HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-26 - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Packet
AGENDA
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, September 26, 2016, 8:30 AM
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Lindon Baker
Carl Boznanski
Rick Buck
Bill Guse
Fred Hebein
Joe Holdren
Modesto Llanos
Cheryl Borden
3. 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 three minutes.
4. 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.
4.1. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's (MWD) Comment Letter to Little
Hoover Commission Hearing on “Special Districts”
4.2. Conservation Update and Monthly Water Supply Report
4.3. Director's Report
4.4. Future Agenda Items
5. ADJOURNMENT
5.1. The next Citizens Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled to be held Monday, October
24, 2016 at 8:30 a.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.
ITEM NO. 4.1
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 26, 2016
To:Citizens Advisory Committee
From:Damon Micalizzi, Public
Information Manager
Subject:Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's (MWD) Comment Letter to
Little Hoover Commission Hearing on “Special Districts”
SUMMARY:
The Little Hoover Commission is reviewing California’s vast network of local governing agencies
known as special districts. State government has oversight responsibilities for the formation of new
districts and the operations of more than 4,500 existing local and regional districts which operate
airports, harbors, cemeteries, hospitals, libraries and parks, while also providing fire-fighting and
paramedic services, flood control and water delivery throughout California.
The Commission held a public hearing that explored the roles of special districts, examining the
services they provide, their funding mechanisms, and challenges they must meet in a state as
diverse as California.
Attached is a copy of a letter from MWD General Manager, Jeff Kightlinger to the Little Hoover
Commission.
DISCUSSION:
The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks "Little Hoover" Commission on
California State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency
that was created in 1962. The Commission's mission is to investigate state government operations
and – through reports, recommendations and legislative proposals – promote efficiency, economy
and improved service.
The Commission’s creation and membership, purpose and duties and powers are enumerated in
statute. By statute, the Commission is a balanced bipartisan board composed of five citizen
members appointed by the Governor, four citizen members appointed by the Legislature, two
Senators and two Assembly members.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
MWD_to_Little_Hoover_-_09-09-16.pdf MWD Letter Backup Material
1
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Executive Office
September 9, 2016
Chairman Pedro Nava
Little Hoover Commission
925 “L” Street, Suite 805
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Little Hoover Commission Hearing on “Special Districts”
August 25, 2016
Dear Chairman Nava:
On behalf of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, I wish to submit the
following comments and background information for the Commission’s consideration.
Special districts in California have been created over time for local control over specific
local services. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, in many respects,
runs contrary to that tradition. Metropolitan was created for a regional purpose – to
import water supplies for a growing region – that began during the Great Depression and
continues to evolve to this day.
As the Little Hoover Commission revisits the organization and governance of special
districts in California, it is important to keep in mind that Metropolitan is a critical
institution as the largest regional water distributor and planner of its kind in the state and
nation.
The impetus of the contemporary review by the Little Hoover Commission and the
comments of panelists during the August 25 public hearing raised two pertinent policy
issues of importance to Metropolitan, that being property taxes and “retained earnings.”
We welcome this opportunity to provide some background in the hope of advancing an
informed discussion and debate.
Page 116 of 137
2
Property Taxes – Colorado River
Prior to constructing a reliable supply of imported water from the Colorado River to
Southern California, the property values of the inner core of Southern California were
approximately $2 billion. Today, that core has expanded to cover a portion of or all of six
counties and nearly 19 million people, with the property values of that core fast
approaching $3 trillion.
A reliable water supply is the driver behind that economic vitality and growth and the
increase in property values in Southern California over the subsequent generations. This
evolution has taken place in two significant increments that both involved the use of
property taxes to help make possible and to underwrite water infrastructure development.
Metropolitan was created in 1928 due to several growing Southern California cities
recognizing that they needed to act collectively to advance their water future. Alone they
could not solve their looming water challenge. Together they could.
The cities pursued the creation of Metropolitan through the California Legislature in order
to present to southland voters an opportunity in 1931 to assess a property tax within their
boundaries to construct a $220 million, 242-mile aqueduct system to the Colorado River
for a new source of imported supply. Although this capital project was worth
approximately 10 percent of the entire property value of the service area at the time, a
level of requested investment unmatched in modern history, voters overwhelmingly
approved the property tax. Initially, this was the sole revenue source for Metropolitan,
given there was no water to sell during construction. The method of retiring this financial
obligation evolved over time as direct purchases of water increased and the need to rely
solely on property taxes decreased.
