HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-22 - Resolution No. 2021-26 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-26
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Section
10610 et seq. ("Act")) mandates an Urban Water Management Plan ("Plan")
to be prepared by every urban water supplier that either provides water for
municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplies more than
3,000 acre-feet of water annually.
WHEREAS, the Act generally requires the Plan be updated and adopted at least once
every five years on or before July 1, in years ending in six and one.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 (Water
Code Section 85000, et seq.), the Delta Plan, and Water Code Section
85021, which declares that the State's policy is to "reduce reliance on the
Delta in meeting California's future water needs through a statewide
strategy of investing in improved regional supplies, conservation, and water
use efficiency", urban water suppliers are encouraged by the California
Department of Resources ("DWR") and the Delta Stewardship Council
("DSC") to consider adopting an Addendum to their 2015 Plans to
demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan Policy WR P1 to Reduce
Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance
(California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 5003).
WHEREAS, the Yorba Linda Water District ("YLWD") meets the definition of an urban
retail water supplier for purposes of the Act.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Act and Delta Plan Policy WR P1, YLWD prepared
its Addendum to the 2015 Plan (1) with its own staff, (2) with the assistance
of consulting professionals, and (3) in cooperation with other governmental
agencies, and YLWD utilized and relied upon (a) industry standards, (b)
expertise of industry professionals, and (c) DWR's Urban Water
Management Plan Guidebook 2020.
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including Water Code Section 10642 and
Government Code Section 6066, a Notice of Public Hearing regarding
YLWD's Addendum to the 2015 Plan was published on ylwd.com on June
8, 2021 and in a newspaper within the jurisdiction of YLWD on June 10,
2021, and June 17, 2021.
Resolution No.2021-26—Adopting an Addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 1
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to Water Code
Section 10642, a public hearing was held on June 22, 2021 at 6:30 p.m., or
soon thereafter via Zoom (Webinar ID: 945 7701 5005) in order to provide
members of the public and other interested entities with the opportunity to
be heard regarding the proposed adoption of the Addendum to the 2015
Plan.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said public hearing, YLWD, among other things, encouraged
the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic members
of the community within YLWD's service area regarding the Addendum to
the 2015 Plan and encouraged community input regarding YLWD's
Addendum to the 2015 Plan.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors desires to adopt the Addendum to the 2015 Plan prior
to July 1, 2021 in order to comply with the Act and Delta Plan Policy WR
P1.
WHEREAS, Water Code Section 10652 provides that the California Environmental
Quality Act (Division 13, commencing with Section 21000, of the Public
Resources Code) does not apply to the preparation and adoption of Plans,
including addenda thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda Water District hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1. The Addendum to YLWD's 2015 Plan, which demonstrates consistency
with the Delta Plan Policy to Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through
Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance, is hereby adopted as amended by
changes incorporated by the Board of Directors as a result of input received
(if any) at the public hearing and ordered filed with the Secretary of the
Board of Directors.
Section 2. The General Manager is hereby authorized and directed to include a copy
of this Resolution in YLWD's 2015 Plan Addendum.
Section 3. The General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with
Water Code Sections 10621(d) and 10644(a)(1)-(2), to electronically submit
a copy of the Addendum to the 2015 Plan to DWR no later than July 1, 2021.
Section 4. The General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with
Water Code Section 10644(a), to submit a copy of the Addendum to the
2015 Plan to the California State Library, and to any city or county with
which YLWD provides water supplies no later than thirty (30) days after this
adoption date.
Resolution No.2021-26—Adopting an Addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 2
Section 5. The General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with
Water Code Section 10645, to make the Addendum to the 2015 Plan
available for public review at YLWD's offices during normal business hours
and on its website at www.ylwd.com no later than thirty (30) days after filing
a copy of the Addendum to the 2015 Plan with DWR.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June 2021 by the following called vote:
AYES: Directors DesRoches, Jones, Lindsey, and Miller
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Director Hawkins
J. Wayne Mi er, PhD, Vice President
Yorba Linda Water District
ATTEST:
Annie Alexander Board Secretary
Yorba Linda Water District
Reviewed as to form by General Counsel:
Andrew B. Gagen Esq.
Kidman Gagen Law LLP
Resolution No.2021-26—Adopting an Addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 3
Yorba Linda Water District
REDUCED DELTA RELIANCE REPORTING
C.1 Background
Under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, state and local public agencies proposing a covered
action in the Delta, prior to initiating the implementation of that action, must prepare a written certification of
consistency with detailed findings as to whether the covered action is consistent with applicable Delta Plan policies
and submit that certification to the Delta Stewardship Council. Anyone may appeal a certification of consistency, and
if the Delta Stewardship Council grants the appeal, the covered action may not be implemented until the agency
proposing the covered action submits a revised certification of consistency, and either no appeal is filed, or the Delta
Stewardship Council denies the subsequent appeal.
An urban water supplier that anticipates participating in or receiving water from a proposed covered action such as
a multi-year water transfer, conveyance facility, or new diversion that involves transferring water through, exporting
water from, or using water in the Delta should provide information in their 2015 and 2020 Urban Water Management
Plans (UWMPs) that can then be used in the covered action process to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan
Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (WR P1).
