kevin hostert orange county water future
DESCRIPTION
AbstractOrange County’s water has mainly been supplied by importing water from Northern California and the Colorado River. For years the region has been highly dependent on foreign water to provide for its increasing population. Current technologies have been developed around the world that can provide more feasible ways of relieving imported supplies. With the uncertainties of climate change bringing future droughts to California and the cost of maintaining an aging canal system, Orange County needs to focus on creating more sustainable methods for the future water supply. The purpose of this research is to examine the current and future of Orange County’s water supply and determine the potential reality of a completely sustainable supply for the region. Annual cost, environmental factors and initial capacity will be examined to determine the value of a completely localized system. This research will present the value of all local water methods and present a portrait of how these methods can contribute to a localized system. This research will focus mainly on five methods of delivering water to Orange County. These five methods are ocean desalination, recycled water, ground water recharge, surface storage and the use of imported water.TRANSCRIPT
I
An in Depth Analysis of Orange County’s Water Future, A look at a
Completely Sustainable Water Supply in the next 25 Years.
_______________________________________________________
A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University Fullerton
_______________________________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Environmental
Studies
_______________________________________________________
By Kevin Bryan Hostert
Approved By:
__________________________ __November 18th
, 2011____
Dr. Jonathan Taylor, Project Advisor Date
Department of Geography
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………... i
ACRONYMS…………………………………………………………………………………………. ii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………………… iii
Section
I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………… 1
Purpose and Methodology……………………………………………………………… 4
Water Agencies………………………………………………………………………… 6
Sustainability…………………………………………………………………………… 7
II. HISTORY OF WATER IN ORANGE COUNTY…………………………………….. 7
Before European Influence…………………………………………………………….. 7
Spanish and Mexican Water Use………………………………………………………. 8
Agricultural Boom in Orange County………………………………………………….. 9
The Beginning of Importing Water…………………………………………………….. 11
Improving Local Supplies……………………………………………………………… 14
III. THE POSSIBILTY OF A SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY………………………………… 18
Orange County Water 2010……………………………………………………………. 18
Projected Water Supply in 2035……………………………………………………….. 20
Local Vs Non-Local Water Supplies…………………………………………………... 22
Reaching A Sustainable Supply………………………………………………………... 24
The Cost of Sustainability……………………………………………………………… 29
Benefits of Desalination………………………………………………………………... 32
Benefits of Recycled Water…………………………………………………………….. 33
IV. PUBLIC ACEPTANCE, TOILET TO TAP?......................................................... .......... 34
Setbacks In San Diego………………………………………………………………….. 35
Public Outcry, The Toowoomba Case………………………………………………….. 36
Analyzing Public Perspectives………………………………………………………….. 37
V. GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES……………………………………………………………. 39
Singapore……………………………………………………………………………….. 39
Namibia…………………………………………………………………………………. 41
VI. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………. 42
VII. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………….. 45
VIII. FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………….. 50
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………………………. 65
i
Abstract
Orange County’s water has mainly been supplied by importing water from Northern
California and the Colorado River. For years the region has been highly dependent on foreign
water to provide for its increasing population. Current technologies have been developed around
the world that can provide more feasible ways of relieving imported supplies. With the
uncertainties of climate change bringing future droughts to California and the cost of maintaining
an aging canal system, Orange County needs to focus on creating more sustainable methods for
the future water supply. The purpose of this research is to examine the current and future of
Orange County’s water supply and determine the potential reality of a completely sustainable
supply for the region. Annual cost, environmental factors and initial capacity will be examined
to determine the value of a completely localized system. This research will present the value of
all local water methods and present a portrait of how these methods can contribute to a localized
system. This research will focus mainly on five methods of delivering water to Orange County.
These five methods are ocean desalination, recycled water, ground water recharge, surface
storage and the use of imported water.
ii
Acronyms Used in this Report
AF Acre-Feet
AFY Acre-Feet Per Year
BPP Basin Production Percentage
DWR California Department of Water Resources
GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System
LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
MF Microfiltration
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
MWD Metropolitan Water District
OCWD Orange County Water District
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
PUB Public Utilities Board of Singapore
RO Reverse Osmosis
SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
SOCWA South Orange County Wastewater Authority
SWP State Water Project
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WCA Water Conservation Association
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: MWDOC Normal Water Supply Demand Projections
Table 2: MWDOC Water Supply Demand Percentages
Table 3: MWD Agencies Normal Water Supply Demand Projections
Table 4: MWD Agencies Normal Water Supply Demand Projections by City
Table 5: Orange County Historical Water Demand Use
Table 6: Orange county Population Projections
Table 7: Normal Water Supply Demand Projections
Table 8: Orange County Normal Water Supply Demand Projections
Table 9: Orange County Water Supply Demand Percentages
Table 10: Local Vs Non-Local Water Supply
Table 10-1: Average Amount of Imported Water for Groundwater Recharge
Table 11: Local Vs Non-Local Water Supply in Percentages
Table 12: Orange County Wastewater Supply
Table 13: Orange County Recycled Wastewater Supply
Table 14: Potential Sustainable Water for Orange County
Table 15: Santa Ana River Storm Flow the Last 13 Years
Table 16: Orange County Water Strategies, Benefits Analyses
Table 17: Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local Vs Non-Local
Table 18: Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local Vs non-Local with MWD Projected Rates
Table 19: MWD Projected Rates for Import Water to 2020
Table 20: Orange County Water Strategy, Initial Cost of Current Local Water Methods
Table 21: Orange County Water Strategies, Estimated Cost of Future Water
iv
List of Maps
Map 1: Orange County Water Consumption
Map 2: Orange County Water Providers
Appendix
Image 1: MWD Member Agencies
Image II: Orange County Potable Water Supply Organizational Chart
1
Introduction
Water in California has been an important issue since the state’s founding in the mid 19th
century. Essential to the state’s agriculture economy and the ever-expanding population, the
demand for water has led to a decrease in natural water supply consumption. As Southern
California developed over the past century the need to meet the water demand became a
challenge. With Southern California’s arid climate regions being home to the majority of the
state’s population, the need for water has led to an increasing dependence from areas outside of
the region. The majority of Southern California’s water supply originates in the northern part of
the state or in the Colorado River, hundreds of miles from the population centers of Los Angeles,
Orange and San Diego Counties. The need to bring water to the Southland is essential to the
regions economic development and population growth. This system of canals, pipes and
reservoirs is what has allowed Southern California to become one of the largest population
centers in the United States. Water has not only helped population growth but has also
physically changed the landscape. Imported irrigation has permitted Southern California to look
like a desert oasis. The region is covered with non-native plants that only survive on the non-
local water supply. The redistributing of water from Northern California and the Colorado River
has been deemed an incredible engineering feat and this accomplishment has made the southland
completely dependent on outside water sources.