Property Taxes – State Water Project
In 1960, as Southern California continued to expand and additional water supplies loomed
imperative, California voters approved the Burns Porter Act (Act) and the creation of the
State Water Project. As an engineering marvel, the State Water Project entailed the
construction of Oroville Dam on the Feather River, the world’s largest earthen dam, and the
444-mile California Aqueduct system from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to fast
urbanizing Southern California. The use of property taxes as an important financing
strategy was important then and remains so to this day.
The State Water Project was constructed by the State of California, solely through financial
and legal commitments of the participating public water agencies. The Act approved by
California voters authorized bond financing and directed the state to enter into contracts
obligating local water public agencies to pay 100 percent of the costs of the construction
and ongoing operation of the water supply and delivery system in exchange for
participation in the system. The Act created a property tax mechanism so the contracting
local public water agencies could retire such costs through collection of property taxes.
More importantly, from a state perspective, this Act ensured the local water agencies would
Page 117 of 137
3
collect the needed revenues to meet this financial obligation to the state. This is a
contractual requirement to protect the state general fund that continues to this day. As the
California Court of Appeal explained:
Through this procedure, the beneficiaries of the Water Plan become
the financial keystone and support rather than the General Fund and
the general taxpayer. Goodman v. County of Riverside, 140 Cal. App.
3d 900, 906, fn. 3 (1983) (quoting press release by Alan Cranston,
then State Controller).
The ability of Metropolitan and the other State Water Project contractors to recover State
Water Project costs through a property tax – approved by the voters – came as a result of
California’s need to advance water development while protecting the state General Fund.
Property Taxes – Today and into the Future
In the 1930s, property taxes comprised 100 percent of Metropolitan’s revenues. Today
that percentage is closer to 6 percent. Other fixed charges and volumetric water rates
comprise the bulk of Metropolitan revenues. The existing property tax assessment in
Southern California that helps to retire certain Metropolitan State Water Project costs is
exceedingly modest. For example, a home with an assessed valuation of $400,000 pays a
property tax to Metropolitan of $14 per year. The ad valorem tax rate is .0035 percent of
assessed valuations throughout Metropolitan’s service area.
Page 118 of 137
4
Metropolitan believes that maintaining this property tax rate is essential to the fiscal
integrity of the district in the long-term. Approximately 80 percent of our costs are fixed,
given the need to maintain and operate a water system in six counties that delivers water
to 26 member agencies – cities, local water districts and a county water authority – serving
nearly 19 million people. Yet 85 percent of Metropolitan’s revenues are variable, largely
due to the fluctuation in water sales. Maintaining the property tax mechanism remains
important from a statewide perspective as an assurance that Metropolitan and all State
Water Project contractors will meet their financial obligations to California.
Metropolitan and “Retained Earnings”
Lastly, a question has arisen as to whether Metropolitan has in excess of $6 billion in
“retained earnings” based on information contained in annual reports submitted by
Metropolitan to the California State Controller’s Office. Metropolitan complies with the
requirement to file this annual report, even though the reporting categories for this report,
such as “retained earnings,” can lead to a misunderstanding of Metropolitan’s actual
financial condition.
“Retained earnings” is a corporate term. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board
provides guidance to government agencies to use “Net Position” in financial reports, which
Metropolitan does. “Net Position,” however, is not a category available to government
agencies for reporting annual financial information to the State Controller. As such,
Metropolitan reflects its Net Position in the only available category currently available from
the State Controller, that being “retained earnings.”
Metropolitan’s Net Position – and what it reports in the “retained earnings” field in the
State Controller’s template – does not represent cash, on hand or otherwise. Instead, it
represents all of Metropolitan’s assets – including its physical infrastructure and essential
financial reserves – less liabilities.
Page 119 of 137
5
As of June 30, 2015, Metropolitan had a positive Net Position, due in large part to its
investment in capital assets, which represent 83 percent, or $5.7 billion, of its Net Position.
