 2 A-42 102 A-42/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6076410.19 2260884.14 430-1180 6/24/2021 158.27 <Null> 3 A-44 106 A-44/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6075745.03 2262067.192 450-1130 6/24/2021 149.51 <Null> 18323 A-45 18324 A-45/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6064928.908 2240047.749 455-1410 6/24/2021 70.25 <Null> 9029 A-46 9030 A-46/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6063620.6 2247980.932 599-1529 6/24/2021 78.27 <Null> 3296 A-47 3297 A-47/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6043274.016 2253508.899 482-1375 6/25/2021 6.94 <Null> 20128 A-48 20129 A-48/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6039676.184 2252635.146 932-1344 6/25/2021 -8 <Null> 7175 A-49 7176 A-49/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6051692.012 2255804.997 580-1450 6/24/2021 42.3 <Null> 18380 A-51 18381 A-51/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6033547.226 2249423.825 525-965 6/25/2021 -13.82 <Null> 19546 A-52 19547 A-52/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6077704.821 2261093.873 570-1066 6/24/2021 169.8 <Null> 19371 A-53 19372 A-53/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6037376.558 2245173.272 945-1270 6/25/2021 -15 <Null> 20130 A-54 20131 A-54/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6057250.4 2249808.49 680-1480 6/24/2021 37.5 <Null> 15155 A-55 15156 A-55/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6057199.693 2240917.141 370-1300 6/24/2021 24.82 <Null> 20814 A-56 20815 A-56/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6049068.109 2246784.849 725-1300 6/24/2021 11 <Null> 22689 A-58 22690 A-58/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6076957.97 2260975.182 400-930 6/24/2021 157 <Null> 23093 A-59 23094 A-59/1 ANAHEIM Active Large-System Production Well 6050447.318 2241983.774 740-1270 6/24/2021 18 <Null> 9 A-41 112 A-41/1 ANAHEIM Inactive Production Well 6053236.333 2238146.843 437-1450 6/29/2021 17.41 <Null> 1 A-43 101 A-43/1 ANAHEIM Inactive Production Well 6075927.929 2261453.161 530-1210 6/24/2021 155.86 <Null> 882 A-DMGC 883 A-DMGC/1 ANAHEIM Other Active Production Well 6039662.685 2252561.822 430-482 6/25/2021 3 <Null> 11918 BP-BALL 11919 BP-BALL/1 BUENA PARK Active Large-System Production Well 6022213.798 2245381.375 260-870 6/28/2021 -8.9 <Null> 11890 BP-BOIS 11891 BP-BOIS/1 BUENA PARK Active Large-System Production Well 6035674.646 2258374.859 475-1355 6/30/2021 14.03 <Null> 6 BP-CABA 110 BP-CABA/1 BUENA PARK Active Large-System Production Well 6024286.125 2262965.786 250-1010 6/28/2021 -24.6 <Null> 394 BP-FREE 901 BP-FREE/1 BUENA PARK Active Large-System Production Well 6026742.413 2259834.394 260-1000 6/28/2021 -24.5 <Null> 13 BP-HOLD 103 BP-HOLD/1 BUENA PARK Active Large-System Production Well 6024539.646 2250081.536 250-1000 7/1/2021 -6.4 <Null> 205 BP-KNOT 206 BP-KNOT/1 BUENA PARK Active Large-System Production Well 6026889.096 2263326.166 260-1000 6/28/2021 -22.7 <Null> 19624 BP-LIND 19625 BP-LIND/1 BUENA PARK Active Large-System Production Well 6033483.531 2254059.483 470-1221 7/1/2021 -11.5 <Null> 4 BP-SM 107 BP-SM/1 BUENA PARK Active Large-System Production Well 6033035.282 2270048.001 308-1038 6/29/2021 60.3 <Null> 19013 CSF-1 19130 CSF-1/1/WB1/MP4 CA. STATE UNIV., FULLERTON Multiport Monitoring Well 6064343.084 2270822.497 MP4 (454)7/6/2021 95.19 <Null> 5133 OCWD-SA10 5136 OCWD-SA10/3 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Monitoring Well 6039247.362 2190515.118 300-330 6/28/2021 -27.73 <Null> 75 EOCW-E 2624 EOCW-E/1 EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6084070.661 2234506.703 324-450 6/9/2021 40.6 <Null> 74 EOCW-W 2623 EOCW-W/1 EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6084006.305 2234482.779 315-450 6/9/2021 42.5 <Null> 1636 ANDR-A 3116 ANDR-A/1 ELTISTE, JAMIE Other Active Production Well 6089089.85 2256920.388 -6/29/2021 266.7 <Null> 2151 FV-10 2152 FV-10/1 FOUNTAIN VALLEY Active Large-System Production Well 6050675.518 2207799.966 460-980 3/28/2021 -32.08 <Null> 2218 FV-11 2219 FV-11/1 FOUNTAIN VALLEY Active Large-System Production Well 6043548.905 2210280.198 440-950 6/28/2021 -13.22 <Null> 15548 FV-12 15549 FV-12/1 FOUNTAIN VALLEY Active Large-System Production Well 6048362.825 2212580.442 340-1070 6/28/2021 -19.8 <Null> 643 FV-6 1228 FV-6/1 FOUNTAIN VALLEY Active Large-System Production Well 6052471.003 2208423.32 370-1110 6/27/2021 -57.6 <Null> 989 FV-8 990 FV-8/1 FOUNTAIN VALLEY Active Large-System Production Well 6052244.232 2213617.679 312-844 6/23/2021 -22.77 <Null> 21043 FV-9 21044 FV-9/1 FOUNTAIN VALLEY Active Large-System Production Well 6039667.163 2210310.989 415-1070 7/3/2021 -39.2 <Null> 6999 F-10 7000 F-10/1 FULLERTON Active Large-System Production Well 6062173.417 2262322.138 460-1290 6/30/2021 78.92 <Null> 62 F-4 1066 F-4/1 FULLERTON Active Large-System Production Well 6053113.41 2256243.518 315-405 <Null><Null>No static water level 60 F-5 1064 F-5/1 FULLERTON Active Large-System Production Well 6052548.597 2256107.709 350-400 6/30/2021 73.32 <Null> 61 F-6 1065 F-6/1 FULLERTON Active Large-System Production Well 6052747.388 2256082.222 340-401 <Null><Null>No static water level 58 F-8 1062 F-8/1 FULLERTON Active Large-System Production Well 6052703.232 2256195.873 324-402 6/30/2021 53.02 <Null> 7 F-AIRP 111 F-AIRP/1 FULLERTON Active Large-System Production Well 6036730.867 2265796.644 435-1080 6/30/2021 -0.98 <Null> 8250 F-CHRI2 8251 F-CHRI2/1 FULLERTON Active Large-System Production Well 6043423.817 2259590.954 520-1330 6/30/2021 11 <Null> 18605 F-KIM1A 18606 F-KIM1A/1 FULLERTON Active Large-System Production Well 6059437.543 2261596.705 500-1225 <Null><Null>No static water level 2614 F-KIM2 2615 F-KIM2/1 FULLERTON Active Large-System Production Well 6062988.653 2261590.596 320-626 6/30/2021 83.02 <Null> 14527 F-3A 14528 F-3A/1 FULLERTON Inactive Production Well 6052567.9 2256330.735 580-1280 6/30/2021 43.62 <Null> 8556 F-COYO2 8557 F-COYO2/1 FULLERTON Inactive Production Well 6040365.852 2271034.694 309-919 6/30/2021 85.12 <Null> 16 GG-16 120 GG-16/1 GARDEN GROVE Active Large-System Production Well 6018579.01 2232461.498 304-864 6/30/2021 -17.92 <Null> 24 GG-20 126 GG-20/1 GARDEN GROVE Active Large-System Production Well 6038073.339 2227032.571 360-912 7/2/2021 -3 <Null> 395 GG-22 929 GG-22/1 GARDEN GROVE Active Large-System Production Well 6026676.395 2235110.939 416-1020 6/28/2021 -8 <Null> 970 GG-25 971 GG-25/1 GARDEN GROVE Active Large-System Production Well 6047504.135 2225582.455 442-850 7/4/2021 -4 <Null> 968 GG-26 969 GG-26/1 GARDEN GROVE Active Large-System Production Well 6055989.26 2226872.674 470-1060 6/27/2021 -7.5 <Null> 899 GG-27 900 GG-27/1 GARDEN GROVE Active Large-System Production Well 6037663.073 2237687.515 520-1160 7/6/2021 -2 <Null> 21518 GG-31 21519 GG-31/1 GARDEN GROVE Active Large-System Production Well 6049303.952 2233106.343 739-1373 7/7/2021 -12 <Null> 43 GG-19 2673 GG-19/1 GARDEN GROVE Inactive Production Well 6046486.765 2237386.406 818-892 6/30/2021 12.66 <Null> 10 GG-21 113 GG-21/1 GARDEN GROVE Inactive Production Well 6053483.401 2233322.843 428-1080 6/28/2021 10 <Null> 40 GG-23 2683 GG-23/1 GARDEN GROVE Inactive Production Well 6049380.377 2233107.081 474-835 6/30/2021 21 <Null> 11910 GG-29 11911 GG-29/1 GARDEN GROVE Standby Large-System Production Well 6058221.696 2231433.99 465-1110 6/28/2021 -8 <Null> 19548 GG-30 19549 GG-30/1 GARDEN GROVE Standby Large-System Production Well 6058357.807 2234214.139 390-1146 6/28/2021 19.2 <Null> 23833 GSWC-CHF3 23834 GSWC-CHF3/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6080817.993 2228562.283 415-825 6/1/2021 2.66 <Null> 20695 GSWC-POR1 20696 GSWC-POR1/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6079506.635 2263540.675 350-895 <Null><Null>No static water level 21249 GSWC-SCL5 21250 GSWC-SCL5/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6033365.183 2242754.29 915-1280 6/26/2021 -14 <Null> 913 SCWC-CBAL 914 SCWC-CBAL/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6020255.615 2245432.308 200-770 6/26/2021 -16.3 <Null> 905 SCWC-CSC 906 SCWC-CSC/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6019058.295 2249273.52 526-556 6/29/2021 -16 <Null> 15059 SCWC-LABL2 15060 SCWC-LABL2/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6010813.626 2245084.513 460-690 6/25/2021 -45 <Null> 909 SCWC-LAC3 910 