The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-09-22 - YLWD-MWDOC-OCWD Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Agenda Packet 'rb Linda Water District AGENDA YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT MWDOC AND OCWD AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 4:00 PM 1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870 YLWD COMMITTEE MEMBERS YLWD STAFF Director William R. Mills, Chair Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager Director Ric Collett Pat Grady, Asst General Manager MWDOC COMMITTEE MEMBER MWDOC STAFF Director Brett Barbre Kevin Hunt, General Manager OCWD COMMITTEE MEMBER OCWD STAFF Director Roger Yoh Mike Markus, General Manager 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any individual wishing to address the committee is requested to identify themselves and state the matter on which they wish to comment. If the matter is on this agenda, the committee Chair will recognize the individual for their comment when the item is considered. No action will be taken on matters not listed on this agenda. Comments are limited to matters of public interest and matters within the jurisdiction of the Water District. Comments are limited to five minutes. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS This portion of the agenda is for matters such as technical presentations, drafts of proposed policies, or similar items for which staff is seeking the advice and counsel of the Committee members. This portion of the agenda may also include items for information only. 2.1. Water Supply and Allocation Status 2.2. Recent Media Attention and Coordinated Approaches 2.3. Status of Local Desalination Projects 2.4. New MWDOC Director and MWD Director Opening 2.5. OCWD Annexation 2.6. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks 3. ADJOURNMENT 3.1. The next regular meeting of the YLWD/MWDOC/OCWD Ad Hoc Committee will be held November 24, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. Items Distributed to the Committee Less Than 72 Hours Prior to the Meeting Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items and are distributed to a majority of the Committee less than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection in the lobby of the District's business office located at 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870, during regular business hours. When practical, these public records will also be made available on the District's internet website accessible at http://www.ylwd.com/. Accommodations for the Disabled Any person may make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation needed for that person to be able to participate in the public meeting by telephoning the Executive Secretary at 714-701-3020, or writing to Yorba Linda Water District, P.O. Box 309, Yorba Linda, CA 92885-0309. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and the type of accommodation requested. A telephone number or other contact information should be included so the District staff may discuss appropriate arrangements. Persons requesting a disability-related accommodation should make the request with adequate time before the meeting for the District to provide the requested accommodation. Water Supply Condition Update Municipal Water District of Orange County September 24, 2009 Client Agency Manager Meeting 2.50 2.00 1.50 a� U- a� U Q 1.00 c 0 0.50 M Water Supply Conditions January 09 vs. Today Normal Demands of 2.38 MAF ----------------------------------------------- Total Supplies = 2.01 MAF Total Supplies = 2.09 MAF January Today SWP Deliveries Smelt & Salmon Biological Opinion Impacts L1 Average Critical Dry Wet 4.1 4.0 m a SWP Contract Table A 0 3.3 4.17 million acre -ft 3.1 3.0 2k 9 �- 2.4 2.3 > 2.0 O_ o c m 0 c 1.3 a 0 1.0 1.0 E E a m (n (n (o L1 Average Critical Dry Wet MWDOC Retail Water Usage 120.000 100.000 •1 111 � 1 111 20,000 — 0 - Cumulative thru August 105,209 Cumulative thruAug Savings -9% Target Actuals MWDOC Imported Water Usage 35,000 30.000 25.