Metropolitan’s infrastructure includes the Colorado River Aqueduct, hundreds of miles of
pipelines, storage facilities such as Diamond Valley Lake and five of the largest water
treatment facilities in the nation. Metropolitan also has participation rights in the State
Water Project. Metropolitan’s unrestricted Net Position (including designated funds that
contractually must be held and not spent) for the same period was $739 million, or 10
percent, of total Net Position. The remaining 7 percent, or $442 million, of Net Position was
restricted by bond covenants and other external constraints.
Given that Metropolitan’s annual budget is approximately $1.8 billion, and revenues and
expenditures can vary significantly from one year to the next, it is appropriate for
Metropolitan to maintain adequate reserves. Likewise, Metropolitan maintains a six-month
supply of water in reserve in the event of a natural disaster that could cut off access to
imported water supplies. Moreover, given the size and reach of its regional system,
Metropolitan undertakes very large capital projects. The ten-year forecast for
Metropolitan’s Capital Investment Plan is $2 billion. Having adequate reserves is a
financial buffer that has saved ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the years
because of low interest rates resulting from high-credit ratings.
Looking Ahead
Significant investment decisions loom in the not-too-distant future for Southern California.
The Colorado River watershed has been in drought conditions since the turn of this
century, requiring new partnerships and investments to maintain supplies. Likewise, the
State Water Project faces a historic investment decision in the ongoing California WaterFix
process. Climate change, population growth and other challenges require expanded local
efforts to lower demand and increase supplies.
During the last two fiscal years, Metropolitan invested more than $450 million to promote
conservation throughout Southern California at the local level as a response to the five-year
historic drought. Metropolitan is also exploring the construction of the nation’s largest
recycled water facility in Los Angeles County as a way to partially offset the losses in
regional groundwater production that has resulted from lower local rainfall, which
translates to a higher demand on Metropolitan’s imported water supply system.
Maintaining a healthy financial condition and access to its traditional revenue sources
remains important to the fiscal integrity of Metropolitan now and into the future.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to provide information and share
Metropolitan’s perspective. Should the Commission or staff have any further questions or
Page 120 of 137
6
wish additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Kathleen Cole in
Metropolitan’s Sacramento office at (916) 650-2600.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Kightlinger
General Manager
cc: Members of the Little Hoover Commission
Carole D’Elia, Executive Director, Little Hoover Commission
Jim Wasserman, Deputy Executive Director, Little Hoover Commission
Page 121 of 137
ITEM NO. 4.2
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 26, 2016
Subject:Conservation Update and Monthly Water Supply Report
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
Water_Supply_Report.pdf Backup Material Backup Material
DATE: September 8, 2016
TO: Member Agencies – MWDOC Division One
FROM: Brett R. Barbre, Director – Division One
SUBJECT: Monthly Water Usage Data, Tier 2 Projection & Water Supply Information
The attached figures show the recent trend of water consumption in Orange County (OC),
an estimate of Tier 2 volume for MWDOC, and selected water supply information.
Fig. 1 OC Water Usage, Monthly by Supply OCWD Groundwater water was the
main supply in July.
Fig. 2 OC Water Usage, Monthly, Comparison to Previous Years Water usage in
July 2016 was low compared to the last 5 years with the exception of July
2015. Lower usage is primarily due to strong conservation efforts and
mandatory restrictions set by the Governor for the period of June 2015 to May
2016. In June 2016 all water conservation became voluntary for MWDOC
agencies.
Fig. 3 Historical OC Water Consumption OC water consumption is projected to be
517,000 AF in FY 2016-17 (this includes ~15 TAF of agricultural usage and
non-retail water agency usage). This is about 22,000 AF more than FY 2015-
16 and is about 55,000 AF less than FY 2014-15. Water usage per person is
projected to be slightly higher than in FY 2015-16 for Orange County at 145
gallons per day (This includes recycled water). Although OC population has
increased 20% over the past two decades, water usage has not increased, on
average. A long-term decrease in per-capita water usage is attributed mostly
to Water Use Efficiency (water conservation) efforts.
Fig. 4 MWDOC “Firm” Water Purchases, 2016 “Firm” water above the Tier 1 limit
will be charged at the higher Tier 2 rate. Our current projection of Tier 2
purchases is zero in 2016.
Water Supply Information Includes data on: Rainfall in OC; the OCWD Basin overdraft;
Northern California and Colorado River Basin hydrologic data; the State Water Project
(SWP) Allocation, and regional storage volumes. The data has implications for the
Memorandum
magnitude of supplies from the three watersheds that are the principal sources of water for
OC. Note that a hydrologic year is Oct. 1st through Sept. 30th.