SCWC-LAC3/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6009351.523 2240861.379 346-593 6/2/2021 -39.28 <Null> 2890 SCWC-LAFL 2891 SCWC-LAFL/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6009761.621 2241392.543 300-680 6/2/2021 -44.7 <Null> 932 SCWC-LAHO 933 SCWC-LAHO/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6013044.186 2239882.249 386-486 6/26/2021 -22.15 <Null> 938 SCWC-LAYT 939 SCWC-LAYT/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6006632.572 2231013.121 250-800 6/29/2021 -47.42 <Null> 83 SCWC-PBF4 1075 SCWC-PBF4/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6069384.796 2263342.45 275-520 5/25/2021 119 <Null> 66 SCWC-PLJ2 1070 SCWC-PLJ2/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6067609.83 2260053.948 402-492 6/25/2021 106 <Null> 15488 SCWC-PRU 15489 SCWC-PRU/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6069096.18 2266983.102 430-790 6/30/2021 98 <Null> 940 SCWC-SBCH 941 SCWC-SBCH/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6031904.764 2233300.581 200-570 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 925 SCWC-SDAL 926 SCWC-SDAL/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6034900.671 2235490.72 500-542 6/28/2021 -1 <Null> 1530 SCWC-SLON 1531 SCWC-SLON/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6028180.861 2242547.915 -6/26/2021 1 <Null> 927 SCWC-SORG 928 SCWC-SORG/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6031153.704 2237527.217 242-286 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 919 SCWC-SSHR 920 SCWC-SSHR/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6036356.964 2241844.025 520-580 6/29/2021 14 <Null> 942 SCWC-SSYC 943 SCWC-SSYC/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Active Large-System Production Well 6033362.684 2230788.849 500-546 6/16/2021 -5 <Null> 18790 RHWC-W2 18791 RHWC-W2/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Inactive Production Well 6080901.573 2228585.131 474-753 6/1/2021 -4.2 <Null> 19579 SCWC-CVV2 19580 SCWC-CVV2/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Inactive Production Well 6021484.347 2249526.359 480-981 6/29/2021 -16 <Null> 2616 SCWC-PBF3 2617 SCWC-PBF3/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Inactive Production Well 6069378.014 2263398.289 220-475 5/25/2021 117 <Null> 9522 SCWC-YLCO2 9523 SCWC-YLCO2/1 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Inactive Production Well 6091725.912 2261952.552 100-480 5/25/2021 254 <Null> 1147 HOLY-A 1148 HOLY-A/1 HOLY SEPULCHER CEMETERY Other Active Production Well 6047567.386 2247438.547 334-364 6/28/2021 23.43 <Null> 1244 HB-10 1245 HB-10/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6031343.851 2212699.814 232-942 6/30/2021 -39.55 <Null> 18384 HB-13 18385 HB-13/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6021661.742 2221160.513 280-810 6/14/2021 -44.54 <Null> 23201 HB-1A 23202 HB-1A/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6023131.185 2218817.882 410-805 4/29/2021 -42.324 <Null> 10208 HB-3A 10209 HB-3A/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6031590.226 2208300.41 370-640 6/28/2021 -41.53 <Null> 27 HB-4 130 HB-4/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6021540.371 2221406.93 252-804 6/28/2021 -30.04 <Null> 1252 HB-5 1253 HB-5/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6036338.835 2208549.742 223-800 6/29/2021 -39.24 <Null> 1246 HB-6 1247 HB-6/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6029305.314 2212450.473 246-810 6/15/2021 -44.55 <Null> 1261 HB-7 1262 HB-7/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6022149.127 2221238.007 263-879 6/21/2021 -37.74 <Null> 28 HB-9 129 HB-9/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6037364.908 2208498.213 556-996 6/30/2021 -55.58 <Null> 1248 HB-8 1249 HB-8/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Inactive Production Well 6027670.035 2209264.856 256-704 6/15/2021 -45.53 <Null> 1457 HB-MEA2 1458 HB-MEA2/1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Other Active Production Well 6020702.13 2209754.143 480-510 6/29/2021 -44.67 <Null> 1643 TAOR-A 3123 TAOR-A/1 HUYNH, TUAN Inactive Production Well 6067751.89 2255475.782 -6/28/2021 90.52 <Null> 22 IRWD-1 124 IRWD-1/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6061580.041 2205422.106 410-860 6/23/2021 -85.8 <Null> 11476 IRWD-10 11477 IRWD-10/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6055993.429 2207529.468 419.07-939.6 <Null><Null>No static water level 22342 IRWD-107R 22343 IRWD-107R/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6095711.53 2205898.451 275-1000 <Null><Null>No static water level 393 IRWD-11 1224 IRWD-11/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6059766.912 2205005.285 410-870 6/23/2021 -98.3 <Null> 19366 IRWD-110 19367 IRWD-110/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6100371.561 2196315.961 555-1015 <Null><Null>No static water level 22856 IRWD-115R 22857 IRWD-115R/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6093475.865 2207945.022 290-1080 <Null><Null>No static water level 397 IRWD-12 991 IRWD-12/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6057023.616 2209371.259 580-1040 5/26/2021 -67.4 <Null> 1 of 4 Wells Used to Develop 2021 Groundwater Contour Maps in Orange County Groundwater Basin Principal Aquifer Wells (Model Layer 2) STAID1 WELLNM STAID STANAME OWNERNM GIS_SYMNM NAD83_X NAD83_Y PERF_ZONE SHORTDATE WLELEV_2021 NOTES 392 IRWD-13 1227 IRWD-13/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6056862.056 2205734.981 410-980 6/30/2021 -76 <Null> 1225 IRWD-14 1226 IRWD-14/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6057193.114 2207516.401 470-970 6/30/2021 -90.2 <Null> 7082 IRWD-15 7083 IRWD-15/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6058994.6 2207797.409 470-990 4/21/2021 -62.1 <Null> 14827 IRWD-16 14828 IRWD-16/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6055756.572 2207045.785 406.03-806.73 6/30/2021 -75.3 <Null> 11478 IRWD-17 11479 IRWD-17/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6056285.662 2208810.875 504.06-959.62 4/21/2021 -52.2 <Null> 21 IRWD-18 115 IRWD-18/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6060643.784 2208050.14 390-1080 <Null><Null>No static water level 994 IRWD-2 995 IRWD-2/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6067589.167 2204114.565 385-855 4/21/2021 -75.9 <Null> 8372 IRWD-21 8373 IRWD-21/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6083385.042 2214485.399 290-970 6/29/2021 2.41 <Null> 8370 IRWD-22 8371 IRWD-22/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6083876.226 2214049.348 300-970 <Null><Null>No static water level 11474 IRWD-3 11475 IRWD-3/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6072630.329 2206528.469 483.53-1249.9 6/23/2021 -64.9 <Null> 672 IRWD-4 993 IRWD-4/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6065784.295 2205666.545 440-910 <Null><Null>No static water level 15490 IRWD-5 15491 IRWD-5/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6070026.423 2205985.727 554.42-1028.47 <Null><Null>No static water level 8558 IRWD-6 8559 IRWD-6/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6067126.622 2207312.356 499-1124 3/23/2021 -51.4 <Null> 8560 IRWD-7 8561 IRWD-7/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6057958.676 2203766.228 359-660 6/23/2021 -86.8 <Null> 19412 IRWD-76 19413 IRWD-76/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6097532.587 2201980.705 450-900 <Null><Null>No static water level 19414 IRWD-77 19415 IRWD-77/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6095951.099 2203527.216 330-980 <Null><Null>No static water level 18510 IRWD-C8 18511 IRWD-C8/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6062825.396 2204153.762 1080-1982 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 18512 IRWD-C9 18513 IRWD-C9/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6062422.93 2205055.852 1055-1930 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 8929 IRWD-51 8930 IRWD-51/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Inactive Production Well 6072287.787 2201236.375 310-880 6/29/2021 -51.7 <Null> 22065 IRWD-52 22066 IRWD-52/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Inactive Production Well 6073545.847 2203710.984 635-1290 6/29/2021 -62.3 <Null> 1503 IRWD-98 1504 IRWD-98/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Inactive Production Well 6080266.015 2190031.269 115-343 6/29/2021 -54.42 <Null> 22710 