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 0 241762 241793 Savings 0% 29,336 Savings 291692 +1% July August R Target Actuals Reasons for the over usage of Imported Water ■ OCWD purchased its entire imported allocation in the months of July and August (6,800 AF) ■ A number of groundwater basin agencies increased their purchase of imported water to avoid the $122/AF MET increase effective Sept. 1. v Summary of "Retail Water Usage" [1] in FY 2009-10 Actual Usage vs Retail Target, in Acre-Feet D R A F T cumulative thru August 2009 Retail Pct. Target Actual Differe MWDOC Client Agency [2] Usage nce Brea 2,584 2,144 -17% Buena 3,699 3,301 -11% EOCWD Retail Zone 246 246 0% El Toro WD 2,139 1,928 -10% Fountain Valley 2,203 2,098 -5% Garden Grove 6,076 5,368 -12% Golden State WC 6,379 5,752 -10% Huntington Beach 6,654 6,344 -5% Irvine Ranch WD 16,368 13,668 -16% preliminary- por. estimated La Habra 2,362 2,119 -10% La Palma 496 467 -6% Laguna Beach CWD 839 829 -1% Mesa Consol. WD 4,260 3,821 -10% Moulton Niguel WD 6,599 6,532 -1% Newport Beach 3,786 3,639 -4% OCWD 6,805 6,805 0% define target = use Orange 7,104 6,686 -6% San Clemente 2,221 2,113 -5% San Juan Capistrano [3] 2,021 1,913 -5% Santa Margarita WD 7,549 6,654 -12% Seal Beach 920 837 -9% Serrano WD 850 722 -15% South Coast WD 1,432 1,365 -5% Trabuco Canyon WD 672 412 -39% preliminary- por. estimated Tustin 2,908 2,706 -7% Westminster 2,772 2,487 -10% Yorba Linda WD 5,264 4,656 -12% MWDOC Total 105,209 95,611 -9% [1] "Retail" usage includes MET water and Local water (except for recycled water). (2] Retail Target is sum of projected Local Supplies and Imported water allocation. [3] SJC's Target is subject to change pending a review of historical imported water usage data. prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 9/22/2009 Fie-1 DRAFT Monthly Retail Water Usage: Actual versus FY 02.10 Target [31 Retail Retail Agency: Yorba Linda WD Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total Target Retail Usage Calculation Acre-Feet Retail Usage Pattern 0.122 0.118 0.108 0.085 0.076 0.066 0.056 0.052 0.052 0.069 0.093 0.102 1.000 prof. Local Supplies 09-10 10,573 Import Allocation [21 11,379 Target [31 Retail Use O9- 2,609 2,595 2,376 1,863 1,658 1,459 1,230 1,138 1,152 1,524 2,049 2,239 21,952 "Refill" [11 Usage, by Source MET water punch. 933.4 961.4 1,894.8 plus CUP 1,212.0 979.8 2,191.8 MET punch. from - MET sold to MET Total 2,145 1,941 - - - - - - - - - 4,087 OCWDGW 1403.6 1357.6 2,761.2 less CUP (1,212.0) (979.8) - - - - - - - - - (2,191.8) other other other. Loral Total 192 376 - - - - - - - - - 589 "Retail" [t) Usage 09-1( 2,337 2,319 - - - - - - - - - 4,856 3,000 "Retail" [1] Usage: Actual vs Target 2,500 Yorba Linda WD FY 2009-10 2,000 w . 1,500 w v 1,000 a 500 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun B Target ■Actual [11 "Retail' usage Includes MET water and Local water (except for recycled water) (21 Imported water Allocation is subject to change with pmjection of Local Supplies and other variables. [31 Target is projected Local water plus imported water Allocadon prepared by MunidpatWamr District of Orange County ar=09 Fig. Cumulative Retail Water Usage: Actual versus FY 0940 Target [3] Retail mmulat]" through the end of the last month shown Yorba Linda WD cumulative Usage Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ad), Baseline 11) 2,826 5,575 8,091 10,065 11,821 13,386 14,668 15,874 17,094 18,708 20,878 23250 Target [2) 2,689 5,264 7,840 9,503 11,161 12,620 13,850 14,988 16,140 17,664 19,713 21,952 Actual Usage [31 To Date 2,337 4,656 Actual versus Target -12.4% -11.5% Cumulative "Retail" [1] Usage Target FY Total 25,000 DRAFT 20,000 15,000 w -Actual W LL W ~ "Target" V - "Adj. Baseline" Q 10,000 5,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun (1) Adjusted Baseline Is everege'Retail" usage in 2004- 2006 plus an adjustor rm for growth since 2006. (21 Target is projected Local water usage plus imported water Allocation. 