Southern California’s dependence on imported water causes many problems. The
restructuring of water systems creates many environmental issues for local ecosystems. Mono
and Owens Lake are examples of how the Los Angeles Aqueduct destroyed natural habitats. The
Colorado River Delta has dried up due to dams and diversions to quench the region’s thirst. Dry
years in California lead to less snow pack and keep water prices at a premium, forcing
2
consumers to conserve. The uncertainties of annual rainfall create reliability issues for imported
water. These problems will not vanish and have forced water producers to think of more
sustainable ways to increase the water supply. Orange County currently uses many sustainable
ways to increase its water supply, including groundwater recharge, recycling water, surface
storage, and ocean water desalination (proposed projects in Huntington Beach and Dana Point).
These sustainable methods of producing clean drinking water provide Orange County with
multiple ways of meeting its water demand. The only problem is Orange County still is very
dependent on imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River. The purpose of
this research is to determine if Orange County could potentially have a completely sustainable
water supply. A sustainable water supply for Orange County could help alleviate the region’s
dependence on imported water. Increasing sustainable and local water supplies will also be more
effective in the case of natural disasters. Currently millions of Californians depend on the canals
and pipes that feed our region. In the rare event of a major natural disaster that could disrupt the
flow of these aqueducts, Southern California could potentially be cut off and forced to be
dependent on its scarce local water supply.
As someone who has spent the last year and a half working for a public water agency, I
have become more aware of how large of an effort it is to supply water for Orange County. Like
most residents in Orange County I was aware that our water supply was based on purchasing
imported water from the Colorado River and Northern California. As someone who travels up
the Owens Valley to Mammoth I heard the stories of what the L.A. Aqueduct did to the region
and have seen the incredible low water levels at Mono Lake. Importing water creates
devastating impacts on far-away local ecosystems and destroys natural watersheds.
Unfortunately, the thirst of the state must be met and certain sacrifices have been made in order
3
to provide all Californians with water. The Delta Smelt in the San Joaquin River Delta is an
example of water demand vs. environmental impact. The smelt has caused great controversy
over water supply deliveries for farmers in the central valley. The fish were dying due to human
activity on the delta. The debate on saving the Delta Smelt would be obsolete if the state’s cities
and counties could provide themselves with local water supplies. The Delta Smelt controversy is
a result of the lower part of the state relying on imported water deliveries for nearly 75 years. As
the state’s population continues to grow over the 21st century, the need to supply this valuable
resource will only lead to more problems. Many parts of the state will need to improve on
creating sustainable water supplies. This research will focus on the County of Orange and the
possibility of a sustainable water supply. A localized water system for Orange County could
provide localized models for surrounding cities and counties. This could provide huge relief on
imported supplies and help water supply reliability while promoting environmental
sustainability.
Understanding the severity of water problems around the world made me question the
possibility of sustainable water resources. Knowing that technology has improved vastly since
the construction of the state’s current imported water facilities and understanding that other parts
of the world are becoming more involved in promoting sustainable water methods, I posed the
question: Is it possible for a region in California to be completely independent in its own water
capabilities? This question was presented to me a few years ago, when I saw a documentary
about Singapore and its goal of becoming completely sustainable from imported water.
Traveling to Singapore I realized how densely populated that small island nation was and
realized its population was only slightly larger than Orange County. With Singapore being
located on the equator it does have the advantage of receiving more annual rainfall than Orange
4
County. A disadvantage for Singapore is the small island nation is unable to catch and store its
large amounts of rainfall and is force to purchase imported water from neighboring Malaysia.
Singapore’s water success came from desalination, surface storage, and recycled water. This
made me think, why are these techniques not being used in Southern California to alleviate the
imported water demand? Can Orange County be like Singapore and strive for a completely
localized water system? Is it even possible? The research question I intend to answer is what
would it take to create a completely sustainable or localized water supply in Orange County in
the next 25 years? The question is not proposing that a system based on local water is ideally the
best idea but a plausible one. Some factors to consider: What would the cost be for a sustainable
system? Would there be more or less environmental impacts? Is it realistic? Do we have the
technology? The purpose of this research is to create an in-depth analysis of a
sustainable/localized water supply for the year 2035.
Purpose and Methodology
The idea of this study is to provide water agencies with a conceptual understanding of
how to bridge the gap for an entire localized water supply in Orange County. This research is
not declaring that a localized water system is the best option but will examine the positive and
negative effects of a sustainable system. The rationale is to provide an overall model of a
sustainable system including annual and initial start up cost. This model will also determine the
most environmentally friendly aspects of water production and how they will be enhanced in the
future. The overall purpose of this research is to open up the possibilities for further
development of sustainable water methods for Orange County and the surrounding regions.
5
The methods used for this study involved focusing on water supply data projections for
the next 25 years. Most of the data that has been used for this project has come from local water
agencies. Water supply data and projections have been provided by the cities of Fullerton, Santa
Ana, Anaheim and the agencies of the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)
and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). A majority of groundwater
supply data was provided by the Orange County Water District. The validity of this data is
determined by the accuracy provided by these agencies in their 2010 UWMP reports. The
research design was created to provide a general overall view of future water demands and how
this supply can be supplemented by encouraging more local efforts. Orange County’s water
supply and projections were based on combining all the data from these multiple water reports.
The water statistics were based on years with average rainfall and did not take into consideration
extremely dry years or extremely wet years. Water supply takes into consideration all water uses
(ex. industrial, residential, agriculture). Because of Orange County’s suburban landscape, the
majority of water use is for local municipal and industrial uses. Sustainable methods for water
production were groundwater recharge, surface water use and recycled water. Desalination was
considered sustainable for this research purpose but currently is not available in Orange County.
Groundwater recharge was considered sustainable based on the fact that a majority of the water
for recharge comes from local rainfall. Imported water for groundwater recharge averages
36,134 AFY on a ten year average (OCWD 2011). This percent of groundwater was taken into
consideration and not considered to be a local water source, therefore making it non-sustainable.
Surface water capture was only considered sustainable if the water capture had resulted from
local rainfall. The design of this research is to present the most feasible way Orange County can
established a completely local water supply.
6
The water supply data in this research mostly refers to direct water usage. Direct use
refers to municipal, agricultural and industrial water usage. Most direct use in Orange County is
focused on municipal and industrial use. Unlike other parts of the state, Orange County has little
land in agricultural use and a very small percentage of our water is used for agriculture (See
Table 5). Indirect use refers to all other usage. This usage includes using water to replenish our
groundwater basins and water to act as a barrier from sea water intrusion from the ocean. Sea
water intrusion refers to ocean water that seeps in to the aquifers and contaminates it. By
injecting fresh water into the ground indirectly sea water is block from entering the aquifers.
Water Agencies
The state of California contains hundreds of water agencies. Appendix I Image 2 is an
organization chart for Orange County water suppliers created by MWDOC. The chart shows
how the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/
California Colorado River Board are in charge of our imported water sources. MWD acts as the
regional importer and is in charge of supplying Southern California’s 19 million residents with
imported water. MWDOC is the sub regional importer for our local area and supplies most of
Orange County with imported water. MWD is responsible for supplying the cities of Anaheim,
Santa Ana and Fullerton. The Orange County Water District act as a special government agency
to oversee and protect Orange County’s right to the Santa Ana River. OCWD is mainly
responsible for managing Orange County’s groundwater basin, located in the northern part of the
county. OCWD is a specialized government agency and is not considered a water supplier. In
California, efforts for creating sustainable water methods are provided mainly at the local level.