IRWD-OPA1 22711 IRWD-OPA1/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Inactive Production Well 6086291.17 2237727.918 390-750 6/28/2021 41.5 <Null> 1379 TIC-109 1380 TIC-109/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Inactive Production Well 6093513 2212849.72 240-1120 6/29/2021 16.9 <Null> 1381 TIC-112 1382 TIC-112/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Inactive Production Well 6092052.48 2212026.724 240-1100 6/29/2021 15.23 <Null> 1377 TIC-114 1378 TIC-114/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Inactive Production Well 6094747.508 2212848.22 300-960 6/29/2021 19.88 <Null> 1941 TIC-82 1942 TIC-82/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6090541.059 2199639.983 410-1002 6/29/2021 -8.83 <Null> 1343 IRWD-72 1344 IRWD-72/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Other Active Production Well 6090498.014 2215406.267 254-1151 6/29/2021 9.9 <Null> 1389 TIC-106 1390 TIC-106/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Other Active Production Well 6084967 2197177.989 405-715 3/23/2021 -45.1 <Null> 432 W-432 433 W-432/1 KATHY BONANNO Inactive Production Well 6080325.38 2272580.463 117-137 6/30/2021 286.97 <Null> 1176 KNOT-BPBS 1515 KNOT-BPBS/1 KNOTT'S BERRY FARM Active Small-System Production Well 6029633.814 2254234.979 430-630 6/29/2021 8.14 <Null> 12 LP-CITY 105 LP-CITY/1 LA PALMA Active Large-System Production Well 6015567.916 2254199.963 290-1415 6/29/2021 -72.67 <Null> 5 LP-WALK 108 LP-WALK/1 LA PALMA Active Large-System Production Well 6019189.082 2262316.73 489-919 6/25/2021 -25.45 <Null> 14284 MSG-BP10L 14285 MSG-BP10L/1 MCCOLL SITE GROUP Monitoring Well 6037931.453 2272258.752 247-257 6/30/2021 103.92 <Null> 1505 MVCC-COSD2 1506 MVCC-COSD2/1 MESA VERDE COUNTRY CLUB Other Active Production Well 6049566.742 2197240.664 200-450 6/30/2021 -65.825 <Null> 15780 MCWD-11 15781 MCWD-11/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6055237.67 2197733.913 330-1000 7/7/2021 -86.57 <Null> 10138 MCWD-1B 10139 MCWD-1B/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6058120.94 2200970.067 305-580 <Null><Null>No static water level 31 MCWD-3B 2892 MCWD-3B/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6053761.218 2202557.912 242-572 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 1231 MCWD-5 1232 MCWD-5/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6051212.891 2202686.998 400-940 <Null><Null>No static water level 2135 MCWD-6 2136 MCWD-6/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6055652.152 2197722.22 310-1025 <Null><Null>No static water level 1233 MCWD-7 1234 MCWD-7/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6053044.669 2200013.913 363-753 <Null><Null>No static water level 23121 MESA-9B 23122 MESA-9B/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6055224.568 2200729.295 350-580 <Null><Null>No static water level 23 MCWD-2 125 MCWD-2/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6060220.541 2200931.5 300-650 7/7/2021 -88.14 <Null> 7747 MCWD-3BM 7748 MCWD-3BM/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6053810.232 2202578.466 530-570 7/7/2021 -67.5 <Null> 14833 NB-DOLD 14834 NB-DOLD/1 NEWPORT BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6041557.515 2205737.495 399-729 6/30/2021 -41.75 <Null> 14835 NB-DOLS 14836 NB-DOLS/1 NEWPORT BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6041637.348 2205746.699 201-356 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 14837 NB-TAMD 14838 NB-TAMD/1 NEWPORT BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6037391.886 2206329.916 395-690 6/29/2021 -42.79 <Null> 14839 NB-TAMS 14840 NB-TAMS/1 NEWPORT BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6037391.924 2206247.365 170-360 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 71 O-18 2625 O-18/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6073004.258 2233669.343 372-574 6/28/2021 44.64 <Null> 79 O-19 2618 O-19/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6072211.218 2241094.476 444-1014 6/28/2021 105.35 <Null> 2694 O-20 2696 O-20/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6065992.895 2234093.189 400-1130 6/28/2021 13.83 <Null> 81 O-21 1073 O-21/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6075241.088 2245598.993 482-1252 6/28/2021 90.16 <Null> 2921 O-22 3295 O-22/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6077271.09 2239348.179 342-802 6/28/2021 53.77 <Null> 7173 O-23 7174 O-23/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6084469.321 2236564.181 370-640 6/28/2021 23.32 <Null> 10140 O-24 10141 O-24/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6084080.037 2238925.34 420-800 6/28/2021 42.65 <Null> 15474 O-25 15475 O-25/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6078385.795 2233068.736 430-885 6/28/2021 -9.78 <Null> 18435 O-26 18436 O-26/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6061791.146 2233358.136 460-1170 6/28/2021 -2.58 <Null> 22860 O-27 22861 O-27/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6078303.303 2233680.531 425-890 6/28/2021 -45 <Null> 47 O-8 2652 O-8/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6069397.223 2240803.328 570-850 4/5/2021 53.07 <Null> 46 O-9 2656 O-9/1 ORANGE Active Large-System Production Well 6069440.354 2241135.949 546-888 <Null><Null>No static water level 22370 MBI-1 22371 MBI-1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6055132.435 2212498.453 530-1190 7/1/2021 -38.54 <Null> 23015 MBI-2 23016 MBI-2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6056141.1 2211006.5 646-1085 6/29/2021 -55.78 <Null> 23017 MBI-3 23018 MBI-3/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6056123.8 2212200.9 654-1114 6/29/2021 -42.47 <Null> 23019 MBI-4 23020 MBI-4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6057084.9 2212185.2 650-1089 6/29/2021 -47.65 <Null> 23021 MBI-5 23022 MBI-5/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6057622.7 2211477.6 609-1059 6/29/2021 -53.62 <Null> 15492 OCWD-I24 15494 OCWD-I24/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6046615.244 2199848.75 420-605 7/6/2021 -59.31 <Null> 18060 OCWD-I26C 18061 OCWD-I26C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6048796.348 2200397.494 476-660 7/6/2021 -65.21 <Null> 19463 OCWD-I28C 19464 OCWD-I28C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6036240.299 2199039.947 360-460 7/6/2021 -22.14 <Null> 19648 OCWD-I30C 19649 OCWD-I30C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6034047 2200300.103 425-650 6/28/2021 -18.35 <Null> 19650 OCWD-I31C 19651 OCWD-I31C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Injection Well 6033606.9 2201013.303 440-590 7/6/2021 -22.46 <Null> 1018 AM-1 1019 AM-1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6090472.39 2264185.952 97-115 6/30/2021 245.03 <Null> 545 AM-10 546 AM-10/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6071304.771 2257813.261 217-235 7/7/2021 121.51 <Null> 557 AM-11 558 AM-11/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6072499.755 2255656.617 218-240 6/30/2021 121.98 <Null> 555 AM-12 556 AM-12/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6070962.221 2255565.488 210-225 7/7/2021 113.56 <Null> 553 AM-13 554 AM-13/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6072701.528 2256964.39 252-270 6/30/2021 128.38 <Null> 2740 AM-14 2741 AM-14/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6065935.798 2256505.388 297-315 6/30/2021 96.56 <Null> 2742 AM-15 2743 AM-15/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6062582.08 2256912.924 300-317 6/25/2021 86.54 <Null> 2746 AM-16 2747 AM-16/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6057468.185 2255986.324 300-315 7/1/2021 70.09 <Null> 2750 AM-17 2751 AM-17/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6056078.923 2256637.855 290-308 6/25/2021 67.03 <Null> 2752 AM-18 2753 AM-18/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054337.392 2256704.097 291-309 7/1/2021 60.89 <Null> 1022 AM-2 1023 AM-2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6091404.587 2263383.522 87-100 6/30/2021 246.46 <Null> 7535 AM-20 7536 AM-20/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054209.307 2247063.369 361-379 6/25/2021 34.97 <Null> 7001 AM-22 7002 AM-22/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6059519.306 2254484.798 339-353 6/25/2021 72.1 <Null> 7003 AM-23 7004 AM-23/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6062009.413 2254628.535 330-347 6/25/2021 