131 Act al'Retair usage includes actual MET water delivedes and Local water (except for recycled water) prepared by MunidpalWater District of Orange County 9122=9 California Counting On Desalination • State Water Plan Update - need for 500,000 AF/Year of desalination by 2030 • MET- old IRP planning on 150,000 AF/Year of desalination by 2020; new IRP goals being established NOW • Regional and local water agencies adopting desalination as part of water management plans • Approximately 20 seawater desalination projects in various stages of development Proposed seawater Northern Desalination California: ur Plants in California Total Capacity D - 50 - 125 MGD .FnD waa , 10.0 a D Na aal. waM, rr~~ ..dui..,.. . 2-5104 D tE. so n D w.gwe r ~ .p 3.0 D umo,o cvu wwr. o:,a.+ ec ' ` 7.6 rn D Southern smm ce, California: y~@ Total Capacity ° ' • = 200 - 250 MGD (Cu asY, no plans) w!Sn ,y1 0. , 20.0 M D Ei mnaroo to.olADD a dam Eo.u MGD 15.0 6401) (Ca.ntlg as plena) a"' °ne11e sp.a eecD ".a San Dla MA 50-IN YGD Desalinated Ocean Water Is Now Cost Competitive • Desal Technology Costs 86% Decline in Membrane Cost Dropping 94% Increase in Productivity • Use of existing infrastructure Membrane Productivity vs • Increased production efficiency • Imported water costs rising - 20% increase in Sept. 2009 to: • $701/AF (Tier One) • $811/AF (Tier Two) OoDory Ce 4'o4p4P4P~op4"ocPo Desal cost dropping K K s~ K K ro • -Membrane Productivity - Currently about $1,400/AF -Membrane Cost - MET $250 incentive - $1,150/AF aww~ew•e o...•.cwm. South Orange Coastal Ocean ' Desalination l Project • 15 million gallons per day meets about 25% of the , 2025 water demands for: a y - Laguna Beach - San Clemente - San Juan Capistrano - Moulton Niguel WD - South Coast WD • All five agencies can Desalination Plant _ physically receive the water Service Area into their systems Project is Unique and Well Supported • Utilizes slant well intake system to be protective of the ocean environment • Utilizes an EXISTING ocean outfall for brine discharge; makes discharge closer in salinity to that of the natural ocean water to improve mixing, reduces suspended solids • Concept is supported by the local environmental community, local agencies (water and cities) and supported by the California Coastal Commission, Department of Water Resources, Bureau of Reclamation and State Parks South' a Orange Coastal Ocean Desalination Project Concept Pro "ect Layout Test Slant Well Schematic Drill Rig Ocean Surface nd Surface 23° 3s0 feet ~ Ocean Bottom Main Aquifer ( I Infiltration 40 to 130 feet y' Test Slant Well 325 feet Dana Point Ocean Desal Project • Pilot Plant start-up March 2010 • Pilot Plant Testing Completed 2012 • Permitting/Design Completed 2013 • Construction Start 2014 • Start-up 2016 Huntington Beach Desalination Facility Location: City of Huntington Beach ` Size: 50 million gallons per day (56,000 AF per year) Technology: Reverse Osmosis r Membrane Filtration using existing seawater circulating water intake and discharge piping infrastructure Huntington Estimated $500 million; EPC Beach Power Cost: contractor team selected Station without Desa/ Project Water 100% capacity under Supply: consideration Schedule: On-Line 2013 Huntington Beach Permitting History Local Land Use City of Huntington Beach EIR Permits: Certified Sept 2005 (Appeal a.. denied Nov 2006) u Conditional Use Permit - Feb 2006 Coastal Development Permit - Feb 2006 NPDES Permit: Discharge Permit - Aug 2006, Santa Ana Regional Board (Appeal o denied Aug 2007)x+ CA Depart of Conceptual approval - Aug 2002 Public Health: State Lands Lease for intake and discharge Commission: piping-Hearing 2010 California Coastal Development Permit - Coastal Hearing 2010 Commission: Regional sy. Benefits ° ° ~r • 50% of OC water is imported ® M1 • Diversification of Supplies • Approximately 8 Percent of Orange _ County Demand y Drought-Proof Source :I • High Water Quality • No