Orange County’s accumulated rainfall through August was well below average for
this period. This continues the impact of the previous four hydrologic years’ below-
normal rainfall in reducing those local supplies that are derived from local runoff. El
Nino conditions have diminished and NOAA is predicted a moderate chance of La
Nina for next winter (La Nina is generally associated with cool dry winters in
Southern California).
Northern California accumulated precipitation in August was around 117% of normal
for this period. The Northern California snowpack is 97% of normal as of April 1st.
This follows three below-average hydrologic years. The State of California has been
in a declared Drought Emergency since January 2014. The State Water Project
Contractors Table A Allocation is at 60% as of the end of June.
Colorado River Basin accumulated precipitation in August was 96% average for this
period. The Upper Colorado Basin snowpack was 85% of normal as of April 15th.
This follows two below-average hydrologic years, the Colorado River Basin is in the
recovery of a long term drought. Lake Mead and Lake Powell combined have about
61% of their average storage volume for this time of year. If Lake Mead’s level falls
below a “trigger” limit 1,075 ft. at the end of a calendar year, then a shortage will be
declared by the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), impacting Colorado River water
deliveries for the Lower Basin states. As of late August Lake Mead levels were
slightly below the “trigger” limit but fortunately levels are expecting to increase due to
water releases schedule at Lake Powell. The USBR predicts that the “trigger” level
will not be hit by the end of 2016.
MUNICId Surface Water =Non-OCWD Groundwater
WATGR
G ATER Fig. 1A OC Water Usage, Monthly by Supply iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiRecycled (Non Potable) .Import[1]
OF
RA TM with projection to end of fiscal year =projected [3] =OCWD Basin [2]
—Rainfall
60,000 1 .0
- 0.9
50,000 0.8
40,000 0.7
W00 �-
0.6
10
a 30,000 0.5
co
- 0.4 4-
20,000
20000 � � � � �
�- 0.31Y_
10,000 �� 01 1 0.2
0.1
0 0.0
ti ti ti ti ti ti
, , , ,
co CL
Q (n O Z 0 li �Q 2
[1] Imported water for consumptive use. Includes"In-Lieu"deliveries and CUP water extraction. Excludes"Direct Replenishment"deliveries of spreading water, "Barrier Replenishment"
deliveries, and deliveries into Irvine Lake.
[2] GW for consumptive use only. Excludes In-Lieu water deliveries and CUP water extraction that are counted with Import. BPP in FY'15-16 is 75%.
[3] MWDOC's estimate of monthly demand is based on the projected FY 15-16"Retail"water demand and historical monthly demand patterns.
[4] Total water usage includes IRWD groundwater agricutural use and usage by non-retail water agencies.
-- ----- MUNICIPAL =surface Water Non-OCW
D Groundwater
WATER
MIS TRIOTFig. 1 B OC Water Usage, Monthly by Supply Recycled (Non Potable) Import[1]
- OF
COUNTY with projection to end of fiscal year =OCWD Basin [2] =projected [3]
High Temp
60,000 90
50,000 85CD
- 80 �
co
40,000 - 75
Q E
30,000 �� ��` - 709
20,000
- 60cy)
10,000
55 >
0 �, _ 50
C-0 C.0 C-0 C.0 C-0 C.0 ti ti ti ti ti ti
+r L L
Q cn O z 0 �i 2 Q
[1] Imported water for consumptive use. Includes"In-Lieu"deliveries and CUP water extraction. Excludes"Direct Replenishment"deliveries of spreading water, "Barrier Replenishment"
deliveries, and deliveries into Irvine Lake.
[2] GW for consumptive use only. Excludes In-Lieu water deliveries and CUP water extraction that are counted with Import. BPP in FY'15-16 is 75%.
[3] MWDOC's estimate of monthly demand is based on the projected FY 15-16"Retail"water demand and historical monthly demand patterns.
[4] Total water usage includes IRWD groundwater agricutural use and usage by non-retail water agencies.