Because DWR and MWD have monopolized importing water to Southern California, local water
7
agencies are forced to create more local/sustainable techniques in order to have a more reliable
water supply.
Sustainability
Water methods that are considered sustainable in this report are all methods that produce
water at the local level. All supply methods that are not dependent on imported water are
considered sustainable in this report. These methods include ocean desalination, recycled water,
groundwater recharged and local surface storage. Certain water supply methods may be
considered non-sustainable due to the environmental impacts they create or the amount of fossil
fuels they consume. An example of this method would be the energy consumption for producing
desalinated water. These factors will be examined when creating a future water supply model
but for the purpose of this research all local methods will be considered sustainable.
History of Water in Orange County
The history of water use in Orange County can be traced back hundreds of years to the
time of the first inhabitants of California. California’s history is uniquely linked with the
continued search for finding more water. Records of water use in the county and in California
provide details of how our water policy has change over the years and where it is going.
Before European Influence
The original residents of Orange County were native Indian tribes known as the
Gabrielenos and Juanenos. These groups lived off the land and were mobile moving from place
to place to find food and water. Archeological evidence has suggested that the natives had
temporary villages at the mouth of the Santa Ana River (Grebbien 2002). The villages were
8
located on the bluffs of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach and were used as seasonal hunting
grounds during the dry season (Grebbien 2002). The first European inhabitants of what is now
Orange County were Spanish missionaries lead by Father Junipero Serra. In the later part of the
18th
century Father Serra would make his way into the county from San Diego by blazing the
Mustard Seed Trail (OCWD 1983). The Spanish mission system would be the first traces of
development by foreigners in California and would lead the approach to water irrigation. Father
Serra would become the founder of not just the missions but also water development for Orange
County.
The Santa Ana River is and was the most valuable local water resource for Orange
County. The river is formed high up in the San Bernardino Mountains, flows through San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties where its tributaries meet then flows into Orange County,
entering in the East Anaheim area. Native Americans were the first inhabitant of the river’s
banks dating back 12,000 years (SAWPA 2011). The natives used the river as a food and water
source but did not raise crops or irrigate the land. With small populations and a willingness to be
mobile the native Indian tribes were able to survive off the river. The notion of agriculture and
irrigation would come from the new Spanish settlers who would begin occupying the land in
1769 (SAPWA 2011).
Spanish and Mexican Water Use
The Santa Ana River was originally named the Saint Anne River by Junipero Serra.
Serra discovered the river with his fellow padres and Spanish soldiers on July 28, 1769, St.
Anne’s Day (OCWD 1983). The river then was much different then what we see today. It was
noted by the Spanish that the river was more than a mile wide and would change its banks and
9
course during large storm events. The river outflow has moved from Alamitos Bay to Newport
Bay in the past (OCWD 1983). Similar to the Native Americans the European settlers could
survive off the river, however things changed at the turn of the 19th
century. Jose Antonio Yorba
would be the first settler to take claim to the Santa Ana River. In 1810 Yorba had received the
first Spanish land grant that gave him 62,000 acres where the cities of Tustin, Orange, Santa Ana
and Costa Mesa stand today (OCWD 1983). Yorba would become the first person to use the
Santa Ana River for irrigation by building ditches and canals to divert parts of the river. Yorba’s
acts lead to the first judicial riparian water rights. The U.S. District Court confirmed Santa Ana
River rights in 1860. Land developers would slowly flock to California during the period from
1784 to 1833 but none would come to the Orange County area (OCWD 1983). As time went on
Mexico separated from Spanish rule and California became a Mexican state. This new state
would set the stage for water and land rights for the rest of the 19th
century.
Mexican rule had a huge impact on the future growth of Orange County. The Mexican
government granted secularization of the California missions allowing access to land for private
owners (OCWD 1983). In the twelve years following this act the Mexican government would
provide land to 600 private owners. This opened up the door for increase farming and irrigation
along the Santa Ana River. The ranchers were mainly focused on raising livestock however as
time went on hides and tallow became extremely valuable and were exported via the Pacific
Ocean. Richard H. Dana and the famous ship the Pilgrim helped export these goods (OCWD
1983).
Agricultural Boom in Orange County
10
As the Gold Rush began in Northern California the state would be admitted to the United
States of America. Many new settlers began questioning land grants from the previous Spanish
and Mexican governments. The ranchers who were exporting hides and tallow would face many
obstacles from the new settlers. As the state suffered from one of its worst droughts in 1863, the
ranching era would come to an end (OCWD 1983). As ranching died out agriculture became
more abundant in Orange County. The area known as Anaheim today was founded by German
settlers who successfully created vineyards which lead to an agricultural boom for the region.
During this agricultural boom many communities would pop up along the Santa Ana River.
During this time A.B. Chapman founded the City of Orange and William Spurgeon founded
Santa Ana. This was also the same time when another famous figure would ascend the Orange
County agricultural boom. James Irvine would relocate to start the Irvine Ranch after leaving his
work in San Francisco finding precious gold during the Gold Rush (OCWD 1983). The farming
era would lead to huge irrigation increases from the Santa Ana River. The water levels in the
basin would become lower leaving more arid land and more new soil for farming. Additional
farming would lead to more elaborate ways of irrigation. Irrigation systems would bring water
from streams to cultivate land by gravity. These systems were very successful and were used up
until the 1960’s (OCWD 1983). This may perhaps be argued the time that everything would
change in Orange County. The arid landscape of Southern California was beginning to flourish
all due to enhancement in local irrigation. Even President William Howard Taft noted the huge
contrast between the highly developed agricultural lands and the very arid desert surroundings
(OCWD 1983). This is what I like to refer to as the beginning of the current look for Orange
County. Innovated concepts of irrigation were changing the landscapes of Southern California
providing the region with unnatural vegetation that made the area look much greener than
11
normal. As the 19th
century continued the primary choice for agriculture would be oranges,
giving the county its distinctive name when it was established in 1889.
During the period when Orange County was established demand for water in the Santa
Ana River grew rapidly. Orange County, which was located on the southern part of the Santa
Ana River basin, had many issues over rights with the upstream territories. The northern
communities claimed that they had full rights to the Santa Ana River while the southern end
claimed they deserved half the river’s flow. Eventually the California Supreme Court would
overturn a previous ruling and determine that the north and south sides of the river should divide
the river quantity in half (OCWD 1983). As laws were set out to establish rights to the river the
demand kept on growing. As demand grew the use of the Santa Ana River’s groundwater basin
amplified. Groundwater was so vast in Orange County at this time that uncapped wells would
sometimes flood. As time went on groundwater started to diminish do to the great number of
river diversions. Eventually groundwater seepage would only occur during winter storms. Since
the storms delivered a large amount of rain at once it was hard to capture all that water making it
difficult to fully replenish the aquifers. This lead to the establishment of the Water Conservation
Association, a group comprised of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. By the
beginning of the 20th
century the association helped set aside 1,000 acres of federal land for
surface storage and to help replenish the groundwater basins (OCWD 1983). The WCA then
establish the upper and lower Santa Ana River Basins and the Senate Bill 1201 was introduced
creating the Orange County Water District and protecting Orange County’s rights to the Santa
Ana River (OCWD 1983).