83.21 <Null> 7005 AM-24 7006 AM-24/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6058556.647 2251960.234 335-350 6/25/2021 69.28 <Null> 7009 AM-25 7010 AM-25/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6060774.466 2252487.982 340-358 6/25/2021 74.37 <Null> 7533 AM-26 7534 AM-26/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6051909.723 2244283.122 377-383 7/1/2021 29.21 <Null> 7013 AM-27 7014 AM-27/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6064651.178 2249603.126 287-305 6/25/2021 82.55 <Null> 7015 AM-29 7016 AM-29/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6062902.901 2259184.123 340-358 6/30/2021 88.5 <Null> 1020 AM-3 1021 AM-3/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6090425.411 2261850.384 91-107 6/30/2021 245.62 <Null> 7541 AM-30 7542 AM-30/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6046016.856 2255914.15 349-367 6/25/2021 41.38 <Null> 8919 AM-31 8920 AM-31/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6052262.726 2257664.465 335-353 6/25/2021 57.41 <Null> 7753 AM-32 7754 AM-32/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6052527.256 2252384.43 335-353 6/25/2021 50.68 <Null> 7523 AM-33 7524 AM-33/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6055430.54 2253987.665 354-372 6/25/2021 61.86 <Null> 7527 AM-34 7528 AM-34/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6049928.243 2250310.571 317-335 6/25/2021 39.01 <Null> 7755 AM-35 7756 AM-35/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6044316.748 2249355.364 332-350 6/25/2021 28.86 <Null> 7759 AM-37 7760 AM-37/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054347.18 2250152.867 349-367 6/25/2021 46.31 <Null> 7761 AM-38 7762 AM-38/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6058042.463 2246387.411 316-334 6/25/2021 35.25 <Null> 549 AM-4 550 AM-4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6078257.417 2258629.141 187-205 7/7/2021 166.16 <Null> 20709 AM-47 20710 AM-47/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054333.5 2258316.7 227-242 6/25/2021 64.05 <Null> 20705 AM-48 20706 AM-48/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6069379.3 2259143.9 270-300 7/8/2021 113.68 <Null> 1024 AM-5 1025 AM-5/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6078674.697 2259936.321 230-245 7/7/2021 156.58 <Null> 23213 AM-54C 23214 AM-54C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6055965.303 2259518 280-295 6/25/2021 69.46 <Null> 23563 AM-55B 23564 AM-55B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054292.1 2256036.6 375-395 7/8/2021 59.8 <Null> 23567 AM-56B 23569 AM-56B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6053578.9 2256950.9 380-400 7/8/2021 58.82 <Null> 551 AM-6 552 AM-6/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6075037.515 2257301.421 232-250 7/7/2021 143.29 <Null> 2734 AM-7 2735 AM-7/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6071731.515 2260900.336 210-225 7/7/2021 131.58 <Null> 2 of 4 Wells Used to Develop 2021 Groundwater Contour Maps in Orange County Groundwater Basin Principal Aquifer Wells (Model Layer 2) STAID1 WELLNM STAID STANAME OWNERNM GIS_SYMNM NAD83_X NAD83_Y PERF_ZONE SHORTDATE WLELEV_2021 NOTES 2736 AM-8 2737 AM-8/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6069027.597 2259867.528 268-285 7/7/2021 112.8 <Null> 15043 AMD-10 15045 AMD-10/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6072825.077 2260900.884 440-460 7/7/2021 135.71 <Null> 15053 AMD-11 15056 AMD-11/3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6070695.395 2257252.242 600-620 6/30/2021 117.07 <Null> 19507 AMD-12 19510 AMD-12/3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6071323.1 2260657.003 595-615 6/30/2021 126.14 <Null> 14585 AMD-9 14587 AMD-9/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6075825.081 2261784.701 450-470 7/7/2021 151.35 <Null> 7017 FM-1 7018 FM-1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6053154.441 2258736.246 348-356 6/25/2021 60.62 <Null> 18331 FM-10 18332 FM-10/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6057584.791 2262009.679 215-235 6/29/2021 79.5 <Null> 18335 FM-11 18336 FM-11/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054079.466 2261009.777 236-256 6/30/2021 69.03 <Null> 18339 FM-12 18340 FM-12/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6058076.487 2263025.088 206-226 6/29/2021 82.04 <Null> 18343 FM-13 18344 FM-13/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6064730.854 2262602.368 210-230 6/30/2021 93.15 <Null> 18347 FM-14 18348 FM-14/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6064606.249 2263073.772 234-254 7/1/2021 93.13 <Null> 18351 FM-15 18352 FM-15/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054099.553 2262606.493 218-238 6/29/2021 73.72 <Null> 18412 FM-16 18413 FM-16/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6063630.746 2262324.068 248-268 6/30/2021 88.76 <Null> 19626 FM-17 19627 FM-17/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6061492.436 2262019.765 250-270 6/30/2021 84.02 <Null> 19612 FM-18 19613 FM-18/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6049362.557 2263643.539 224-244 6/29/2021 62.44 <Null> 19622 FM-19C 19623 FM-19C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6051551.893 2262403.786 365-385 6/29/2021 57.84 <Null> 23462 FM-19D 23463 FM-19D/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6051660.8 2262458.6 435-455 6/29/2021 59.85 <Null> 7021 FM-2 7022 FM-2/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6058816.966 2258623.398 320-338 6/25/2021 76.61 <Null> 20762 FM-20 20763 FM-20/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6053785.7 2263886.1 221-241 6/29/2021 72.51 <Null> 20766 FM-21 20767 FM-21/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6047750.6 2262684.3 260-270 6/29/2021 58.02 <Null> 20751 FM-22 20752 FM-22/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6051135 2260372.1 242-262 7/8/2021 60.23 <Null> 23217 FM-22B 23218 FM-22B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6051128.1 2260379.8 326-346 6/25/2021 56.32 <Null> 20882 FM-23 20883 FM-23/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054166.9 2260625 234-249 6/29/2021 69.17 <Null> 20699 FM-24 20700 FM-24/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6051441.4 2258786 271-291 6/25/2021 57 <Null> 23219 FM-24B 23220 FM-24B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6051418.9 2258788.7 338-358 6/25/2021 55.89 <Null> 23225 FM-29C 23226 FM-29C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6049003.993 2262397.371 340-360 6/29/2021 49.19 <Null> 7025 FM-3 7026 FM-3/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6061451.851 2259514.599 257-263 6/30/2021 84.27 <Null> 23573 FM-30B 23574 FM-30B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6061056.8 2263552.8 370-390 6/29/2021 83.12 <Null> 23229 FM-31B 23230 FM-31B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054065.947 2261842.665 230-250 6/29/2021 70.23 <Null> 23449 FM-32B 23452 FM-32B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6045316.1 2263964.1 220-230 6/29/2021 56.28 <Null> 23577 FM-34B 23578 FM-34B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6057207.6 2265354.1 377-397 7/8/2021 66.54 <Null> 23898 FM-35C 23899 FM-35C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6062992.887 2262505.466 460.5-480.5 7/6/2021 85.12 <Null> 7519 FM-4 7520 FM-4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6048406.619 2258792.993 327-345 6/25/2021 49.86 <Null> 9947 FM-6 9948 FM-6/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6053264.065 2274113.568 150-310 6/30/2021 175.2 <Null> 23215 FM-7B 23216 FM-7B/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6054304.1 2259270.6 329.5-344.5 6/25/2021 64.28 <Null> 18327 FM-9 18328 FM-9/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6063377.138 2262960.474 220-240 6/30/2021 88.97 <Null> 19009 IDM-3 19012 IDM-3/3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6099726.882 2201438.084 652-672 6/28/2021 8.37 <Null> 19404 IDM-4 19407 IDM-4/3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6103585.541 2200230.218 654-674 6/28/2021 51.87 <Null> 19478 IDP-2R 19480 IDP-2R/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6106015.21 2193086.752 300-340 6/28/2021 108.257 <Null> 721 KBS-1 998 KBS-1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6074374.124 2260345.831 209-219 7/1/2021 154.21 <Null> 1285 MCAS-10 1286 