MUNICIPAL
"-. OF
WATER Fig. 2A OC Monthly Water Usage [1]: Comparison to Last 4 Fiscal Partial Year
DISTRICT
ORANGE
cou" Years Subtotals
70,000 700,000
60,000 600,000
50,000 500,000
Lu 40,000 W 400,000
u; W
Lh
LL
a 30,000 300,000
a
20,000 200,000
10,000 100,000
+- L L
Q u) O z o LL Q 2
❑ FY 11-12 ❑ FY 13-14 ❑ FY 14-15 ❑ FY 15-16 ❑FY 16-17
[1] Sum of Imported water for consumptive use(includes"In-Lieu"deliveries; excludes"Direct Replenishment"and'Barrier Replenishment')and Local water for consumptive use
(includes recycled and non-potable water; excludes GWRS production, groundwater pumped to waste, and waste brine from water treatment projects.) Recent months numbers
include some estimation.
MUNICIPAL
WATER
-
DISTRICT
ORANGE Fig. 213 Orange County Cumulative Monthly Consumptive Water Usage [1]:
COUNTY present year compared to last 4 calendar years
650,000
- CY 2012, 588 TAF
600,000
550,000
CY 2013, 605 TAF
-
CY 2014, 612 TAF /
500,000 `
CY 2015, 515 TAF
450,000 ICY 2016, ??? TAF
400,000 -
Lb 350,000
a 300,000 • - . . -
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
[1] Sum of Imported water for consumptive use(includes"In-Lieu"deliveries; excludes"Direct Replenishment"and"Barrier Replenishment')and Local water for consumptive use
(includes recycled and non-potable water; excludes GWRS production and waste brine from water quality pumping projects).
-� -v MUNIOIPAL
" WATERCT Fig. 3A HISTORICAL WATER CONSUMPTION[l] AND POPULATION[2] IN OC t�ConsumptiveWaterUse
OF
ORANGE --o—Population
COUMTY P
800,000 3.50
Strong Economy
750,000
- 3.00
700,000
- 2.50�
a Weak Economy o
U) 650,000 Dry Year
EIF] - 2.00 p
w
600,000 D y Year Wet Year J
D y Year
W 3 Year W�t Year 0
- 1.500
550,000 Wet Year
Wet Year
Wet Year
1.00
500,000
450,000 �_- 0.50
400,000 — 0.00
190 191 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 199 100 101 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-91 -92 -93 -94 -95 -96 -97 -98 -99 -00 -01 -02 -03 -04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -09 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17
Fiscal Year
[1] Consumption includes potable, recycled and non-potable usage; excludes Barrier and Spreading water. The most recent data involve some estimation.
[2] Population estimates in the 2000s decade were revised by the State Dept.of Finance to reflect the 2010 Census counts.
[3] Projection of FY 15-16 water use estimated by MWDOC based on partial-year data.
MUNICIPAL
DIS WATER �Fig. 313 HISTORICAL WATER CONSUMPTIONN AND Annual Rainfall[2] oConsumptive Water Use
ORANGE
JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL COUNTY IN OC --o—$.A.Rainfall
750,000 35
i
Strong Economy
700,000 30
650,000 Weak Economy 25
U_ H
Q L
W
D 600,000 20
W
Lu
550,000 15
500,000 - 10
450,000 ` 5
o
400,000 _- 0
90 91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 98 99 00 101 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-91 -92 -93 -94 -95 -96 -97 -98 -99 -00 -01 -02 -03 -04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -09 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17
Fiscal Year
[1] Consumption includes potable, recycled and non-potable usage; excludes Barrier and Spreading water. The most recent data involve some estimation.
[2] Rainfall data from Santa Ana Station#121
WATER Fig. 3C HISTORICAL WATER CONSUMPTION[1] AND Annual Average High oConsumptiveWaterUse
DISTRICT
-` ONG6 Temperature[2] IN OC High Temp
----= COUOUNTY
750,000 85
Strong Economy - 84
700,000 - 83
- 82
650,000 Weak Economy 81 a
ai - 80
W - 79
600,000 (D
LU - 78 E
a - 77
550,000 76
- 75 a
500,000
- 73
450,000 — — — — 31�10
"- 72
71
400,000 70
190 191 192 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-91 -92 -93 -94 -95 -96 -97 -98 -99 -00 -01 -02 -03 -04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -09 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17
Fiscal Year
[1] Consumption includes potable, recycled and non-potable usage; excludes Barrier and Spreading water. The most recent data involve some estimation.