WR P1 details what is needed for a covered action to demonstrate consistency with reduced reliance on the Delta
and improved regional self-reliance. WR P1 subsection (a) states that:
(a) Water shall not be exported from, transferred through, or used in the Delta if all of the following apply:
(1) One or more water suppliers that would receive water as a result of the export, transfer, or use have failed
to adequately contribute to reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self-reliance consistent
with all of the requirements listed in paragraph (1) of subsection (c);
(2) That failure has significantly caused the need for the export, transfer, or use; and
(3) The export, transfer, or use would have a significant adverse environmental impact in the Delta.
WR P1 subsection (c)(1) further defines what adequately contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta means in terms
of (a)(1) above.
(c)(1) Water suppliers that have done all the following are contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta and improved
regional self-reliance and are therefore consistent with this policy:
(A) Completed a current Urban or Agricultural Water Management Plan (Plan) which has been reviewed by
the California Department of Water Resources for compliance with the applicable requirements of Water Code
Division 6, Parts 2.55, 2.6, and 2.8;
(B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the implementation
schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the Plan that are locally cost
effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the Delta; and
(C) Included in the Plan, commencing in 2015, the expected outcome for measurable reduction in Delta
reliance and improvement in regional self-reliance. The expected outcome for measurable reduction in
Delta reliance and improvement in regional self- reliance shall be reported in the Plan as the reduction in
the amount of water used, or in the percentage of water used, from the Delta watershed. For the
purposes of reporting, water efficiency is considered a new source of water supply, consistent with Water
Code section 1011(a).
The analysis and documentation provided below include all of the elements described in WR P1(c)(1) that need to
be included in a water supplier’s UWMP to support a certification of consistency for a future covered action.
C.2 Summary of Expected Outcomes for Reduced Reliance on the Delta
As stated in WR P1 (c)(1)(C), the policy requires that, commencing in 2015, UWMPs include expected outcomes for
measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improved regional self- reliance. WR P1 further states that those
outcomes shall be reported in the UWMP as the reduction in the amount of water used, or in the percentage of
water used, from the Delta.
The expected outcomes for Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD), hereafter referred to as ‘District’, regional self-
reliance were developed using the approach and guidance described in Appendix C of DWR’s Urban Water
Management Plan Guidebook 2020 – Final Draft (Guidebook Appendix C) issued in March 2021. The data used in this
analysis represent the total regional efforts of Metropolitan, MWDOC, and its member agencies (including the
District) and were developed in conjunction with Metropolitan as part of the UWMP coordination process.
The following provides a summary of the near-term (2025) and long-term (2040) expected outcomes for the District’s
Delta reliance and regional self-reliance. The results show that as a region, the District, Metropolitan, and its member
agencies are measurably reducing reliance on the Delta and improving regional self-reliance, both as an amount of
water used and as a percentage of water used.
Expected Outcomes for Regional Self-Reliance for the District
· Near-term (2025) – Normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by 12,992 AF from the
2010 baseline; this represents an increase of about 46.1 percent of 2025 normal water year retail demands
(Table C-2).
· Long-term (2040) – Normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by nearly 14,847 AF
from the 2010 baseline, this represents an increase of about 51.2 percent of 2040 normal water year retail
demands (Table C-2).
C.3 Demonstration of Reduced Reliance on the Delta
The methodology used to determine the District’s reduced Delta reliance and improved regional self-reliance is
consistent with the approach detailed in DWR’s UWMP Guidebook Appendix C, including the use of narrative
justifications for the accounting of supplies and the documentation of specific data sources. Some of the key
assumptions underlying the District’s demonstration of reduced reliance include:
· All data were obtained from the current 2020 UWMP or previously adopted UWMPs and represent
average or normal water year conditions.
· All analyses were conducted at the service area level, and all data reflect the total contributions of the
District and MWDOC, in conjunction with information provided by Metropolitan.
· No projects or programs that are described in the UWMPs as “Projects Under Development” were
included in the accounting of supplies.
Baseline and Expected Outcomes
In order to calculate the expected outcomes for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improved regional
self-reliance, a baseline is needed to compare against. This analysis uses a normal water year representation of
2010 as the baseline, which is consistent with the approach described in the Guidebook Appendix C. Data for the
2010 baseline were taken from the District’s 2005 UWMP as the UWMPs generally do not provide normal water
year data for the year that they are adopted (i.e., 2005 UWMP forecasts begin in 2010, 2010 UWMP forecasts
begin in 2015, and so on).
Consistent with the 2010 baseline data approach, the expected outcomes for reduced Delta reliance and
improved regional self-reliance for 2015 and 2020 were taken from the District’s 2010 and 2015 UWMPs
respectively. Expected outcomes for 2025-2040 are from the current 2020 UWMP. Documentation of the specific
data sources and assumptions are included in the discussions below.
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
In alignment with the Guidebook Appendix C, this analysis uses normal water year demands, rather than normal
water year supplies to calculate expected outcomes in terms of the percentage of water used. Using normal
water year demands serves as a proxy for the amount of supplies that would be used in a normal water year,
which helps alleviate issues associated with how supply capability is presented to fulfill requirements of the UWMP
Act versus how supplies might be accounted for to demonstrate consistency with WR P1.
Because WR P1 considers water use efficiency savings a source of water supply, water suppliers such as the
District need to explicitly calculate and report water use efficiency savings separate from service area demands
to properly reflect normal water year demands in the calculation of reduced reliance. As explained in the
Guidebook Appendix C, water use efficiency savings must be added back to the normal year demands to
represent demands without water use efficiency savings accounted for; otherwise the effect of water use
efficiency savings on regional self-reliance would be overestimated. Table C-1 shows the results of this
adjustment for the District. Supporting narratives and documentation for the all of the data shown in Table C-1
are provided below.