Significant ..wa. w a.. Environmental + Impacts m~ it Economic Benefits • Nearly $70 Million in local and regional tax payments - $1.8 Million per year in property tax paid to Huntington Beach - $50,000 per year contribution to the City of Huntington Beach in utility tax • 2,100 jobs during construction. • Once fully operational, facility will create 18 Full-time jobs and 322 Indirect jobs 0 Project Labor Agreement (MOU) 141 Huntington Beach Generating Station I eMr r r Huntington Beach Desalination Facility r { Wr, I r j G Y Why Huntington Beach? • Conforms to Existing Zoning Regulations • Proximity to Ocean Source Water 4x • Proximity and Access to Regional Water Distribution Pipeline • Existing Infrastructure Available Project Flow Schematic 11 NMII P.01 C..I. Nip E.,r o .rl. ~:n... MGOmmlltlen~~,l peldry Po~PIo~S~h PoewtlWRwlV ®®aj Desallnatlon Plm.nm,Nn Plant i' / s, M6N I,.f ppO rs~ \ 4 NINb pud11Y A., , pe tanks p..d.d W.I. I.. lw.l - w2 NPoNm1 Wn.r N.PNY SY,la,u Energy Consumption - Indirect GHG Emissions Huntington Beach Desalination Project Energy Required for Imported vs. Desalinated Water 4500 4000 3500 - Add'I carbon Q 3000 emitted will be \ 2500 Water offset by Poseidon = 2000 being 3 replaced ® Water Being Replaced 1500 bydesal by Desal Water 1000 water 500 0 Water Imported Desalinated Water from SWP Water Purchase Agreements - Status MOU with 14 OC Public water Agencies - Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) - City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department - El Toro Water District - Irvine Ranch Water District - Laguna Beach County Water District - Mesa Consolidated Water District IN1~~Ey`y - Moulton Niguel Water District 4 - City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency - Santa Margarita Water District - South Coast Water District - Trabuco Canyon Water District - City of Seal Beach - City of Garden Grove - Golden State Water Company Water Purchase Agreements - Status - MWDOC and 14 Agencies in detailed discussions with Poseidon • Financial negotiations -form of water purchase agreement; outline obligations on behalf of all parties • Screen Environmental documents • Complete system integration analysis • Detailed review of design components • Screen Permit documents Local Voter Perceptions • A poll of 500 registered Orange County voters was conducted regarding water issues and desalination. • Two major findings: - An overwhelming majority of OC voters are aware of the problems facing the county's water supply - 7 out of 10 voters consistently support projects to expand the county's water supply, including the proposed HB Desal Facility L HB Plant Desal Opinions There is a proposal by a private company to build and operate a seawater desalination facility in Huntington Beach. There would be no financial risk for taxpayers and the produced drinking water would serve Orange County residents. The facility also would take advantage of existing ocean pipeline infrastructure to create quality drinking water. Generally speaking, would you support or oppose this proposal? 60 76.4% Strongly/Somewhat Support Vs. so 12.4% Strongly/Somewhat Oppose ao 30 48.6 20 27.8 10 6.8 5.6 11.2 0 Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't Know Support Support Oppose Oppose Another Poll - Is Ocean Desal Good or Bad? Another possible way to increase our water supply is to use ocean desalination, the process of transforming salt water into fresh drinking water. When thinking about increasing Orange County's water supply, do you think ocean desalination is a good idea of bad idea? Very Good Idea 32.8°x6 Not Sure Good Idea 39.8% Be 13.8% Bad Idea 8,8% 8% 732V%/% Very Bad Idea 4.8% Bad Don't Kn ow/ 13.8% 8.8% Not Sure Good or Very Good Good = 73%! 39.8% Next Steps • Continue to negotiate and secure agreements with potential water customers • Obtain State Lands Commission permit- 2010 • Obtain California Coastal Commission permit - 2010 • Break Ground - 2010 • Start-up 2013 -