[2] Temperature data is from Santa Ana Fire Station, elevation 135'
MUNICIPAL Fig. 3D HISTORICAL WATER CONSUMPTION[1] AND Average Unemployment[2] IN
WATER
DISTRICT
OF
- ORANGE OC
COUNTY
750,000 0%
o Consumptive Water Use
Strong Economy 1%
--0—Unemployment% i
700,000 2%
Weak Economy 3%
650,000 F__14%
0
Q 5%
n
LU 6% g
600,000
7%Lu
e
8% m
550,000 E
9% O
10, a
10% m
500,000
11%
12%
450,000 13%
14%
400,000 15%
190 191 '92 '93 '94 195 '96 '97 '98 199 100 101 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-91 -92 -93 -94 -95 -96 -97 -98 -99 -00 -01 -02 -03 -04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -09 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17
Fiscal Year
[1] Consumption includes potable, recycled and non-potable usage; excludes Barrier and Spreading water. The most recent data involve some estimation.
[2] Employment Data source Bureau of Labor Statistic for Long Beach-L.A.-Santa Ana Metro Area
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
MUNICIPAL+DFig. 3E HISTORICAL WATER CONSUMPTION[1] AND POPULATION DENSITY[2] IN OC
WATER
OFISTRICT
ORANGE
COUNTY
750,000
oConsumptive Water Use
Strong Economy
Population Density D Year 4,000
700,000
Dry Year
650,000 F__1 omit
Qt
3,750-2-
LU
Wet Year to
600,000 D y Year
W-t Year d
LU Wet Year y
Qsl
Wet Year 3,500 m
550,000
a
WeS Year 0, #Year A
:y
C
500,0001001p
3,250 p
i=
450,000
a
O
a
400,000 3,000
190 '91 '92 '93 '94 195 '96 '97 198 199 100 101 '02 '03 '04 105 '06 '07 '08 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-91 -92 -93 -94 -95 -96 -97 -98 -99 -00 -01 -02 -03 -04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -09 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17
Fiscal Year
[1] Consumption includes potable, recycled and non-potable usage; excludes Barrier and Spreading water. The most recent data involve some estimation.
[2] Population estimates in the 2000s decade were revised by the State Dept. of Finance to reflect the 2010 Census counts.
W_ _ �
WATER-A` Fig. 3F HISTORICAL WATER CONSUMPTION[11 AND GPCD [2] IN OC oConsumptive Water Use
o arRicr
ORANGE --o—GPCD
COUNTY
750,000 240
Strong Economy
230
700,000
220
\ Weak Economy 210
650,000 - �
0
a 200 a
n
L 190
D 600,000
LU180
3: 550,000 101
170
160
500,000
150
140
450,000
130
400,000 IPA 120
'90 91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 199 100 101 '02 '03 '04 105 '06 '07 '08 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-91 -92 -93 -94 -95 -96 -97 -98 -99 -00 -01 -02 -03 -04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -09 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17
Fiscal Year
[1] Consumption includes potable, recycled and non-potable usage; excludes Barrier and Spreading water. The most recent data involve some estimation.
[2] Gallon per Capita Daily(includes all types of water usage and all type of water users).
Fig. 4 MWDOC's Firm Water Purchases in CY 2016 °Untreated Total Treated
Monthly Actual and Projected to CY Total oProj Monthly Purchases Cumulative Actual
30,000 350,000
Tier I
25,000 300,000
00 OF
�^
250,000
20,000
■ I dO 200,000
Q
� 15,000 �
T 150,000
op E
0 10,00000
100,000
00
5,000 Proiected
6 Year Monthly MAX 50,000
6 Year Monthly Avg
6 Year Monthly Low
I I I I
Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16
Notes
1. "Firm"includes Full Service(both Treated and Untreated)and Barrier water.
2. Basin Pumping Percentage(BPP)is the percentage of a retail water agency's total water demand that they are limited to pump from the OCWD-managed groundwater basin. BPP pertains to Basin agencies only. For
example,if a Basin agency's total demand is 10,000 AF/yr and OCWD sets the BPP at 72%,then the agency is limited to 7,200 AF of groundwater that year. There may be certain exceptions and/or adjustments to that
simple calculation. OCWD sets the BPP for the Basin agencies,usually as of July 1st.