Table C -1 – Calculation of Water Use Efficiency
Service Area Water Use Efficiency
Demands
Service Area Water Demands with Water
Use Efficiency
Non-Potable Water Demands
Potable Service Area Demands with Water
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
25,916 26,805 19,946 19,133 19,402 19,414 19,400
Use Efficiency 25,916 26,805 19,946 19,133 19,402 19,414 19,400
Total Service Area Population Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Service Area Population 70,862 74,741 75,608 76,788 78,219 78,735 78,964
Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) 326 320 236 222 221 220 219
Change in Per Capita Water Use from
Baseline (GPCD) (6) (91) (104) (105) (106) (107)
Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since
Baseline 530 7,706 8,951 9,205 9,381 9,479
Total Service Area Water Demands
Service Area Water Demands with Water
Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Use Efficiency 25,916 26,805 19,946 19,133 19,402 19,414 19,400
Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since
Baseline 530 7,706 8,951 9,205 9,381 9,479
Service Area Water Demands without
Water Use Efficiency 25,916 27,335 27,652 28,083 28,607 28,795 28,879
Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency
The service area demands shown in Table C-1 represent the total retail water demands for the District’s service area and
may include municipal and industrial demands, agricultural demands, recycled, seawater barrier demands, and storage
replenishment demands. These demand types and the modeling methodologies used to calculate them are described in
Section 4-3 of the District’s UWMP.
Non-Potable Water Demands
Any non-potable water demands shown in Table C-1 represent demands for non-potable recycled water, water used for
purposes such as surface reservoir storage, and replenishment water for groundwater basin recharge and sweater barrier
demands. Additionally, non-potable supplies have a demand hardening effect due to the inability to shift non-potable
supplies to meet potable water demands. When water use efficiency or conservation measures are implemented, they fall
solely on the potable water users. This is consistent with the approach for water conservation reporting used by the State
Water Resources Control Board. Note that YLWD does not have non-potable recycled water demands.
Total Service Area Population
The District’s total service area population as shown in Table C-1 come from the Center for Demographic Research, with
actuals and projections further described in Section 3.4 of the District’s 2020 UWMP.
Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline
The water use efficiency numbers shown in Table C-1 represent the formulation that District utilized, consistent with
Appendix C of the UWMP Guidebook approach.
Service area demands, excluding non-potable demands, are divided by the service area population to get per capita water
use in the service area in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) for each five-year period. The change in per capita water use
from the baseline is the comparative GPCD from that five-year period compared to the 2010 baseline. Changes in per capita
water use over time are then applied back to the District’s service area population to calculate the estimated WUE Supply.
This estimated WUE Supply is considered an additional supply that may be used to show reduced reliance on Delta water
supplies.
The demand and water use efficiency data shown in Table C-1 were collected from the following sources:
· Baseline (2010) values – District’s 2005 UWMP
· 2015 values – District’s 2010 UWMP
· 2020 values – District’s 2015 UWMP
· 2025-2040 values – District’s 2020 UWMP
It should be noted that the results of this calculation differ from what the District calculated under section 5.2 pertaining
to the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) due to differing formulas.
C.4 Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance
For a covered action to demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) states that water suppliers
must report the expected outcomes for measurable improvement in regional self-reliance. Table C-2 shows expected
outcomes for supplies contributing to regional self-reliance both in amount and as a percentage. The numbers shown in
Table C-2 represent efforts to improve regional self-reliance for the District’s entire service area and include the total
contributions of the District. Supporting narratives and documentation for the all of the data shown in Table C-2 are provided
below.
The results shown in Table C-2 demonstrate that the District’s service area is measurably improving its regional self-
reliance. In the near-term (2025), the expected outcome for normal water year regional self-reliance increases by
12,992 AF from the 2010 baseline; this represents an increase of about 46.1 percent of 2025 normal water year retail
demands. In the long-term (2040), normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by more than
1 4,847 AF from the 2010 baseline; this represents an increase of about 51.2 percent of 2040 normal water year
retail demands.
Table C-2 – Supplies Contributing to Regional Self Reliance
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-
Reliance (Acre-Feet) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Water Use Efficiency - 530 7,706 8,951 9,205 9,381 9,479
Water Recycling
Stormwater Capture and Use
Advanced Water Technologies 475 2,588 3,414 4,517 5,842 5,846 5,842
Conjunctive Use Projects
Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage
Projects
Other Programs and Projects the Contribute to
Regional Self-Reliance
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-
Reliance 475 3,117 11,120 13,467 15,047 15,227 15,321
Service Area Water Demands without Water
Use Efficiency
Service Area Water Demands without Water Use
Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Efficiency 25,916 27,335 27,652 28,083 28,607 28,795 28,879
Change in Regional Self Reliance (Acre-Feet)
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-
Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Reliance 475 3,117 11,120 13,467 15,047 15,227 15,321
Change in Water Supplies Contributing to
Regional Self-Reliance 2,642 10,645 12,992 14,573 14,753 14,847
Change in Regional Self Reliance (As a Percent
of Water Demand w/out WUE)
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-
Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Reliance 1.8% 11.4% 40.2% 48.0% 52.6% 52.9% 53.1%
Change in Water Supplies Contributing to
Regional Self-Reliance 9.6% 38.4% 46.1% 50.8% 51.0% 51.2%
Water Use Efficiency
The water use efficiency information shown in Table C-2 is taken directly from Table C-1 above.