The Beginning of Importing Water
12
As Orange County was establishing water rights for its local sources California as a
whole was growing larger and larger. Los Angeles, Orange County’s neighbor to the north
would become the first region to focus on importing water from a foreign source. William
Mulholland became an important figurehead for the Los Angeles Water Company in deciding
future water sources. Mulholland determine that Los Angeles’s population could not depend on
its local water resources. Mulholland, with his associate Fred Eaton looked into the Owens
River Valley as a potential source for Los Angeles. After much controversy the duo was able to
secure vital land and water rights. Construction began in 1908 on the L.A. Aqueduct and after
226 miles of piping and canals the aqueduct open on November 5, 1913 (LADWP 2011).
Southern California could now be supplied by water hundreds of miles away. This water was
provided to a climate vastly different from where it originated. The water restrictions that made
living in any arid climate extremely difficult were no longer in effect for Southern California.
Imported water by the Los Angeles Aqueduct would lead to prosperity and population growth.
Mulholland was even quoted saying, “Whoever brings the water brings the people (LADWP
2011).” The concept of acquiring water had gone from irrigating local sources to constructing
man-made rivers. The Los Angeles Aqueduct would be the first of many projects that would
bring imported water to Southern California.
As population grew in the south and harsh droughts hit California in the early 20s the
Owens Valley began to suffer water shortages. Los Angeles began pumping out of the aquifer
system in the Owens Valley to supply its needs. This pumping was unsettling for local farmers
and disputes continued. As the Los Angeles Aqueduct became more and more of a problem the
need for additional water became necessary. In 1925 the Department of Water and Power was
established and approved a $2 million bond with the backing of Los Angeles voters to construct
13
the Colorado River Aqueduct (LADWP 2011). The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) was established to provide Southern California with Colorado River water.
The project would also lead to the construction of the Hoover Dam along the Colorado River
which would give a majority of its energy use to Los Angeles and MWD (MWD 2011). Today
MWD serves three cities in Orange County and also serves the Municipal Water District of
Orange County (MWDOC). The Colorado River Aqueduct travels from Lake Havasu to Lake
Mathews, a distance of 242 miles. The first cities in Orange County to receive MWD deliveries
were Santa Ana, Fullerton and Anaheim in 1942 (OCWD 1983). In 1952 MWDOC was created
to serve Colorado River imported water to other Orange County cities. Beginning in 1949
OCWD began purchasing Colorado River water to replenish the Orange County groundwater
basin. Orange County was now becoming dependent on imported water similar to other counties
in Southern California.
As World War II came to an end and the 1950’s progressed Orange County’s population
continued to grow rapidly. It was becoming evident that more water resources would need to be
established to sustain the growing population. Proposition One, also known as the California
Water Resources Development Bond Act was approved by only a margin of 173,000 votes out of
a total 5.8 million (DWR History). The approved bond would lead the California Department of
Water Resources to construct an aqueduct that would take water from Sacramento and other
central valley rivers to Southern California. The canal would be known as the California
Aqueduct (State Water Project). The water from these rivers is supplied by Sierra Nevada snow
pack. This system would deliver water to the San Francisco Bay Area, Central California and
Southern California. The first SWP water deliveries to Orange County came in 1973 (OCWD
1983). Orange County was now receiving water that had originated from Northern California
14
and the Colorado River, a combined 670 miles away from its original source. By the
development of the California Aqueduct, the state had become a vast engineering marvel.
California’s water system acted as a plumbing structure on a gigantic scale. The days of
harvesting Santa Ana surface flow were over in Orange County. By the mid 1960’s OCWD was
purchasing 200,000 AF of imported water for recharge purposes and was also using this water to
protect the groundwater basin from salt water intrusion from the Pacific Ocean (OCWD 2008).
Improving Local Supplies
During the 1960’s disputes were raised over Santa Ana River rights once again. In 1962
OCWD filed action for Santa Ana River rights north to Prado Dam. Prado Dam was established
in 1941 for flood control purposes and was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(OCWD 1983). The decision would eventually give OCWD guaranteed water rights up to Prado
Dam. The decision also provided OCWD with the legal right to 42,000 AF of Santa Ana River
water per year. As a result, the Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency was created to conduct
water quality testing of the river. Orange County had established protected rights to the Santa
Ana River and its tributaries. OCWD began trying to maximize the Santa Ana River’s potential
to recharge the groundwater basin. The district began diverting parts of the Santa Ana River into
large basins to maximize groundwater potential. Orange County once again was looking towards
the Santa Ana River to provide its local water supply. Today OCWD has acquired enough land
to store over 26,000 AF of Santa Ana River water (OCWD 2011).
OCWD improvements of groundwater management also lead to saltwater barrier
projects. As mentioned previously, OCWD was using imported water to be injected into the
ground in order to protect the groundwater basin from the Pacific Ocean. Orange County had
15
two barriers located within its boundaries. The first was the Alamitos Barrier located on the Los
Angeles Orange County boarder. The Alamitos Barrier was a joint effort between Los Angeles
County Flood Control and OCWD (OCWD 1983). The Alamitos Barrier led to the conclusion
that salt water was penetrating the groundwater basin in other areas along the coast. One of these
areas was in Fountain Valley, close to OCWD headquarters. This new injection barrier would be
known as the Talbert Barrier and was completed in 1976. The Talbert Barrier was unique
because the water it received came from OCWD’s Water Factory 21. Factory 21 was a
prototype named after the facilities that would be planned to follow it in the 21st century (OCWD
1983). The factory was able to produce 15 MGD (million gallons per day) of highly treated
wastewater and was the first of its kind in the world (OCWD 1983). Wastewater was treated
through primary and secondary treatment at the Orange County Sanitation District and was
delivered to OCWD. The advance treatment included chemical clarification, air stripping,
recarbonation, filtration, granular activated carbon absorption and chlorination (OCWD 1993).
For the first time in Orange County water was being produced by means of wastewater
purification. Despite the fact that the water produced at Water Factory 21 was designed for in-
direct use for salt water protection, the water passed all state and federal drinking standards. By
1991 the California Department of Health Services granted OCWD a permit to inject 100% of
recycled wastewater into the Talbert Barrier without blending with other water sources (OCWD
1993). During the 1970/80s the county also looked at building a federally funded desalination
plant to produce clean water out of ocean water influent. Due to high fuel cost from the 1973 oil
embargo it became very expensive to produce the desire 15 MGD it was proposed to do. With
high energy cost and a dwindling economy the federal government had to cut spending and the
16
desalination plant in Orange County was abandoned (Grebbien 2002). Recycled water had taken
a major step over desalination in becoming Orange County’s new local water source.
With the success of Water Factory 21 OCWD looked towards new opportunities for
recycled water. This time the district would look into providing water for urban use. Up until
this time parks and golf courses used drinkable water to water their grass. At the time treated
wastewater did not meet standards for reuse. The Green Acres Project was designed to provide
recycled water use within 5 miles of the Water Factory 21(Grebbien 2002). The water went
through primary and secondary treatment at OCSD before receiving tertiary treatment at OCWD.