MUNICIPAL
WATER prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County printdate 9/3/2016
DISTRICT
OF *numbers are subject to change
ORANGE
COUNTY
OF
Accumulated Precipitation
for the Oct.-Sep. water year, through late August 2016
This Year to date ■ Average to date Average End of Year
= Percent of Average to Date
60 118
55 CA Snowpack
50 on 4/1/2016 Colorado
45 Snowpack on
4/15/2016
40
35v
` 30 97/ 96%
25
20 85
15
10 49
5
0
ORANGE N. SIERRAS 8- NORTHERN UPPER BASIN UPPER BASIN
COUNTY STATION INDEX CALIF. COLORADO COLORADO
(SANTA ANA) SNOWPACK PRECIP. SNOWPACK
MUNICIPAL *The date of maximum snowpack accumulation (April 1st in Northern Calif., April 15th in
WATER
O1STF3ICT
OF the Upper Colorado Basin) is used for year to year comparison.
ORANGE
COUNTY
MUNICIPAL
oFTRICT SWP TABLE A ALLOCATION
COUNTY FOR STATE WATER PROJECT CONTRACTORS
u5% 65% Final 2012: 65%
a
60y" 60% 60°/
60% 60% 60% Final 2016: 60%
0% 50% 60
0000
40%
40% 40% 5/°
35% c 35% 35% Final 2013: 35%
0°
20% 20% 20% 20
15%�5° 00000 15% Final 2015: 20%
10% 10% 5/°1,109. ° 5%
10% 5% Final 2014: 5%
5% .0% 0% 0%
.0000000000
Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun.
a=Water Year 2012 - mWater Year 2013 Water Year 2014 -jaWater Year 2015 - -Water Year 2016
Imported Water Deliveries Vs. California Population Growth
T"G"pL 2003,CRA QSA is signed lowering _ 45
o CRA usage to 4.4 MAF
0 500
- 40 .0
x =
400
r
y O
300 - 30
M
0 200 2008,ESA results in Delta Pumping 25 o-
restrictions M
- E
Q 100 l ra j/'4 _ 20 _
V
0 15
Nq �ga�,�°�a" ,0�1 N,�galb,�°�1`6,�°J(ZP Nq Nq
�°�'(61, '00b �4'��0�qO�°�qti�°�qN��R��q�� DO ��`L�p���p�o �� ,�� �� �� ��
=CA Population Total SWP Deliveries —CRA Deliveries to MWD —CRA Deliveries to CA
SWP SWP Allocation % Vs. Station 8 Accumulated Rainfall been 100 n%has=h
LJ been 100%once since the
100%
100% 100% year 2000 100 =
90% 90i 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 90
100%
80% 80 O
Z
° 70% 70% - 70 C
= 65% 65% N
r 60% 60% 60° 0 Q t
p50% 50% 50% 50
45% Q.
Q 40% 39% 40% 40 '0 _
d 35% 20% 41 i
3: 30% 30% ss% - 30 a
CO -0
o _
° Natural Accumulated Run c v
20
10% pff - 10
0% 1 1 1 1 1 5
0 Q
�qco(b�qa`)N�-`L��aNq Noo�aq'Noo�q'O No�`b`L NOJ Noo�`b�O No�`b4'Nq Nq Nq Nq Nq RP���O,LpO`L,Lp�D,Lp�6,Lp�4'���0�p,� ,�D�tiQ�, Q
=Station 8 Accumulated Rainfall (Inches) —SWP Allocation %
MUNICIPAL O.C. Basin Accumulated Overdraft
WATER
OISTRICT
OF
ORANGE
GGUNTY Annual, 1969 to Present
50,000 Basin Full in 19691-1
376,500 AF end of July 2016
100,000
150,000
200,000
v
CU
a 250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000 � � Basin •l me
`
filled •
500,000
01 O ci N M lf1 lD I� 00 01 O 00 N M 00 N 00 00 00 01 O 0) N M M N M I) 00 0) O ci N M CD 0 l0 0 00 01 O c-I N M -4 N l0
lD I� n n n n n n n n n 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O O O O O O O O O O c-I c-I c-I c-I a••I a••I a••I