Water Recycling
The water recycling values shown in Table C-2 reflect the total recycled water production in the service area as
described in Section 4.3 of District’s UWMP. Note that YLWD does not have recycled water production.
Advanced Water Technologies (AWT)
AWT is calculated by multiplying the estimated GW production for that year (Section 6.1 of the District’s UWMP) with
the percentage of Total Basin Production for that year.
C.5 Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
Metropolitan’s service area as a whole, reduces reliance on the Delta through investments in non-Delta water supplies,
local water supplies and demand management measures. Quantifying the District’s investments in self-reliance, locally,
regionally, and throughout Southern California is infeasible for the reasons as noted in Section C.6. Due to the regional
nature of these investments, the District is relying on Metropolitan’s regional accounting of measurable reductions in
supplies from the Delta Watershed.
The results shown in Table A.11-3 demonstrate that Metropolitan’s service area, including the District, is measurably
reducing its Delta reliance. In the near-term (2025), the expected outcome for normal water year reliance on supplies
from the Delta watershed decreased by 301 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents a decrease of 3 percent of 2025
normal water year retail demands. In the long- term (2045), normal water year reliance on supplies from the Delta
watershed decreased by 314 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents a decrease of just over 5 percent of 2045 normal
water year retail demands.
Table C-3
Metropolitan Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta
Watershed
Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
CVP/SWP Contract Supplies 1,472,000 1,029,000 984,000 1,133,000 1,130,000 1,128,000 1,126,000 1,126,000
Delta/Delta Tributary Diversions - - - - - - - -
Transfers and Exchanges of Supplies from the Delta Watershed 20,000 44,000 91,000 58,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000
Other Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed - - - - - - - -
Total Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 1,492,000 1,073,000 1,075,000 1,191,000 1,182,000 1,180,000 1,178,000 1,178,000
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 5,493,000 5,499,000 5,219,000 4,925,000 5,032,000 5,156,000 5,261,000 5,374,000
Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 1,492,000 1,073,000 1,075,000 1,191,000 1,182,000 1,180,000 1,178,000 1,178,000
Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed NA (419,000) (417,000) (301,000) (310,000) (312,000) (314,000) (314,000)
Percent Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(As a Percent of Demand w/out WUE)
Baseline
(2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Percent of Supplies from the Delta Watershed 27.2% 19.5% 20.6% 24.2% 23.5% 22.9% 22.4% 21.9%
Change in Percent of Supplies from the Delta Watershed NA -7.6% -6.6% -3.0% -3.7% -4.3% -4.8% -5.2%
C.6 Infeasibility of Accounting Supplies from the Delta Watershed for Metropolitan’s
Member Agencies and their Customers
Metropolitan’s service area, as a whole, reduces reliance on the Delta through investments in non-Delta water
supplies, local water supplies, and regional and local demand management measures. Metropolitan’s member
agencies coordinate reliance on the Delta through their membership in Metropolitan, a regional cooperative
providing wholesale water service to its 26 member agencies. Accordingly, regional reliance on the Delta can only be
measured regionally—not by individual Metropolitan member agencies and not by the customers of those member
agencies.
Metropolitan’s member agencies, and those agencies’ customers, indirectly reduce reliance on the Delta through
their collective efforts as a cooperative. Metropolitan’s member agencies do not control the amount of Delta water
they receive from Metropolitan. Metropolitan manages a statewide integrated conveyance system consisting of its
participation in the State Water Project (SWP), its Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) including Colorado River water
resources, programs and water exchanges, and its regional storage portfolio. Along with the SWP, CRA, storage
programs, and Metropolitan’s conveyance and distribution facilities, demand management programs increase the
future reliability of water resources for the region. In addition, demand management programs provide system-wide
benefits by decreasing the demand for imported water, which helps to decrease the burden on the district’s
infrastructure and reduce system costs, and free up conveyance capacity to the benefit of all member agencies.
Metropolitan’s costs are funded almost entirely from its service area, with the exception of grants and other
assistance from government programs. Most of Metropolitan’s revenues are collected directly from its member
agencies. Properties within Metropolitan’s service area pay a property tax that currently provides approximately 8
percent of the fiscal year 2021 annual budgeted revenues. The rest of Metropolitan’s costs are funded through rates
and charges paid by Metropolitan’s member agencies for the wholesale services it provides to them.1 Thus,
Metropolitan’s member agencies fund nearly all operations Metropolitan undertakes to reduce reliance on the Delta,
including Colorado River Programs, storage facilities, Local Resources Programs and Conservation Programs within
Metropolitan’s service area.
Because of the integrated nature of Metropolitan’s systems and operations, and the collective nature of
Metropolitan’s regional efforts, it is infeasible to quantify each of Metropolitan member agencies’ individual reliance
on the Delta. It is infeasible to attempt to segregate an entity and a system that were designed to work as an
integrated regional cooperative.
In addition to the member agencies funding Metropolitan’s regional efforts, they also invest in their own local
programs to reduce their reliance on any imported water. Moreover, the customers of those member agencies may
also invest in their own local programs to reduce water demand. However, to the extent those efforts result in
reduction of demands on Metropolitan, that reduction does not equate to a like reduction of reliance on the Delta.
Demands on Metropolitan are not commensurate with demands on the Delta because most of Metropolitan member
agencies receive blended resources from Metropolitan as determined by Metropolitan—not the individual member
agency—and for most member agencies, the blend varies from month-to-month and year-to-year due to hydrology,
operational constraints, use of storage and other factors.