By 2002 the Green Acres Project was providing 7,000 AF of water to Santa Ana, Newport
Beach, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley.
As Orange County began developing innovative ways to increase its local water supply
OCWD looked for extra ways to increase its groundwater supply. In the mid to late 1940s the
Santa Ana River Basin was being overdrawn by 12,000 AF of water per year (Grebbien 2002).
Natural groundwater recharge would not stop overdraft and OCWD began to purchase water
from MWD. The imported water provided the county with an immediate fix to its groundwater
problems but a viable long term plan was needed. With huge population increases in the 1950’s
and with groundwater levels dropping to 20 feet below sea level the district was purchasing up to
200,000 AF of imported water by 1964 (OCWD 1993). In 1974 OCWD looked to capture more
storm water by building a pipeline to divert water from the Santa Ana River to Anaheim Lake
(previously Anaheim Lake was supplied with MWD supplies). In 1977 a gravel pit known as
Burris Pit was purchase to capture more river water. Kramer and Miller basins were purchased
and put on line by the mid 1980s to capture more local runoff. (OCWD 1993). The Santiago
Creek Project became the last major development for OCWD’s artificial recharge basins. The
17
project was to construct a huge pipeline connecting Burris Pit (adjacent to the Santa Ana River
between Lincoln and Ball Road) to Santiago Creek up in the Villa Park Area. The project cost
$25 million and was completed in 1991 (Grebbien 2002). OCWD’s recharge capabilities had
grown to 400,000 AF of water a year, relieving the county of requiring imported water to
replenishing its aquifers.
As the approach of the new millennium came large federal and state piping projects were
diminishing in California. Hefty amounts of land development had also made it difficult to
purchase land for groundwater basins. Local water agencies were forced into creating more
creative ways of producing water. By establishing more local projects water agencies could
create better water reliability and less dependence on imported sources. By the year 2000
Orange County’s groundwater production rate had increase by 75% from 1979 (Grebbien 2002).
With Water Factory 21, the Green Acres Project and improvements in groundwater recharge
Orange County was leading the way in sustainable water production for the Southern California
region. With these improvements imported supplemental water had increased in price from $98
AF in 1979 to $431AF in 2000 (Grebbien 2002). The need to create more sustainable methods
was necessary. By the turn of the century OCWD and OCSD Board of Directors approved the
design of a new advanced water treatment plant. The plant, known as the Ground Water
Replenishment System was designed to produce 72,000 AFY (ace feet per year) of wastewater
for indirect water use (Grebbien 2002). The GWRS plant was completed in January of 2008
making it the largest advance water treatment facility in the world. Unlike Water Factory 21,
(demolished in 2004 to make room for the GWRS Plant) which used reverse osmosis to treat
water, GWRS used a three method approach. After wastewater was treated at OCSD it entered
the GWRS plant where it receives microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advance UV treatment.
18
In March 2011 OCWD board of directors approve expansion to the plant giving GWRS the
capacity to produce 103,000 AFY when it is completed in September of 2014 (OCWD News).
As recycled water production increases in Orange County ocean desalination plants are also
being proposed currently in Huntington Beach and Dana Point. The turn of the century marked
great improvements for localized water efforts in the county. However Orange County expands
its local water resources it will take a lot more money and effort to create a completely
sustainable supply by the year 2035.
The Possibility of a Sustainable Supply
The history of water in Orange County provides a brief perspective on today’s current
water issues. The county has promoted innovative and sustainable ways to meet small amounts
of its water supply. This section explores if it is possible for the county to create a completely
sustainable supply based on local resources.
Orange County Water 2010
In Orange County a majority of our water arrives from imported water supplies.
Imported water is controlled by two agencies in the county, MWD and MWDOC. Map 2
illustrates the jurisdiction of both agencies. The imported water is either from the State Water
Project (sometimes referred to as the California Aqueduct) or from the Colorado River
Aqueduct. The water is received at Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda and is distributed
throughout the county. 2010 water supply data for is provided on the agency level in table 1
through 4. In the year 2010 MWDOC purchased 220,132 AF of imported water for its member
agencies (MWDOC 2011). Santa Ana, Anaheim and Fullerton (Non-MWDOC members)
received a total of 41,369 AF of imported water in 2010 (Anaheim, Fullerton, and MWD 2011).
19
21,586 AF of imported water was also purchased by OCWD as an in-direct use to replenish the
Orange County groundwater basin (OCWD 2011). In 2010 a total of 282,774 AF of imported
water was distributed throughout the county; approximately 7.6% was for indirect use and 92.4%
for direct use. To put imported direct use into perspective it is determined that 1,237,858 people
in Orange County relied on imported direct water for the year 2010.
Groundwater was also a major contributor to the water supply in 2010. Many Orange
County residents may not be aware that groundwater makes up a significant amount of the local
water supply. Looking at Map 1 we see the region of Northern Orange County received a huge
quantity of groundwater in 2010. The key reason for this is that this part of the county is located
above a massive groundwater basin that was created by the Santa Ana River. In the year 2010
the MWDOC service area received a total of 220,052 AF of groundwater (MWDOC 2011). The
cities of Fullerton, Anaheim and Santa Ana received approximately 90,527 AF of groundwater in
2010 (Anaheim, Fullerton, and MWD 2011).
Reclaimed water, also known as recycled water is another source for Orange County’s
water supply. Currently recycled water is only used for irrigation and agricultural uses. An
example of direct recycled water use would be for watering a golf course or a city park. In 2010
39,642 AF of recycled water contributed to the county’s water supply (MWDOC 2011). As of
now recycled water makes up about 6.5% of the county’s total water supply.
Surface storage water provides a small contribution to Orange County’s water supply. In
2010 surface storage was at 5,485 AFY for the county making it a minute 1% of the total water
supply (MWDOC 2011). Surface storage in Orange County is mainly water that is captured in
reservoirs from rain runoff. The lack of large amounts of annual rainfall throughout the region
20
make surface storage a challenging approach for providing large amounts of water supply.
Another challenge to storing water in the county is due to the limited space available and the
high prices for land.
Water use is generally broken down into agricultural use and municipal/industrial use.
During the early years of Orange County much of the water supply was devoted for agricultural
purposes. Today agricultural use makes up a small percentage of the water supply. Table 5
indicates that in the last 20 years agricultural use has range from two to four percent of the
county’s overall supply. Municipal/industrial use accounts for the majority of direct use in
Orange County. The 2010 water supply for Orange County was mostly intended for
municipal/industrial use. From this use imported water made up 43.24%, groundwater 49.45%,
recycled water 6.42% and surface storage water at 0.89% of the total water supply. Compared to
other counties in the region Orange County’s imported water use is low but still provides a
substantial amount water.