MCAS-10/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6096082.894 2198174.236 347-377 6/28/2021 9.88 <Null> 1360 MCAS-4 1361 MCAS-4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6098189.884 2189446.916 181-238 6/28/2021 95.46 <Null> 10217 MCAS-5A 10218 MCAS-5A/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6101340.027 2187474.726 120-130 6/28/2021 118.26 <Null> 1355 MCAS-8 1356 MCAS-8/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6088737.288 2194284.922 392-410 6/28/2021 -63.35 <Null> 1287 MCAS-9 1288 MCAS-9/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6092651.761 2198312.255 372-445 6/28/2021 2.18 <Null> 23057 OCWD-34Y01 23061 OCWD-34Y01/4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6001790.9 2226024.1 400-420 7/6/2021 -43.1 <Null> 11700 OCWD-36FP1Z 11701 OCWD-36FP1Z/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6001815.979 2221372.331 504-514 7/1/2021 -42.84 <Null> 2859 OCWD-AIR1 2861 OCWD-AIR1/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6037614.933 2265072.135 410-510 6/29/2021 -7.44 <Null> 22323 OCWD-BS10 22329 OCWD-BS10/6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6013179.752 2219396.307 595-605 7/1/2021 -46.87 <Null> 22330 OCWD-BS11 22336 OCWD-BS11/6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6008506.1 2221300 580-590 7/1/2021 -47.03 <Null> 22774 OCWD-BS12 22973 OCWD-BS12/6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6015660.3 2214181.8 585-605 7/1/2021 -49.9 <Null> 23692 OCWD-BS13F 23693 OCWD-BS13F/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6009690 2214241.6 575-595 7/1/2021 -44.86 <Null> 22776 OCWD-BS14 22916 OCWD-BS14/5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6003965.9 2221842.9 490-510 7/1/2021 -43.9 <Null> 23550 OCWD-BS24F 23554 OCWD-BS24F/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6005185.3 2219560 500-520 7/1/2021 -41.91 <Null> 2867 OCWD-CTG1 2869 OCWD-CTG1/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6061970.346 2206073.478 420-720 6/30/2021 -85.71 <Null> 2872 OCWD-CTG5 2873 OCWD-CTG5/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6062530.714 2206394.591 420-620 8/4/2021 -81.04 <Null> 2876 OCWD-CTK1 2878 OCWD-CTK1/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6062486.259 2205158.852 780-1015 6/30/2021 -81.99 <Null> 3307 OCWD-FC1 3308 OCWD-FC1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6072297.077 2252615.883 165-185 7/7/2021 104.96 <Null> 3305 OCWD-FH1 3306 OCWD-FH1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6081695.772 2257027.264 120-140 7/7/2021 213.83 <Null> 3303 OCWD-LV1 3304 OCWD-LV1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6085675.722 2259327.385 135-155 7/7/2021 237.5 <Null> 15127 OCWD-M38 15131 OCWD-M38/4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6030736.262 2198146.213 336-346 6/30/2021 -27.7 <Null> 16021 OCWD-M39 16026 OCWD-M39/5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6048139.112 2190636.716 250-270 6/28/2021 -16.46 <Null> 16654 OCWD-M40 16658 OCWD-M40/4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6051222.286 2195005.215 330-520 6/28/2021 -81.04 <Null> 18425 OCWD-M41 18430 OCWD-M41/5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6031312.152 2196141.497 370-390 6/30/2021 -27.74 <Null> 18418 OCWD-M42 18423 OCWD-M42/5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6030956.495 2201880.558 500-520 6/24/2021 -30.94 <Null> 23769 OCWD-M43R 23774 OCWD-M43R/5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6056258.4 2193225.9 530-550 6/28/2021 -82.54 <Null> 20371 OCWD-M44 20376 OCWD-M44/5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6048200.8 2193011.3 295-305 6/28/2021 -58.37 <Null> 19640 OCWD-M45 19645 OCWD-M45/5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6040339.8 2203350.603 780-790 6/30/2021 -56.92 <Null> 19482 OCWD-M46 19487 OCWD-M46/5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6049299 2201186.803 890-910 6/28/2021 -61.24 <Null> 19634 OCWD-M47 19639 OCWD-M47/5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6049915.7 2202379.503 940-960 6/28/2021 -61.7 <Null> 18766 OCWD-M48 18768 OCWD-M48/2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6059972.844 2188953.882 175-195 6/28/2021 -73.7 <Null> 22842 OCWD-M52C 22843 OCWD-M52C/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6067045.9 2192841.2 210-230 6/24/2021 -69.15 <Null> 22786 OCWD-MRSH 22854 OCWD-MRSH/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6074220 2188672.3 199-219 6/29/2021 -28.15 <Null> 22659 OCWD-SA22R 22663 OCWD-SA22R/4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6036740.5 2194795.1 310-330 6/30/2021 -28.24 <Null> 3978 OCWD-T2 3981 OCWD-T2/3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6035679.306 2192640.337 300-360 6/24/2021 -27.11 <Null> 315 OCWD-W1 316 OCWD-W1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6081387.171 2258988.611 -7/7/2021 174.34 <Null> 22347 SAR-10 22351 SAR-10/4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6055179.3 2212421.7 1100-1115 7/1/2021 -51.98 <Null> 22061 SAR-11 22064 SAR-11/3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6055349.4 2211898 1100-1110 7/1/2021 -54.34 <Null> 23010 SAR-12 23014 SAR-12/4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6056736.8 2210170.5 1045-1055 6/30/2021 -67.896 <Null> 23203 SAR-13 23207 SAR-13/4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6057504.8 2210763.1 1045-1055 6/30/2021 -63.83 <Null> 1851 TIC-67 1852 TIC-67/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6100937.109 2211418.256 245-900 6/29/2021 73.58 <Null> 997 ABS-1 22665 ABS-1/1/WB2/MP3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6076226.851 2262977.612 MP3 (257)7/7/2021 158.375 <Null> 547 AMD-1 21137 AMD-1/1/WB2/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6073916.932 2258572.091 MP5 (331)6/21/2021 143.45 <Null> 565 AMD-2 22205 AMD-2/1/WB2/MP4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6066705.21 2254540.618 MP4 (512)6/29/2021 99.11 <Null> 7031 AMD-4 7104 AMD-4/1/WB1/MP4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6050716.117 2255097.562 MP4 (561)6/28/2021 43.82 <Null> 7295 AMD-5 7320 AMD-5/1/WB1/MP7 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6060070.244 2248962.576 MP7 (754)6/28/2021 69.39 <Null> 7293 AMD-6 7482 AMD-6/1/WB1/MP7 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6057374.729 2241092.645 MP7 (622)6/28/2021 15.03 <Null> 8596 AMD-7 8754 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP7 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6049188.026 2247218.215 MP7 (580)6/28/2021 15.36 <Null> 9682 AMD-8 9906 AMD-8/1/WB1/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6033488.697 2249624.328 MP5 (662)7/12/2021 -8.705 <Null> 9831 BPM-1 9985 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6022348.508 2259541.566 MP6 (890)7/12/2021 -42.1 <Null> 9832 BPM-2 10178 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6025195.413 2246739.597 MP5 (778)7/12/2021 -11.49 <Null> 685 CB-1 8788 CB-1/1/WB2/MP3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6044695.232 2253837.186 MP3 (443)7/6/2021 30.09 <Null> 5155 COSM-1 7147 COSM-1/1/WB1/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6055253.401 2197825.036 MP5 (451)6/30/2021 -87.65 <Null> 18846 COSM-2 18866 COSM-2/1/WB1/MP8 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6052266.414 2199776.431 MP8 (763)6/30/2021 -80.87 <Null> 719 FFS-1 14243 FFS-1/1/WB2/MP3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6061436.461 2262022.62 MP3 (530)7/6/2021 81.44 <Null> 1291 FVM-1 15692 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP9 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6047178.815 2210990.613 MP9 (814)6/22/2021 -47.21 <Null> 7297 GGM-1 10028 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP8 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6045688.299 2230864.24 MP8 (1074)7/8/2021 -22.44 <Null> 8923 GGM-2 9049 GGM-2/1/WB1/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6026525.607 2230233.156 MP5 (954)6/22/2021 -30.46 <Null> 8592 GGM-3 8666 GGM-3/1/WB1/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6037298.069 2237458.988 MP6 (1007)7/8/2021 -17.34 <Null> 7178 HBM-1 8439 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP7 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6031700.722 2216385.252 MP7 (924)7/2/2021 -43.89 <Null> 7086 HBM-2 7223 HBM-2/1/WB1/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6036228.737 2196532.383 MP6 (447)7/2/2021 -25.01 <Null> 9200 HBM-4 9225 HBM-4/1/WB1/MP8 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6034095.825 2197123.319 MP8 (551)7/2/2021 -20.86 <Null> 9688 HBM-5 9879 HBM-5/1/WB1/MP8 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6045744.869 2193971.856 MP8 (273)7/2/2021 -52.65 <Null> 15088 HBM-6 15245 HBM-6/1/WB1/MP7 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6025106.578 2204548.969 MP7 (508)7/2/2021 -37.1 <Null> 720 IDM-1 18979 IDM-1/1/WB2/MP4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6099572.243 2207081.537 MP4 (436)7/7/2021 28.49 <Null> 9830 IDM-2 10064 IDM-2/1/WB1/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6080705.598 2209836.046 MP6 (613)7/7/2021 -71.94 <Null> 3 of 4 Wells Used to Develop 2021 Groundwater Contour Maps in Orange County Groundwater Basin Principal Aquifer Wells (Model Layer 2) STAID1 WELLNM STAID STANAME OWNERNM GIS_SYMNM NAD83_X NAD83_Y PERF_ZONE SHORTDATE WLELEV_2021 NOTES 541 KBS-2 10226 KBS-2/1/WB1/MP2 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6073053.762 2260992.439 MP2 (214)6/21/2021 144.53 <Null> 11949 LAM-1 12028 LAM-1/1/WB1/MP9 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6009581.587 2238043.705 MP9 (1153)6/15/2021 -56.23 <Null> 1345 MCAS-1 5853 MCAS-1/1/WB2/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6098255.481 2192973.357 MP6 (455)7/6/2021 36.17 <Null> 759 MCAS-2 5935 MCAS-2/1/WB2/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6100360.442 2191167.958 MP5 (425)7/6/2021 62.46 <Null> 1339 MCAS-3 5891 MCAS-3/1/WB2/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6104434.428 2191276.758 MP5 (426)7/6/2021 89.45 <Null> 758 MCAS-7 11829 MCAS-7/1/WB3/MP4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6093900.827 2194418.586 MP4 (442)7/7/2021 -23.9 <Null> 756 SAR-1 9261 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6070684.206 2250425.314 MP5 (519)6/29/2021 88.12 <Null> 761 SAR-2 11989 SAR-2/1/WB2/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6069096.008 2245410.807 MP6 (741)6/29/2021 71.42 <Null> 762 SAR-3 9466 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6066892.02 2238409.284 MP6 (774)6/24/2021 54.27 <Null> 763 SAR-4 14633 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6065370.966 2233375.154 MP6 (868)6/29/2021 31.58 <Null> 1289 SAR-5 21220 SAR-5/1/WB3/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6062597.607 2227874.211 MP5 (766)6/30/2021 -16.37 <Null> 561 SAR-6 10113 SAR-6/1/WB2/MP4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6073313.538 2254365.369 MP4 (581)6/21/2021 142.26 <Null> 996 SAR-7 20000 SAR-7/1/WB2/MP4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6078049.17 2256383.048 MP4 (440)6/21/2021 192.2 <Null> 7181 SAR-9 9802 SAR-9/1/WB1/MP7 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6058380.802 2221450.982 MP7 (877)6/30/2021 -40.723 <Null> 9686 SBM-1 9729 SBM-1/1/WB1/MP7 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6016566.11 2224523.54 MP7 (916)6/15/2021 -47.295 <Null> 1000 SC-1 21654 SC-1/1/WB2/MP4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6089555.444 2242038.806 MP4 (197)7/1/2021 213.44 <Null> 1001 SC-2 18747 SC-2/1/WB2/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6086489.295 2237887.557 MP6 (303)7/1/2021 112.45 <Null> 1005 SC-3 8839 SC-3/1/WB2/MP3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6081074.85 2229940.413 MP3 (577)7/1/2021 29.49 <Null> 2888 SC-4 6296 SC-4/1/WB1/MP4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6082605.785 2235080.546 MP4 (393)7/1/2021 46.59 <Null> 2854 SC-5 6331 SC-5/1/WB1/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6077454.866 2225543.458 MP5 (670)7/1/2021 4.73 <Null> 9684 SC-6 9758 SC-6/1/WB1/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6066813.288 2216032.113 MP6 (964)7/7/2021 -60.78 <Null> 1016 SCS-1 8867 SCS-1/1/WB1/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6088950.708 2237855.374 MP6 (298)7/1/2021 89.68 <Null> 1014 SCS-2 22653 SCS-2/1/WB2/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6088207.123 2239962.183 MP5 (329)7/1/2021 72.99 <Null> 1011 WBS-4 19983 WBS-4/1/WB2/MP3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6080099.39 2256910.089 MP3 (212)6/21/2021 206.6 <Null> 1293 WMM-1 19884 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP8 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6038251.554 2221751.195 MP8 (985)7/8/2021 -24.03 <Null> 1423 OCWD-D1 1424 OCWD-D1/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Other Active Production Well 6046612.36 2200327.641 780-880 6/23/2021 -60.642 <Null> 1412 OCWD-D3 1413 OCWD-D3/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Other Active Production Well 6046034.602 2201849.851 560-1000 6/23/2021 -58.66 <Null> 3797 OCWD-D4 3798 OCWD-D4/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Other Active Production Well 6047147.793 2201759.429 531-979 6/23/2021 -61.08 <Null> 1798 NVLW-SB3 3275 NVLW-SB3/1 PURSCHE, ROY Other Active Production Well 6011353.936 2219409.749 -6/29/2021 -51.1 <Null> 1126 NOBL-O 1127 NOBL-O/1 R.J. NOBLE COMPANY Other Active Production Well 6072535.517 2251285.626 290-474 6/29/2021 91.85 <Null> 22874 RAY-MW06 22875 RAY-MW06/1 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Monitoring Well 6042228.1 2268828.8 149.6-189.6 6/30/2021 33.58 <Null> 22408 RAY-MW32 22410 RAY-MW32/2 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Monitoring Well 6039287.583 2267257.657 969-999 6/30/2021 17.47 <Null> 22416 RAY-MW34B 22417 RAY-MW34B/1 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Monitoring Well 6039046.07 2268346.15 486-536 6/30/2021 18.29 <Null> 22420 RAY-MW35 22423 RAY-MW35/3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Monitoring Well 6039878.34 2265861.26 990-1040 6/30/2021 12.69 <Null> 22757 RAY-MW39 22758 RAY-MW39/1 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Monitoring Well 6034604.76 2267260.25 982-1012 6/30/2021 14.6 <Null> 22759 RAY-MW40 22760 RAY-MW40/1 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Monitoring Well 6042465.71 2267070.62 930-970 6/30/2021 20.33 <Null> 975 SA-16 976 SA-16/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6066775.852 2220474.597 305-950 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 964 SA-18 965 SA-18/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6065423.295 2227343.923 245-623 6/30/2021 6.21 <Null> 983 SA-20 984 SA-20/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6051943.524 2218208.729 390-940 6/29/2021 -18.5 <Null> 981 SA-21 982 SA-21/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6051992.474 2218775.287 400-960 6/29/2021 -17.7 <Null> 966 SA-24 967 SA-24/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6062495.013 2226820.521 352-654 6/30/2021 -4.27 <Null> 19 SA-29 117 SA-29/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6067350.619 2218664.363 450-1050 7/1/2021 -48.19 <Null> 985 SA-30 986 SA-30/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6051988.27 2217594.374 440-900 6/29/2021 -22.8 <Null> 979 SA-33 980 SA-33/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6067018.394 2218472.227 425-935 7/1/2021 -47.2 <Null> 3322 SA-34 3323 SA-34/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6062544.736 2203955.867 370-520 7/2/2021 -83 <Null> 8823 SA-35 8824 SA-35/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6058367.7 2224408.129 429.2-1480 5/24/2021 -29 <Null> 1993 SA-36 1994 SA-36/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6064973.942 2227415.821 570-1290 6/30/2021 -21.75 <Null> 8825 SA-37 8826 SA-37/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6061211.41 2214947.524 348-1480 5/24/2021 -48 <Null> 18391 SA-39 18393 SA-39/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6064925.485 2227035.79 590-1290 6/30/2021 -26.3 <Null> 19552 SA-41 19553 SA-41/1 SANTA ANA Active Large-System Production Well 6067142.505 2220423.372 525-978 5/25/2021 -40.58 <Null> 956 SA-26 957 SA-26/1 SANTA ANA Standby Large-System Production Well 6073873.971 2210851.779 330-1140 7/2/2021 -58.82 <Null> 532 SA-27 533 SA-27/1 SANTA ANA Standby Large-System Production Well 6072868.882 2229547.215 396-1140 6/30/2021 -6.9 <Null> 70 SA-28 2629 SA-28/1 SANTA ANA Standby Large-System Production Well 6073394.893 2229877.64 250-980 6/30/2021 11.5 <Null> 18 SA-31 118 SA-31/1 SANTA ANA Standby Large-System Production Well 6078121.42 2217676.874 465-1240 6/22/2021 -11.32 <Null> 8817 SA-38 8818 SA-38/1 SANTA ANA Standby