Colorado River Programs
As a regional cooperative of member agencies, Metropolitan invests in programs to ensure the continued reliability
and sustainability of Colorado River supplies. Metropolitan was established to obtain an allotment of Colorado River
water, and its first mission was to construct and operate the CRA. The CRA consists of five pumping plants, 450 miles
of high voltage power lines, one electric substation, four regulating reservoirs, and 242 miles of aqueducts, siphons,
canals, conduits and pipelines terminating at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. Metropolitan owns, operates, and
manages the CRA. Metropolitan is responsible for operating, maintaining, rehabilitating, and repairing the CRA, and
is responsible for obtaining and scheduling energy resources adequate to power pumps at the CRA’s five pumping
stations.
Colorado River supplies include Metropolitan’s basic Colorado River apportionment, along with supplies that result
from existing and committed programs, including supplies from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID)-Metropolitan
Conservation Program, the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and related
agreements, and the exchange agreement with San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). The QSA established
1 A standby charge is collected from properties within the service areas of 21 of Metropolitan’s 26 member agencies, ranging from
$5 to $14.20 per acre annually, or per parcel if smaller than an acre. Standby charges go towards those member agencies’
obligations to Metropolitan for the Readiness-to-Serve Charge. The total amount collected annually is approximately $43.8 million,
approximately 2 percent of Metropolitan’s fiscal year 2021 annual budgeted revenues.
the baseline water use for each of the agreement parties and facilitates the transfer of water from agricultural
agencies to urban uses. Since the QSA, additional programs have been implemented to increase Metropolitan’s CRA
supplies. These include the PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program, as well as the Lower
Colorado River Water Supply Project. The 2007 Interim Guidelines provided for the coordinated operation of Lake
Powell and Lake Mead, as well as the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) program that allows Metropolitan to store
water in Lake Mead.
Storage Investments/Facilities
Surface and groundwater storage are critical elements of Southern California’s water resources strategy and help
Metropolitan reduce its reliance on the Delta. Because California experiences dramatic swings in weather and
hydrology, storage is important to regulate those swings and mitigate possible supply shortages. Surface and
groundwater storage provide a means of storing water during normal and wet years for later use during dry years,
when imported supplies are limited. The Metropolitan system, for purposes of meeting demands during times of
shortage, regulating system flows, and ensuring system reliability in the event of a system outage, provides over
1,000,000 acre-feet of system storage capacity. Diamond Valley Lake provides 810,000 acre-feet of that storage
capacity, effectively doubling Southern California’s previous surface water storage capacity. Other existing imported
water storage available to the region consists of Metropolitan’s raw water reservoirs, a share of the SWP’s raw water
reservoirs in and near the service area, and the portion of the groundwater basins used for conjunctive‐use storage.
Since the early twentieth century, DWR and Metropolitan have constructed surface water reservoirs to meet
emergency, drought/seasonal, and regulatory water needs for Southern California. These reservoirs include Pyramid
Lake, Castaic Lake, Elderberry Forebay, Silverwood Lake, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner, Lake Mathews, Live Oak Reservoir,
Garvey Reservoir, Palos Verdes Reservoir, Orange County Reservoir, and Metropolitan’s Diamond Valley Lake (DVL).
Some reservoirs such as Live Oak Reservoir, Garvey Reservoir, Palos Verdes Reservoir, and Orange County Reservoir,
which have a total combined capacity of about 3,500 AF, are used solely for regulating purposes. The total gross
storage capacity for the larger remaining reservoirs is 1,757,600 AF. However, not all of the gross storage capacity is
available to Metropolitan; dead storage and storage allocated to others reduce the amount of storage that is
available to Metropolitan to 1,665,200 AF.
Conjunctive use of the aquifers offers another important source of dry year supplies. Unused storage in Southern
California groundwater basins can be used to optimize imported water supplies, and the development of
groundwater storage projects allows effective management and regulation of the region’s major imported supplies
from the Colorado River and SWP. Over the years, Metropolitan has implemented conjunctive use through various
programs in the service area; the following table lists the groundwater conjunctive use programs that have been
developed in the region.
Metropoll'tan
Program - Program
Pariners AF/Yr
Long Beach Conjunctive Use Long Beach June 2002-2027 13.O0D 4,300
Storage Project (Central Basin)
Foothill Area.Groundwater Storage Foothill MWD February 2003- 9.ODD 3.000
Program IMonkhilI/Raymond Basin) 2028
Orange County Groundwater ndwater M W DO C
June 2403-2028 66.000+ 22,040
Conjunctive Use Program OCWD
IEUA
Chino Basin Conjunctive Use TVMWD Jane 2003-2028 10D.00D 33.000
Programs
Watermcufer
Live Oak Basin Conjunctive Use TVMWD October2002-
Project 3,000 1,000
(Six Basins) City of La Verne 2027
City of Compton Conjunctive Use February 200.5-
Project Compton 2030 2.289 763
(Central Basin)
Long Beach Conjunctive Use
Program Expansion in Lakewood Long Beach July 2005-2030 3.604 1.240
(Central Basin)
Upper Claremont Basin
Groundwater Storage Program TVMWD Sept_ 2005- 2430 3.DOO 1.0D0
(Six Bas ins)
Western MWD
Elsinore Basin Conjunctive Use Elsinore Valley May 2006- 2033 12,000 4.DD
Storage Program
MWD
TOTAL 211.889 70.263
Metropolitan Demand Management Programs
Demand management costs are Metropolitan§ expenditures for funding local water resource development
programs and water conservation programs. These Demand Management Programs incentivize the development of
local water supplies and the conservation of water to reduce the need to import water to deliver to Metropolitan's
member agencies. These programs are implemented below the delivery points between Metropolitan's and its
member agencies' distribution systems and, as such, do not add any water to Metropolitan's supplies. Rather, the
effect of these downstream programs is to produce a local supply of water for the local agencies and to reduce
demands by member agencies for water imported through Metropolitan's system.The following discussions outline
how Metropolitan funds local resources and conservation programs for the benefit of all of its member agencies and
the entire Metropolitan service area. Notably, the history of demand management by Metropolitan's member
agencies and the local agencies that purchase water from Metropolitan's members has spanned more than four
decades.The significant history of the programs is another reason it would be difficult to attempt to assign a portion
of such funding to any one individual member agency.