Projected Water Supply in 2035
For this report water supply data gathered from MWDOC, Fullerton, Anaheim and Santa
Ana were used to project water demands for Orange County. For MWDOC, Fullerton and
Anaheim the data projected was provided in the agencies 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
The Santa Ana UWMP was not available for 2010 so data for Santa Ana was provided by the
Santa Ana Water Supply Assessment and projections were based on an average annual use of
62% of groundwater. Santa Ana total water supply was projected with a .103 AFY use per
person. This was the current per person use of water in AF for Santa Ana in 2010. Table 5 and
5.1 detail the demand projections for Fullerton, Santa Ana and Anaheim. Current demand for
21
these three cities is 131,896 AF for the year 2010, with imported water making up 35% and
groundwater consumption making up 65% of the total water consumed. The demand projection
for this area does not alter greatly when focusing on future water expenditure. In 2035 64% of
the water supply will be provided by groundwater and 36% will be provided by imported water.
It is also important to note that the city of Anaheim is predicting that 255 AF of recycled water
will contribute to its water supply in 2035.
The demand projections for MWDOC, provided in Table 1 and 2 are a cumulative
account for all of its member agencies. Map 2 explains MWDOC’s jurisdiction which is made
up of 28 Orange County municipalities. MWDOC’s projections are based on each individual
member municipality providing projections on five year increments. Most of these cities’
projections are in correlation with their city general plan (MWDOC 2011). The important issue
to consider is all projections used in this research were all created by local municipalities in
Orange County. All MWDOC member agencies contributed to creating the water supply
projections for the next 25 years.
Population projections were also used to determine future water demands and to
strengthen the previously established data. Table 6 indicates that Orange County will have a
13% increase in population by 2035 (Center for Demographic Research CSUF 2007). Using the
average water use of AFY per person of .211 in 2010 I was able to estimate what water demand
would be in 2035 (MWDOC 2011). This estimate is based on the AFY use per person not
changing in the next 25 years. Table 7 presents these projections and the projections provided by
MWDOC and the three MWD sub agencies. The projection based on the water agencies data
shows that there will be an increase in approximately 105,000 AF of water demand by 2035.
The population formula projection indicates that there will be a 72,000 AF increase in demand.
22
Both projections show that the total amount of water demand will be in the low 700,000s AFY
by 2035. For the purpose of this study the projection data used by the water agencies was
determined to be more valuable based on the breakdown of water sources and their expected
uses. The population model is used only as a supplement to the other data. Using the combined
agency data it is determined that Orange County will have a demand of 722,455 AF of water in
the year 2035.
Total Orange County water supply demand is projected in Table 8 and 9. Imported water
will still be a valuable source of potable water in the future. Imported water is projected to make
up 42.47% of Orange County’s water supply in the year 2035. This is only a 0.77%
improvement from the 2010 supply. Even with the slight improvement the overall supply of
imported water coming into the county will increase by almost 40,000 AF to accommodate a
13% increase in population growth. Groundwater demand will also remain relatively unchanged
in the next 25 years. Groundwater is expected to make up 48.4% of the county’s total water
supply by 2035. This is actually a 1.05% decrease compared to our current groundwater intake.
Overall groundwater consumption will increase approximately 45,000 AF in the year 2035.
Surface storage water will remain unchanged making up for only .88% of the county needs in
2035 and will increase by 1,000 AF in the future. Recycled water will supply 8.25% of Orange
County’s water in 2035. This is an increase of almost 2% over the next 25 years and a change in
capacity of almost 20,000 AF. Overall when analyzing these numbers it appears that not much
change will occur in the next 25 years in the county’s total water supply methods.
Local vs. Non Local Water Supplies
23
With projections for water supply methods portrayed over the next 25 years established, a
projection of local sustainable use can now be calculated. As mentioned previously all supplies
other than imported water were considered sustainable for this report. These supplies include
groundwater, surface storage water and recycled water. Desalination is also considered
sustainable but currently desalination projects are only being proposed and not in the
construction stage. In order to determine sustainable vs. non-sustainable water the total imported
water supply was subtracted from the overall water supply. This created a total number for
groundwater, surface water and recycled water. OCWD currently and in the past has used
imported water as a small supplement for groundwater recharge. Since imported water is not
considered sustainable the 10 year average of imported water use in the groundwater basins was
subtracted from the sustainable water total and added to the imported total. Table 10-1 breaks
down the imported groundwater figures and projects the percentages compared to the total
supply over the next 25 years. For this research it is important to consider that all water used to
recharge Orange County aquifers comes from a local source (excluding the imported 10 year
average). OCWD does not rely on imported water but will use the water generally in a year
with high amounts of snow and rainfall. In a year with high amounts of rainfall it is important
for OCWD to purchase as much available imported water to alleviate years with little local
natural rainfall. The use of imported water is used to replenish groundwater basins during the
dry summer months.
With sustainable vs. non-sustainable numbers established I was able to enter them into a
spreadsheet and project them using the anticipated total water supply for Orange County. Table
10 shows local and non-local water supplies estimated for the next 25 years. Table 11 provides
the supply by percentages. According to these findings non-local water production will drop by
24
1.5% and will provide a total of 47.47% of Orange County’s water supply by the year 2035.
Local supplies will increase by 1.6% and will present a total of 52.53% of the water supply for
2035. As mention previously non-local supplies will increase by 40,000 AF in the next 25 years
and local supplies will increase by 65,000 AF by 2035. This local increase is due to the fact that
there will be slightly more recycled water added to water supply and groundwater will also add
more to the water supply in the future. In order for Orange County to have a completely
sustainable water supply it will have to replace 342,937 AF of water with local methods by the
year 2035. With a valid non-local supply figure established we can now examine the means to
which this goal can be accomplished.
Reaching a Sustainable Supply
Looking towards the future of water in Orange County two methods were proposed to
reach the 342,937 AF goals. Understanding that surface storage water was contributing a small
portion to the 2010 water supply and knowing that land was at a premium in Orange County the
method was not considered to be a contributor to fixing the problem. Groundwater will remain a
vital water supply method in the future but will be reaching its capacity due to the limited
quantity of available land to create more artificial groundwater basins. Also groundwater is
highly dependent on seasonal rainfall and future droughts could limit the reliability of the supply.
In order for Orange County to have a vital local supply the methods for producing water must be
extremely dependable. The two water methods that have the best source of reliability for the
future are ocean desalination and recycled water. There are multiple forms of desalination but in
this case ocean desalination implies taking water directly from the ocean and making it potable.
These two methods were also considered because the technology already exists and they do not
25
contain as many limiting factors as the other methods presented. Recycled water was also
believed to be an important method based on its current use in the county.
Recycled water is an extremely efficient and reliable way to produce potable water.