01 01 01 O 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O 01 01 01 01 O O O O O 01 01 01 01 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Accumulated Overdraft (dewotered volume)shown as white area,excluding the volume stored by Metropolitan.source:OCWD
Acre-Feet
V1 A A W W N N Ln Ln
F-
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O ,
O O O O O O O O O O
1969 011 C
1970 Cnnu�ac
�z
zz an-
1971 n ayk m D
1972 rr
1973
1974
1975 0
1976 d n
1977
1978 T
: 1979 - 3 3,
n 1980 - f �
�-o N
1981 - A
c 1982
1983 ---
a =_
1984 - --------
m --
�az
1985 � fl)
1986 1 M
1987 —
1988
G
a 1989 • Y m
`0 1990 Q
1991 r
.. vii �
1992 (D ;:h
1993 r+ C
1994 !A
1995 D
1996 n
o `
0 1997
1998 _ _ '�^ fu
a 1999
2000 Iy
lb 2001
2002 a)
l 2003
0 2004
2005
2006 ------
- ------ -
c 2007vi
0 2008 --` 3 o N
0
2009 C p m , n
20100
c A ° <
m 0
2011 a,. 0 T n
G D
0 2012 Y a� °D
2013
2014
2015
2016 �..T.. - ... .. � .. ................> r
O In O n
Annual Rainfall(inches)
MUNICIPAL ®Stored Vol(AF)
W- O.C. Basin Accumulated Overdraft Vs. BPP
OESTRIGT \
OP D Dewatered Vol(AF)
ORANGE -(•_
�O�NrV Annual, 1999 to Present BPP°/
- � 90%
WW
/.�.
80%
50,000 so%
75% 75% 75% 75% 74% ���•{�� 75%
100,000 % 69%
150,000 --Cr
60%
200,000
50%
01
v 250,000 a
a
m
0 40%
300,000
30%
350,000
20%
400,000
450,000 O.C. • • ��: 10%
filled with water
500,000 Ih 0%
d1 O N N M '�T Ln O n 00 O1 O e-I N M N O
d1 O O O O O O O O O O N e-I N e-I N N N
Ol O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Accumulated Overdraft (dewatered volume)shown as white area,excluding the volume stored by Metropolitan.source:OCWD
MUNICIPAL I Stored Vol(AF)
WATER O.C. Basin Accumulated Overdraft Vs. Annual Rainfall
DISTRICT D Dewatered Vol(AF)
OF
Annual, 1999 to Present
Annual Rainfall(Inches) MN
; r. ^ 35
50,000
30
s
100,000 3
150,000 25
200,000 ; 20
c
250,000 1 w
1 \ 15
300,000 3
\ i \ c
\ \ c
350,000 \
1 -----c' � 10
400,000 %� %
% a
450,000 O.C. volume Basin
filledwith water • �•:
500,000 -� 0
O\ O .••1 N M -e Ln to N 00 0) O c•1 N M -e Ln W
M O O O O O O O O O O .••1 N e•I ai 14 14 14
T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Accumulated Overdraft (dewatered volume)shown as white area,excluding the volume stored by Metropolitan.source:OCW D
State Water Prosect, Colorado River, and MWD Reservoir Storage 25 Lake Powell
as of August,30th 2016
20
Lake Shasta Lake Oroville
4.0 15
4.0 — v
a 3.0
3.0
LL 10 a
w LL `o
2.0 `u -
_ = 54/ 73%
2.0 0 69% 1.0 3/0 5
1.0 0.0 2 o
kk
0.0 ! -
2.5 San Luis Resv.
2'0 LL Lake Mathews
i.o a 75%
Lake Mead
0.5 = CO
0.0 J o 25
Diamond Valley 20
v
LL
1.0 - 62% 15 L
0.5 - a .
0.0 10
0
• of Capacity s 37 O
• of Historical Avg. '' G — - -
0
I����T`� ore��,m.ore�•�..�w�.,o�,��n„o,.�,.���,�
-- --- MUNICIPAL
Lake Mead Levels: Historical and Projected oFTa;�
- --- .'r
projection per USBR 24-Month Study
1,180
■Historical ElProjected
1,170
1,160
1,150
1,140 \
1,130 I�
01,120
x21,110
W I 1
1,100
1,090
Shortage Trigger=1,075 ft
1,080
1,070
1,060
1,050
Jan 02 Jan 03 Jan 04 Jan 05 Jan 06 Jan 07 Jan 08 Jan 09 Jan 10 Jan 11 Jan 12 Jan 13 Jan 14 Jan 15 Jan 16 Jan 17 Jan 18