Local Resources Programs
In 1982, Metropolitan began providing financial incentives to its member agencies to develop new local supplies to
assist in meeting the region's water needs. Because of Metropolitan's regional distribution system,these programs
benefit all member agencies regardless of project location because they help to increase regional water supply
reliability, reduce demands for imported water supplies, decrease the burden on Metropolitan's infrastructure,
reduce system costs and free up conveyance capacity to the benefit of all the agencies that rely on water from
Metropolitan.
For example,the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) operated by the Orange County Water District is the
world’s largest water purification system for indirect potable reuse. It was funded, in part, by Metropolitan’s member
agencies through the Local Resources Program. Annually, the GWRS produces approximately 103,000 acre-feet of
reliable, locally controlled, drought-proof supply of high-quality water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater
Basin and protect it from seawater intrusion. The GWRS is a premier example of a regional project that significantly
reduced the need to utilize imported water for groundwater replenishment in Metropolitan’s service area, increasing
regional and local supply reliability and reducing the region’s reliance on imported supplies, including supplies from
the State Water Project.
Metropolitan’s local resource programs have evolved through the years to better assist Metropolitan’s member
agencies in increasing local supply production. The following is a description and history of the local supply incentive
programs.
Local Projects Program
In 1982, Metropolitan initiated the Local Projects Program (LPP), which provided funding to member agencies to
facilitate the development of recycled water projects. Under this approach, Metropolitan contributed a negotiated
up-front funding amount to help finance project capital costs. Participating member agencies were obligated to
reimburse Metropolitan over time. In 1986, the LPP was revised, changing the up-front funding approach to an
incentive-based approach. Metropolitan contributed an amount equal to the avoided State Water Project pumping
costs for each acre-foot of recycled water delivered to end-use consumers. This funding incentive was based on the
premise that local projects resulted in the reduction of water imported from the Delta and the associated pumping
cost. The incentive amount varied from year to year depending on the actual variable power cost paid for State Water
Project imports. In 1990, Metropolitan’s Board increased the LPP contribution to a fixed rate of $154 per acre-foot,
which was calculated based on Metropolitan’s avoided capital and operational costs to convey, treat, and distribute
water, and included considerations of reliability and service area demands.
Groundwater Recovery Program
The drought of the early 1990s sparked the need to develop additional local water resources, aside from recycled
water, to meet regional demand and increase regional water supply reliability. In 1991, Metropolitan conducted the
Brackish Groundwater Reclamation Study which determined that large amounts of degraded groundwater in the
region were not being utilized. Subsequently, the Groundwater Recovery Program (GRP) was established to assist
the recovery of otherwise unusable groundwater degraded by minerals and other contaminants, provide access to
the storage assets of the degraded groundwater, and maintain the quality of groundwater resources by reducing the
spread of degraded plumes.
Local Resources Program
In 1995, Metropolitan’s Board adopted the Local Resources Program (LRP), which combined the LPP and GRP into
one program. The Board allowed for existing LPP agreements with a fixed incentive rate to convert to the sliding
scale up to $250 per acre-foot, similar to GRP incentive terms. Those agreements that were converted to LRP are
known as “LRP Conversions.”
Competitive Local Projects Program
In 1998, the Competitive Local Resources Program (Competitive Program) was established. The Competitive Program
encouraged the development of recycled water and recovered groundwater through a process that emphasized cost-
efficiency to Metropolitan, timing new production according to regional need while minimizing program
administration cost. Under the Competitive Program, agencies requested an incentive rate up to $250 per acre-foot
of production over 25 years under a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of up to 53,000 acre-feet per
year of new water recycling and groundwater recovery projects. In 2003, a second RFP was issued for the
development of an additional 65,000 acre-feet of new recycled water and recovered groundwater projects through
the LRP.
Seawater Desalination Program
Metropolitan established the Seawater Desalination Program (SDP) in 2001 to provide financial incentives to member
agencies for the development of seawater desalination projects. In 2014, seawater desalination projects became
eligible for funding under the LRP, and the SDP was ended.
2007 Local Resources Program
In 2006, a task force comprised of member agency representatives was formed to identify and recommend program
improvements to the LRP. As a result of the task force process, the 2007 LRP was established with a goal of 174,000
acre-feet per year of additional local water resource development. The new program allowed for an open application
process and eliminated the previous competitive process. This program offered sliding scale incentives of up to $250
per acre-foot, calculated annually based on a member agency’s actual local resource project costs exceeding
Metropolitan’s prevailing water rate.