Table 12 indicates the 2010 use of recycled water in Orange County. Currently 36% of the
wastewater we received is treated for direct and indirect water use. Table 13 indicates of the
water being recycled 37% is for direct use (Irrigation, agriculture, etc) and 63% is used for
indirect purposes such as groundwater replenishment and seawater intrusion barrier. Glancing
towards the year 2035 the percentages stay comparable with 37% of wastewater being recycled
for water use. Of this use 36% is for direct purposes while 64% will be for indirect use. It is
imperative to comprehend that in both 2010 and in 2035 direct use for recycled water does not
include piping water directly to the drinking system. This denotes that the projections indicate
that all recycled use will be for irrigation and industrial purposes. In order for Orange County to
have a completely sustainable water supply, recycled water will eventually have to be inserted
directly into the drinking water system. In order for the region to have a dependable local water
supply, increases of wastewater purification must take place. Table 12 also signifies the amount
of treated wastewater that was sent to the ocean in 2010. This is wastewater treated at
secondary/tertiary levels and is placed in the ocean by sanitation districts. Water that is treated at
secondary and tertiary levels does not meet recycled water standards. OCSD and SOCWA
treated a total of 313,107 AF of wastewater in 2010 with 201,454 AF (64%) going to the ocean
(MWDOC 2011). OCSD, a facility that pumps wastewater to the OCWD GWRS plant treated
266,000 AF of wastewater in the year 2010 (MWDOC 2010). The distinctive feature of
wastewater is that it will increase as population increases in Orange County. In 2035 it is
predicted the OCSD and SOCWA will be treating 438,321 AF of wastewater (MWDOC 2011).
26
Of this wastewater 274,250 AF will be treated and sent to the ocean (MWDOC 2011). The other
164,071 AF will be used for recycling purposes (MWDOC 2011). One way to cut down on
Orange County’s dependence on foreign water is to maximize wastewater potential. If the
county desired to recycle all of its wastewater to potable use, large amounts of imported water
would no longer be needed. If the county produced a GWRS plant at SOCWA and expanded the
GWRS plant adjacent to OCSD it could potentially turn the extra 274,250 AF of wastewater to
potable drinking water in 2035. The notion that wastewater is a valuable source for potable
water supply may perhaps relieve Orange County’s dependence on imported water.
Desalination is an additional supply that could potentially alleviate Orange County’s
future water demands. The potential benefits of desalination is that it presents an unlimited
water supply and is not hindered by future droughts. Currently in Orange County two
desalination plants are being proposed: one in Huntington Beach (Poseidon Project) and the
other in Dana Point (South Orange County Desalination Plant). If these plants become
operational, one day they will provide an additional supply of local water to the county. Table
14 indicates that the Poseidon project estimates that the plant would produce 56,000 AFY and
the South Orange County plant would produce 16,000 AFY. This would total 72,000 AFY and
would lower the county’s 2035 import water supply by 21%.
Improving of storm water capture mainly for the Santa Ana River could be another
potential source of enhancing Orange County’s water supply. The benefit for increasing storm
water capture is that this water cost nothing to produce. Treating rain runoff is also far cheaper
than desalination and recycling water. One major issue is the limited amount of land and the
inadequate advances in technology to make this a possibility. Capturing large amounts of storm
flow provide many challenges to engineers. Table 15 demonstrates the amount of storm flow that
27
has occurred in the Santa Ana River in the last 13 years. As the table indicates, in years with
large amounts of storm flow huge amounts were lost to the ocean. In the extremely wet year of
2004-05 the Santa Ana River had a total storm flow of nearly 470,000 AF (OCWD 2011). The
2004-05 storm flow met the needs of 76% of Orange County’s 2010 water supply. That large
amount of water is free and provided by our local sky and runs through our local watersheds.
Unfortunately in 2004-05 only 80,000 AF of that water was captured and place into the water
supply. Most people who were in Orange County for that winter year would understand that the
weather that year was very rare and it not likely that the Santa Ana River will produce that much
storm flow on an annual basis. The rationale for bringing up the 2004-05 storm flow is just to
indicate that Orange County will continue to lose large amounts of rainfall to the ocean. Over
the past 13 years the Santa Ana River has discharged almost 800,000 AF of fresh water into the
Pacific Ocean (OCWD 2011). The annual ocean loss came out to a little over 61,000 AF per
year (OCWD 2011). This means that Orange County over the past 13 years lost on average
61,000 AF of water to the ocean. The 72,000 AF produced by the two proposed desalination
plants would be matching just a little more than the annual Santa Ana River loses to the ocean.
With a lot of energy and cost going to recycling and desalination plants, future engineers must
look to preventing storm water losses to help Orange County have a sustainable water supply.
Table 14 shows the potential local water supply that can exist in Orange County if certain
variables are taken into consideration. Orange County currently and in the future will have
enough of a tangible water supply inside its borders to sustain its population. Not only is there
enough water but the technology currently exist for desalination and recycled water to be put
online and to supplement imported water supplies. For this to happen there are a few necessary
steps that must occur. The first and most important factor is that public opinion on drinking
28
recycled water must be strengthened. Currently there are no places in the world where recycled
water is used for potable drinking supply on this proposed scale. Second the need for the two
desalination plants must be approved and developed. These plants produce relatively small
amounts of fresh water but provide enough to help the county become sustainable. The third and
most challenging aspect is to maximize the capture of Santa Ana River storm flow. It is
important to collect water in years with highly above average rainfall. If all of these methods can
be implemented by 2035, Orange County would have approximately 787,000 AF of localized
water (Table 14). This would be 65,000 AF more than the expected water demand in 2035.
Given that, the county could mainly focus on two of these sustainable outcomes to reach a
sustainable goal.
The motivation for making recycled water the prime method for 2035 was based on many
factors. One important reason is that Orange County currently has the largest advanced water
treatment plant in the world. The current GWRS plant has the capacity to produce 72,000 AF
and has been approved to expand and produce over 100,000 AF. Orange County has made great
steps in the evolution of recycling water and this report suggest that these steps could lead to
recycling all of the county’s wastewater to provide a sustainable water supply. An added
important feature in shaping recycled water to be the county’s premium water source is the
potential advantages. Table 16 breaks down the water strategies and the benefits for Orange
County. Recycled water is far superior for reliability than all other water methods outside of
desalination. Recycled water also has little harm to the environment whereas desalination plants
must be built on the coast, creating various environmental concerns. The cost of recycling water
is not cheap but is inexpensive when comparing it to desalination or building more storage
capacity. The 2035 localized water model presented in Table 14 utilizes recycling water as a
29
main source for supply but recognizes that other methods are just as important to creating a
sustainable model. Another major reason why desalination was not chosen as the primary source
for future water consumption is based on location. Building a large plant located on the Orange
County coastline would almost seem impossible to do, not only due to limited land, but also
because of environmental issues and public concerns. Both of the proposed desalination plants
that were added to the sustainable model in this research are already situated on abandoned
industrial sites and would not contribute to more development. Moving forward it seems that
recycled water is the best option for Orange County.