Large-System Production Well 6077082.488 2229427.758 400-1270 6/30/2021 27 <Null> 19550 SA-40 19551 SA-40/1 SANTA ANA Standby Large-System Production Well 6077600.85 2221373.519 550-1305 6/30/2021 -50.75 <Null> 1513 SACC-SA 1514 SACC-SA/1 SANTA ANA COUNTRY CLUB Other Active Production Well 6062143.936 2190413.821 205-406 6/30/2021 -80.85 <Null> 26 SB-BC 123 SB-BC/1 SEAL BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6016910.323 2228579.652 370-1020 6/29/2021 -62 <Null> 1282 SB-BEV 1283 SB-BEV/1 SEAL BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6006691.531 2229990.738 400-800 5/26/2021 -58.14 <Null> 21089 SB-LAM 21090 SB-LAM/1 SEAL BEACH Active Large-System Production Well 6012636.62 2232616.404 360-1170 6/29/2021 -50 <Null> 78 SID-3 2619 SID-3/1 SERRANO WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6085523.367 2241664.186 296-584 6/30/2021 49 <Null> 7036 SID-4 7037 SID-4/1 SERRANO WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6088277.371 2242027.33 290-520 <Null><Null>No static water level 15486 SWD-5 15487 SWD-5/1 SERRANO WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6085860.482 2241857.866 310-720 6/30/2021 53 <Null> 3801 W-3801 3802 W-3801/1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Inactive Production Well 6061820.651 2190918.886 254-407 6/30/2021 -80.36 <Null> 1927 TIC-194 1931 TIC-194/1 THE IRVINE COMPANY Monitoring Well 6085062.044 2200644.721 562-726 6/29/2021 -62.48 <Null> 3524 TIC-25 3525 TIC-25/1 THE IRVINE COMPANY Monitoring Well 6082128.447 2194002.252 666-760 6/29/2021 -62.21 <Null> 1829 TIC-50 1830 TIC-50/1 THE IRVINE COMPANY Monitoring Well 6089719.969 2212322.221 475-1070 6/29/2021 19.34 <Null> 1331 TIC-99 1332 TIC-99/1 THE IRVINE COMPANY Monitoring Well 6094081.516 2213753.527 346-650 6/29/2021 10.69 <Null> 18770 T-17S4 18771 T-17S4/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6087962.147 2223505.698 200-480 7/1/2021 22 <Null> 950 T-COLU 951 T-COLU/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6083806.737 2220457.042 560-1160 6/30/2021 -16 <Null> 22699 T-ED 22700 T-ED/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6079918.435 2211393.25 500-840 7/1/2021 -58 <Null> 954 T-MS3 955 T-MS3/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6083758.623 2217438.721 300-630 6/30/2021 32 <Null> 15470 T-MS4 15471 T-MS4/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6084025.072 2217344.269 330-880 6/30/2021 9 <Null> 1370 T-NEWP 1371 T-NEWP/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6087882.616 2220782.263 234-267 7/1/2021 31 <Null> 20304 T-PAS 20305 T-PAS/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6080513.128 2217850.37 440-1225 6/30/2021 -11 <Null> 9204 T-VNBG 9205 T-VNBG/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6083087.233 2223256.938 480-900 <Null><Null>No static water level 958 T-WALN 959 T-WALN/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6084028.458 2212002.398 397-995 7/2/2021 -40 <Null> 948 T-LIVI 949 T-LIVI/1 TUSTIN Inactive Production Well 6085117.397 2221039.77 300-617 6/30/2021 21 <Null> 960 T-PANK 961 T-PANK/1 TUSTIN Inactive Production Well 6087674.762 2213340.094 323-614 6/30/2021 10.88 <Null> 946 T-TUST 947 T-TUST/1 TUSTIN Inactive Production Well 6079841.655 2224465.712 306-776 5/10/2021 0 <Null> 33 T-YORB 2898 T-YORB/1 TUSTIN Inactive Production Well 6082254.093 2227714.437 385-850 6/30/2021 12 <Null> 2139 COS-PLAZ 3551 COS-PLAZ/1 UNKNOWN Monitoring Well 6062779.265 2200089.756 -6/30/2021 -82.38 <Null> 21187 WRD-SEALBEACH-1 21191 WRD-SEALBEACH-1/4 WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6002807.228 2229796.158 775-795 6/7/2021 -61.51 <Null> 20132 WM-107A 20133 WM-107A/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6036756.169 2221201.688 350-980 6/23/2021 -3.71 <Null> 18462 WM-11 18463 WM-11/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6030376.492 2221521.749 325-790 6/28/2021 -16 <Null> 15462 WM-125 15463 WM-125/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6019490.522 2226357.926 374-860 6/29/2021 -35 <Null> 1250 WM-3 1251 WM-3/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6035334.153 2212273.162 285-365 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 987 WM-4 988 WM-4/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6041811.441 2216473.787 345-1125 6/30/2021 -10 <Null> 973 WM-6 974 WM-6/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6040452.837 2221186.654 176-660 <Null><Null>Well in exclusion list 19581 WM-75A 19582 WM-75A/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6027529.048 2227543.038 410-996 7/1/2021 -18.75 <Null> 2351 WM-RES1 2352 WM-RES1/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6034195.466 2226587.136 390-880 6/29/2021 -13.33 <Null> 25 WM-RES2 127 WM-RES2/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6022510.924 2225649.817 340-937 6/28/2021 -36 <Null> 1549 WM-SC4 1550 WM-SC4/1 WESTMINSTER Active Large-System Production Well 6024891.234 2228376.544 425-454 6/28/2021 -13 <Null> 1501 WOOD-INLK 1502 WOOD-INLK/1 WOODBRIDGE VILL HOMEOWNER ASSN Inactive Production Well 6090903.001 2195025.511 370-890 6/28/2021 -33.24 <Null> 2602 YLWD-1 2603 YLWD-1/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Standby Large-System Production Well 6083180.423 2261475.297 90-340 6/24/2021 201.25 <Null> 2600 YLWD-10 2601 YLWD-10/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Standby Large-System Production Well 6082573.916 2261063.226 90-406 6/24/2021 199.95 <Null> 2598 YLWD-12 2599 YLWD-12/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Standby Large-System Production Well 6082579.233 2261460.266 80-498 6/24/2021 194.75 <Null> 18764 YLWD-18 18765 YLWD-18/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Standby Large-System Production Well 6082572.851 2261290.355 250-570 6/24/2021 202 <Null> 19554 YLWD-19 19555 YLWD-19/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Standby Large-System Production Well 6082841.553 2261300.166 280-581 6/24/2021 200.7 <Null> 21243 YLWD-20 21244 YLWD-20/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Standby Large-System Production Well 6083164.301 2258232.562 225-570 6/24/2021 227.32 <Null> 22794 YLWD-21 22795 YLWD-21/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Standby Large-System Production Well 6082500.179 2259535.434 210-510 6/24/2021 211.25 <Null> 2592 YLWD-5 2593 YLWD-5/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Standby Large-System Production Well 6083146.35 2261304.493 90-340 6/24/2021 200.5 <Null> 2596 YLWD-7 2597 YLWD-7/1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Standby Large-System Production Well 6082874.48 2261508.045 137-259 6/24/2021 197.25 <Null> 4 of 4 Wells Used to Develop 2021 Groundwater Contour Maps in Orange County Groundwater Basin Deep Aquifer Wells (Model Layer 3) STAID1 WELLNM STAID STANAME OWNERNM GIS_SYMNM NAD83_X NAD83_Y PERF_ZONE SHORTDATE WLELEV NAD83_X NAD83_Y 19013 CSF-1 19132 CSF-1/1/WB1/MP6 CA. STATE UNIV., FULLERTON Multiport Monitoring Well 6064343.084 2270822.497 MP6 (718)7/6/2021 108.52 6064343.084 2270822.497 8556 F-COYO2 8557 F-COYO2/1 FULLERTON Inactive Production Well 6040365.852 2271034.694 309-919 6/30/2021 85.12 6040365.852 2271034.694 1387 SNDR-SA 1388 SNDR-SA/1 I & G 4 HUTTON LLC-ASSOC.Other Active Production Well 6070727.949 2200897.503 930-990 6/30/2021 -71.45 6070727.949 2200897.503 19366 IRWD-110 19367 IRWD-110/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6100371.561 2196315.961 555-1015 <Null><Null>6100371.561 2196315.961 11474 IRWD-3 11475 IRWD-3/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6072630.329 2206528.469 483.53-1249.9 6/23/2021 -64.9 6072630.329 2206528.469 18510 IRWD-C8 18511 IRWD-C8/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6062825.396 2204153.762 1080-1982 <Null><Null>6062825.396 2204153.762 18512 IRWD-C9 18513 IRWD-C9/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6062422.93 2205055.852 1055-1930 <Null><Null>6062422.93 2205055.852 22065 IRWD-52 22066 IRWD-52/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Inactive Production Well 6073545.847 2203710.984 635-1290 6/29/2021 -62.3 6073545.847 2203710.984 1941 TIC-82 1942 TIC-82/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6090541.059 2199639.983 410-1002 6/29/2021 -8.83 6090541.059 2199639.983 1391 ET-2 1392 ET-2/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Other Active Production Well 6090684.562 2199800.983 280-1080 <Null><Null>6090684.562 2199800.983 1389 TIC-106 1390 TIC-106/1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Other Active Production Well 6084967 2197177.989 405-715 <Null><Null>6084967 2197177.989 15780 MCWD-11 15781 MCWD-11/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6055237.67 2197733.913 330-1000 7/7/2021 -86.57 6055237.67 2197733.913 2135 MCWD-6 2136 MCWD-6/1 MESA WATER DISTRICT Active Large-System Production Well 6055652.152 2197722.22 310-1025 <Null><Null>6055652.152 2197722.22 1357 MCAS-6 1358 MCAS-6/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6094225.41 2191657.016 167-222 6/28/2021 76.17 6094225.41 2191657.016 2867 OCWD-CTG1 2871 OCWD-CTG1/4 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6061970.346 2206073.478 1060-1220 6/30/2021 -81.88 6061970.346 2206073.478 2872 OCWD-CTG5 2875 OCWD-CTG5/3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6062530.714 2206394.591 1040-1120 8/4/2021 -87.56 6062530.714 2206394.591 2876 OCWD-CTK1 2879 OCWD-CTK1/3 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6062486.259 2205158.852 1260-1315 6/30/2021 -83.03 6062486.259 2205158.852 22786 OCWD-MRSH 22854 OCWD-MRSH/1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6074220 2188672.3 199-219 6/29/2021 -28.15 6074220 2188672.3 547 AMD-1 21142 AMD-1/1/WB2/MP10 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6073916.932 2258572.091 MP10 (1394)6/21/2021 139.96 6073916.932 2258572.091 565 AMD-2 22211 AMD-2/1/WB2/MP10 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6066705.21 2254540.618 MP10 (1444)6/29/2021 104.23 6066705.21 2254540.618 7031 AMD-4 7111 AMD-4/1/WB1/MP11 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6050716.117 2255097.562 MP11 (1409)6/28/2021 60.28 6050716.117 2255097.562 7295 AMD-5 7324 AMD-5/1/WB1/MP11 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6060070.244 2248962.576 MP11 (1324)6/28/2021 82.65 6060070.244 2248962.576 8596 AMD-7 8761 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP14 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6049188.026 2247218.215 MP14 (1424)6/28/2021 30.68 6049188.026 2247218.215 9682 AMD-8 9916 AMD-8/1/WB1/MP15 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6033488.697 2249624.328 MP15 (2014)7/12/2021 -13.155 6033488.697 2249624.328 9831 BPM-1 9993 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP14 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6022348.508 2259541.566 MP14 (2109)7/12/2021 -25.24 6022348.508 2259541.566 9832 BPM-2 10188 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP15 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6025195.413 2246739.597 MP15 (2173)7/12/2021 -23.16 6025195.413 2246739.597 685 CB-1 8794 CB-1/1/WB2/MP9 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6044695.232 2253837.186 MP9 (1463)7/6/2021 29.14 6044695.232 2253837.186 5155 COSM-1 7156 COSM-1/1/WB1/MP14 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6055253.401 2197825.036 MP14 (1599)6/30/2021 -77.7 6055253.401 2197825.036 719 FFS-1 14248 FFS-1/1/WB2/MP8 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6061436.461 2262022.62 MP8 (1420)7/6/2021 88.03 6061436.461 2262022.62 1291 FVM-1 15700 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP17 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6047178.815 2210990.613 MP17 (1587)6/22/2021 -29.3 6047178.815 2210990.613 7297 GGM-1 10033 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP13 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6045688.299 2230864.24 MP13 (2011)7/8/2021 -13.6 6045688.299 2230864.24 8923 GGM-2 9057 GGM-2/1/WB1/MP13 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6026525.607 2230233.156 MP13 (1994)6/22/2021 -15.01 6026525.607 2230233.156 7178 HBM-1 8443 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP11 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6031700.722 2216385.252 MP11 (1464)7/2/2021 -25.08 6031700.722 2216385.252 720 IDM-1 18984 IDM-1/1/WB2/MP9 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6099572.243 2207081.537 MP9 (993)7/7/2021 -10.34 6099572.243 2207081.537 9830 IDM-2 10066 IDM-2/1/WB1/MP8 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6080705.598 2209836.046 MP8 (890)7/7/2021 -53.81 6080705.598 2209836.046 11949 LAM-1 12031 LAM-1/1/WB1/MP12 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6009581.587 2238043.705 MP12 (1613)6/15/2021 -36.83 6009581.587 2238043.705 758 MCAS-7 11831 MCAS-7/1/WB3/MP6 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6093900.827 2194418.586 MP6 (802)7/7/2021 21.5 6093900.827 2194418.586 756 SAR-1 9269 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP13 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6070684.206 2250425.314 MP13 (1374)6/29/2021 85.58 6070684.206 2250425.314 761 SAR-2 11995 SAR-2/1/WB2/MP12 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6069096.008 2245410.807 MP12 (1351)6/29/2021 74.07 6069096.008 2245410.807 762 SAR-3 9471 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP11 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6066892.02 2238409.284 MP11 (1393)6/24/2021 58.87 6066892.02 2238409.284 763 SAR-4 14637 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP10 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6065370.966 2233375.154 MP10 (1398)6/29/2021 -9.56 6065370.966 2233375.154 1289 SAR-5 21226 SAR-5/1/WB3/MP11 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6062597.607 2227874.211 MP11 (1735)6/30/2021 -15.3 6062597.607 2227874.211 7181 SAR-9 9807 SAR-9/1/WB1/MP12 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6058380.802 2221450.982 MP12 (1724)6/30/2021 -28.443 6058380.802 2221450.982 9686 SBM-1 9730 SBM-1/1/WB1/MP8 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6016566.11 2224523.54 MP8 (1256)6/15/2021 -28.045 6016566.11 2224523.54 1001 SC-2 6242 SC-2/1/WB2/MP10 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6086489.295 2237887.557 MP10 (664)<Null><Null>6086489.295 2237887.557 1005 SC-3 8841 SC-3/1/WB2/MP5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6081074.85 2229940.413 MP5 (1022)7/1/2021 48.56 6081074.85 2229940.413 2888 SC-4 6300 SC-4/1/WB1/MP8 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6082605.785 2235080.546 MP8 (830)7/1/2021 44.34 6082605.785 2235080.546 2854 SC-5 6336 SC-5/1/WB1/MP10 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6077454.866 2225543.458 MP10 (1430)7/1/2021 -27.75 6077454.866 2225543.458 9684 SC-6 9763 SC-6/1/WB1/MP11 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6066813.288 2216032.113 MP11 (1684)7/7/2021 -50.96 6066813.288 2216032.113 1293 WMM-1 19892 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP16 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Multiport Monitoring Well 6038251.554 2221751.195 MP16 (1745)7/8/2021 -23.94 6038251.554 2221751.195 1883 TIC-91 1884 TIC-91/1 PRIVATE Destroyed and Sealed Well 6075952.042 2204613.252 403-1208 <Null><Null>6075952.042 2204613.252 22391 RAY-MW25 22392 RAY-MW25/1 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Monitoring Well 6042037.4 2268206.9 449.4-479.8 6/30/2021 30.11 6042037.4 2268206.9 22408 RAY-MW32 22411 RAY-MW32/3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Monitoring Well 6039287.583 2267257.657 1070-1100 6/30/2021 26.62 6039287.583 2267257.657 8817 SA-38 8818 SA-38/1 SANTA ANA Standby Large-System Production Well 6077082.488 2229427.758 400-1270 6/30/2021 27 6077082.488 2229427.758 1873 TIC-93 1874 TIC-93/1 THE IRVINE COMPANY Destroyed and Sealed Well 6080030.447 2205228.503 400-1120 <Null><Null>6080030.447 2205228.503 1927 TIC-194 1931 TIC-194/1 THE IRVINE COMPANY Monitoring Well 6085062.044 2200644.721 562-726 6/29/2021 -62.48 6085062.044 2200644.721 3524 TIC-25 3525 TIC-25/1 THE IRVINE COMPANY Monitoring Well 6082128.447 2194002.252 666-760 6/29/2021 -62.21 6082128.447 2194002.252 1829 TIC-50 1830 TIC-50/1 THE IRVINE COMPANY Monitoring Well 6089719.969 2212322.221 475-1070 6/29/2021 19.34 6089719.969 2212322.221 958 T-WALN 959 T-WALN/1 TUSTIN Active Large-System Production Well 6084028.458 2212002.398 397-995 7/2/2021 -40 6084028.458 2212002.398 21187 WRD-SEALBEACH-1 21192 WRD-SEALBEACH-1/5 WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT Monitoring Well 6002807.228 2229796.158 1020-1040 6/7/2021 -39.7 6002807.228 2229796.158 3518 WOOD-ISLK 3519 WOOD-ISLK/1 WOODBRIDGE VILL HOMEOWNER ASSN Inactive Production Well 6089676.955 2191898.777 210-800 6/28/2021 26.83 6089676.955 2191898.777 1 of 1