2014 Local Resources Program
A series of workgroup meetings with member agencies was held to identify the reasons why there was a lack of new
LRP applications coming into the program. The main constraint identified by the member agencies was that the $250
per acre-foot was not providing enough of an incentive for developing new projects due to higher construction costs
to meet water quality requirements and to develop the infrastructure to reach end-use consumers located further
from treatment plants. As a result, in 2014, the Board authorized an increase in the maximum incentive amount,
provided alternative payment structures, included onsite retrofit costs and reimbursable services as part of the LRP,
and added eligibility for seawater desalination projects. The current LRP incentive payment options are structured
as follows:
· Option 1 – Sliding scale incentive up to $340/AF for a 25-year agreement term
· Option 2 – Sliding scale incentive up to $475/AF for a 15-year agreement term
· Option 3 – Fixed incentive up to $305/AF for a 25-year agreement term
On-site Retrofit Programs
In 2014, Metropolitan’s Board also approved the On-site Retrofit Pilot Program which provided financial incentives
to public or private entities toward the cost of small-scale improvements to their existing irrigation and industrial
systems to allow connection to existing recycled water pipelines. The On-site Retrofit Pilot Program helped reduce
recycled water retrofit costs to the end-use consumer which is a key constraint that limited recycled water LRP
projects from reaching full production capacity. The program incentive was equal to the actual eligible costs of the
on-site retrofit, or $975 per acre-foot of up-front cost, which equates to $195 per acre-foot for an estimated five
years of water savings ($195/AF x 5 years) multiplied by the average annual water use in previous three years,
whichever is less. The Pilot Program lasted two years and was successful in meeting its goal of accelerating the use
of recycled water.
In 2016, Metropolitan’s Board authorized the On-site Retrofit Program (ORP), with an additional budget of $10
million. This program encompassed lessons learned from the Pilot Program and feedback from member agencies to
make the program more streamlined and improve its efficiency. As of fiscal year 2019/20, the ORP has successfully
converted 440 sites, increasing the use of recycled water by 12,691 acre-feet per year.
Stormwater Pilot Programs
In 2019, Metropolitan’s Board authorized both the Stormwater for Direct Use Pilot Program and a Stormwater for
Recharge Pilot Program to study the feasibility of reusing stormwater to help meet regional demands in Southern
California. These pilot programs are intended to encourage the development, monitoring, and study of new and
existing stormwater projects by providing financial incentives for their construction/retrofit and monitoring/
reporting costs. These pilot programs will help evaluate the potential benefits delivered by stormwater capture
projects and provide a basis for potential future funding approaches. Metropolitan’s Board authorized a total of
$12.5 million for the stormwater pilot programs ($5 million for the District Use Pilot and $7.5 million for the
Recharge Pilot).
Current Status and Results of Metropolitan’s Local Resource Programs
Today, nearly one-half of the total recycled water and groundwater recovery production in the region has been
developed with an incentive from one or more of Metropolitan’s local resource programs. During fiscal year 2020,
Metropolitan provided about $13 million for production of 71,000 acre-feet of recycled water for non-potable and
indirect potable uses. Metropolitan provided about $4 million to support projects that produced about 50,000 acre-
feet of recovered groundwater for municipal use. Since 1982, Metropolitan has invested $680 million to fund 85
recycled water projects and 27 groundwater recovery projects that have produced a cumulative total of about 4
million acre-feet.
Conservation Programs
Metropolitan’s regional conservation programs and approaches have a long history. Decades ago, Metropolitan
recognized that demand management at the consumer level would be an important part of balancing regional
supplies and demands. Water conservation efforts were seen as a way to reduce the need for imported supplies and
offset the need to transport or store additional water into or within the Metropolitan service area. The actual
conservation of water takes place at the retail consumer level. Regional conservation approaches have proven to be
effective at reaching retail consumers throughout Metropolitan’s service area and successfully implementing water
saving devices, programs and practices. Through the pooling of funding by Metropolitan’s member agencies,
Metropolitan is able to engage in regional campaigns with wide-reaching impact. Regional investments in demand
management programs, of which conservation is a key part along with local supply programs, benefit all member
agencies regardless of project location. These programs help to increase regional water supply reliability, reduce
demands for imported water supplies, decrease the burden on Metropolitan’s infrastructure, reduce system costs,
and free up conveyance capacity to the benefit of all member agencies.
Incentive-Based Conservation Programs
Conservation Credits Program
In 1988, Metropolitan’s Board approved the Water Conservation Credits Program (Credits Program). The Credits
Program is similar in concept to the Local Projects Program (LPP). The purpose of the Credits Program is to encourage
local water agencies to implement effective water conservation projects through the use of financial incentives. The
Credits Program provides financial assistance for water conservation projects that reduce demands on
Metropolitan’s imported water supplies and require Metropolitan’s assistance to be financially feasible.
Initially, the Credits Program provided 50 percent of a member agency’s program cost, up to a maximum of $75 per
acre-foot of estimated water savings. The $75 Base Conservation Rate was established based Metropolitan’s avoided
cost of pumping SWP supplies. The Base Conservation Rate has been revisited by Metropolitan’s Board and revised
twice since 1988, from $75 to $154 per acre-foot in 1990 and from $154 to $195 per acre-foot in 2005.
In fiscal year 2020 Metropolitan processed more than 30,400 rebate applications totaling $18.9 million.
Member Agency Administered Program
Some member agencies also have unique programs within their service areas that provide local rebates that may
differ from Metropolitan’s regional program. Metropolitan continues to support these local efforts through a
member agency administered funding program that adheres to the same funding guidelines as the Credits Program.
The Member Agency Administered Program allows member agencies to receive funding for local conservation efforts
that supplement, but do not duplicate, the rebates offered through Metropolitan’s regional rebate program.
Water Savings Incentive Program
There are numerous commercial entities and industries within Metropolitan’s service area that pursue unique
savings opportunities that do not fall within the general rebate programs that Metropolitan provides. In 2012,
Metropolitan designed the Water Savings Incentive Program (WSIP) to target these unique commercial and industrial
projects. In addition to rebates for devices, under this program, Metropolitan provides financial incentives to
businesses and industries that created their own custom water efficiency projects. Qualifying custom projects can
receive funding for permanent water efficiency changes that result in reduced potable demand.
Non-Incentive Conservation Programs
In addition to its incentive-based conservation programs, Metropolitan also undertakes additional efforts throughout
its service area that help achieve water savings without the use of rebates. Metropolitan’s non-incentive
conservation efforts include:
· residential and professional water efficient landscape training classes
· water audits for large landscapes
· research, development and studies of new water saving technologies
· advertising and outreach campaigns
· community outreach and education programs
· advocacy for legislation, codes, and standards that lead to increased water savings
Current Status and Results of Metropolitan’s Conservation Programs
Since 1990, Metropolitan has invested $824 million in conservation rebates that have resulted in a cumulative savings
of 3.27 million acre-feet of water. These investments include $450 million in turf removal and other rebates during
the last drought which resulted in 175 million square feet of lawn turf removed. During fiscal year 2020, 1.06 million
acre-feet of water is estimated to have been conserved. This annual total includes Metropolitan’s Conservation
Credits Program; code-based conservation achieved through Metropolitan-sponsored legislation; building plumbing
codes and ordinances; reduced consumption resulting from changes in water pricing; and pre-1990 device retrofits.
Infeasibility of Accounting Regional Investments in Reduced Reliance Below the Regional Level
The accounting of regional investments that contribute to reduced reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed is
straightforward to calculate and report at the regional aggregate level. However, any similar accounting is infeasible
for the individual member agencies or their customers. As described above, the region (through Metropolitan) makes
significant investments in projects, programs and other resources that reduce reliance on the Delta. In fact, all of
Metropolitan’s investments in Colorado River supplies, groundwater and surface storage, local resources
development and demand management measures that reduce reliance on the Delta are collectively funded by
revenues generated from the member agencies through rates and charges.
Metropolitan’s revenues cannot be matched to the demands or supply production history of an individual agency,
or consistently across the agencies within the service area. Each project or program funded by the region has a
different online date, useful life, incentive rate and structure, and production schedule. It is infeasible to account for
all these things over the life of each project or program and provide a nexus to each member agency’s contributions
to Metropolitan’s revenue stream over time. Accounting at the regional level allows for the incorporation of the local
supplies and water use efficiency programs done by member agencies and their customers through both the regional
programs and through their own specific local programs. As shown above, despite the infeasibility of accounting
reduced Delta reliance below the regional level, Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers have together
made substantial contributions to the region’s reduced reliance.
References
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/Board/Board-Meeting/Board%20Archives/2017/12-
Dec/Reports/064863458.pdf
http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/Annual_Achievement_Report.pdf http://www.mwdh2o.com/
WhoWeAre/Board/Board-Meeting/Board%20Archives/2016/12-
Dec/Reports/064845868.pdf
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/Board/Board-Meeting/Board%20Archives/2012/05%20-
%20May/Letters/064774100.pdf
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/Board/Board-Meeting/Board%20Archives/2020/10%20-
%20Oct/Letters/10132020%20BOD%209-3%20B-L.pdf
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/Board/Board-Meeting/Board%20Archives/2001/10-
October/Letters/003909849.pdf
Yorba Linda Star PROOF OF PUBLICATION
1771 S. Lewis Street
Anaheim, CA 92805 Legal No. 0011466823
714-796-2209 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Directors of the Yorba
Linda Water District will hold a public hearing to provide opportunity for
public input on the draft update of the District's 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
(WSCP). UWMPs and WSCPs are prepared by California's urban water
suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure
5221905 adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water
demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000
acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is
required to prepare an UWMP and WSCP every five years. The public
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 22, 2021, at 6:30 PM via Zoom, at
ATTN: KERI HOLLON which time all persons interested may appear and be heard. A copy of the
draft UWMP and WSCP is currently available for public review at
1717 E. MIRALOMAAVE. www.ylwd.com. For more information, please contact Ariel Bacani at
PLACENTIA, CA 92870 (714) 701-3104.
Published Yorba Linda Star June 10,17,2021 11466823
FILE NO. Public Hearing Reva
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
SS.
County of Orange
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I
am the principal clerk of the Yorba Linda Star, a
newspaper that has been adjudged to be a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
Orange, State of California, on June 9, 1952, Case No.
A-21555 in and for the City of Yorba Linda, County of
Orange, State of California; that the notice, of which the
annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in
any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:
06/10/2021, 06/17/2021
1 certify(or declare) under the penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct:
Executed at Anaheim, Orange County, California, on
Date: June 17, 2021.
("�M�a
Signature
r.LP1-12/15/16