The Cost of Sustainability
The 2035 localized water model has been established. It is clear that recycled water adds
the most benefits and the least amount of negatives in a future of environmental sensitivity and
possible droughts. The ultimate issue that would stop a sustainable model in its tracks would be
the cost. In the year 2010 imported water costs for MWD Tier 1 treated service water was $701
an AF (MWD Finance). Currently OCWD reports that their GWRS plant produces an AF of
water at $877 (OCWD, GWRS Cost Summary). These numbers immediately bring up concerns
about the future cost of a localized water plan. In addition it is important to mention that there is
no startup cost for importing water. All the heavy lifting was completing years ago when the
SWP and Colorado River Aqueducts were constructed. The infrastructure for the imported
system needs updating but cost would be implied to the state and Orange County would not bear
all the cost, unlike if it decided to expand on GWRS. Table 17 represents the annual cost for the
projected current water supply system the county already has. Keep in mind this is the system
that is heavily based on imported water. Santa Ana River storm flow capture was not added to
the table because all agencies did not predict enhancing Santa Ana storm capture in their
30
estimates. The total annual cost of the current system projected in 2035 would be approximately
$406 million. Compared that to the completely localized system which would total in annual
cost to approximately $511 million. A sustainable system would cost the county an extra $105
million annually. If this cost were adding to the 2009 total housing units in Orange County each
unit would have to pay an extra $101 on their annual water expenses (U.S. Census Orange
County, Quick Facts). The debate on whether Orange County residents would be willing to
spend more on their water bill in order to have a completely sustainable water supply is open to
further research. For this project it will be assumed that this extra cost would be a major factor
in preventing a local system coming to fruition in 2035.
The future cost of imported water could give justification to developing a sustainable
system. In 1979 the cost for imported water averaged $98 an AF. In 1994 imported rates were
equal to $412 an AF. Currently import water rates are at $701 an AF and are expected to rise
according to MWD (MWD Finance). MWD long term financial plan forecast that imported
water rates will increase dramatically over the next ten years. Table 19 indicates these changes
and shows in the year 2020 MWD Tier 1 treated water rates will be at $1,214 per AF (MWD
Finance). If these rates are forecasted to be accurate this could ultimately change the outlook on
a sustainable water supply for Orange County. One conjecture must be made that GWRS and
desalination prices will remain the same over this period. Further research could possibly
indicate that as time goes on technological advances will help bring down the prices for recycled
and desalinized water. An additional aspect to consider is that the projection data for import cost
only goes to 2020 and there was no available data for 2035. A hypothesis could be made that the
cost of imported water would be substantially higher than in 2020. Since there is no available
data for what imported water cost will be in 2035 the data for 2020 was used. With these
31
assumptions taken into consideration our 2035 model appears greatly dissimilar. Table 18
indicates these changes and calculates the annual dollar amount to operate both systems under
the new projected price of imported water. With the new calculations the annual savings for
using the sustainable model would save Orange County approximately $72 million. If this cost
were added to the 2009 total housing units Orange County would be saving $69 per house hold
(U.S. Census Orange County, Quick Facts). An important fact to note is that this model does not
take into consideration initial cost for building the needed infrastructure for desalination plants
and added recycling facilities. Table 20 and 21 show estimated initial cost for sustainable water
production in Orange County. OCWD has just recently approved to expand its GWRS facility to
produce 30,000 AF of water. This tops the facility production rate at 103,000 AF with a total
initial cost of $637 million (OCWD 2010). Currently no desalination plants are being
constructed so there is no initial cost. In Table 21 estimated cost to build a sustainable system
are provided. It would cost Orange County an estimated $1.545 billion to get a completely
sustainable system online. $360 million would be the initial cost to build the two desalination
plants and the other $1.2 billion would be used to build the advance water treatment plants. The
recycled water costs were calculated based on the cost of the OCWD GWRS initial cost for
103,000 AF ($637 million). Desalination costs were estimated based on the initial cost for a
56,000 AF plant ($300 million). These numbers are calculated and provide approximate initial
cost for a localized supply.
The initial expansion to provide a sustainable water future in Orange County presents
great financial cost. $1.545 billion is a large amount of money and it would be hard to justify
spending this amount when water systems already exist. The people of Orange County would
most likely not approve government spending of over a billion dollars to provide the region with
32
a water supply in which a majority comes from wastewater. On the other hand it might end up
being a far better investment. MWD imported water rates are projected to increase a great
amount. If this comes to fruition a sustainable system would be cheaper on an annual basis as
was previously determined. The county could save nearly $72 million a year with this system
and it would take a little over 21 years to save $1.545 billion. Added to this is the possibility of
money coming in from a 2012 ballot measure that if passed would provide $11.25 billion in
water bond money. Overall the initial expenses seem uninviting but there are clear savings that
could make sustainability worth the cost.
Benefits of Ocean Desalination
Ocean desalination offers many benefits for Orange County’s water supply. One
intriguing factor is that the source of water for desalination is limitless. Many dry areas of the
world, like the Middle East use desalination as a large contributor to water supply. One aspect
that separates the Middle East from Orange County is that fossil fuels are less expensive in the
Middle East and can provide for the high energy cost of desalination (Freeman and Poghosyan
2008). Energy use for desalination is immense and if the plant is powered by fossil fuels this
could cause great impact on the environment and large amounts of greenhouse gases being
released. As technology improves desalination will become more viable more energy efficient.
In El Paso, Texas solar power has been used to power an inland desalination plant which
produces 104,098 cubic meters of fresh water a day (Mickey 2011). The United Kingdom
invested in a plant that treats brackish water in a tidal zone. The concept is that the tidal area is a
mixed of salt and fresh water runoff and can be desalinated at lower energy cost (Zorilla 2011).
In China the Tianjin MED desalination plant is powered by waste heat generated by an
electricity plant to reduce production cost (Zorilla 2011). Overall desalination keeps on making
33
giant leaps to become more affordable and less demanding on energy. These plants should be
thought of when glancing at Orange County’s water future but will have a tough time being
implemented due to the lack of coastal land and the NIMBY attitude that will present itself by
residents if plants are built. Overall desalination may fulfill a small role in the future water
supply opening up the main contributor which will consist of recycled wastewater.
Benefits of Recycled Water
A sustainable system based on recycled water offers many benefits to Orange County.
One of the main benefits of recycling water is that the water comes from wastewater which is
already located in the counties boarders. As mentioned before Orange County treats a lot of
wastewater and disposes it into the ocean. The suggestion that wastewater has a value to it and
can be treated to add a significant amount to the local water supply is immense. Another
important aspect to point out is that this method of supply is not affected by drought or future
climate change. Environmental impacts also make recycled water an intriguing source. In most
cases water is provided by a natural source such as a river, stream or lake. In order for humans
to consume water they must interrupt the natural cycle of these native water bodies. Reusing
wastewater relieves the pressure to take water away from the environment. Importing water,
producing groundwater and desalination all take water from a natural source and cultivate it for
human consumption. Recycled water not only prevents these acts but it cleans up a substance
that normally is released into the ocean. Even energy consumption from recycling plants
generally is less than desalination and importing water across the state. Overall recycled water
offers the best sustainable supply option for Orange County’s future. The cost are adequate,
reliability is good, environmental impacts are limited. The only factor in preventing this from
34
happening is the public perception and the idea of drinking water that once came from a toilet.
Public Acceptance, Toilet to Tap?
According to the sustainable model the majority of Orange County’s water must be
supplied by wastewater to meet our future needs. Recycling wastewater has always presented
challenges. Currently treatment of wastewater is mainly used to supplement Orange County’s
groundwater supply at a minimal level. Other indirect potable uses include urban irrigation and
protecting sea water intrusion to the aquifers.
In order for Orange County to have a sustainable water system recycled wastewater must
be applied to the drinking supply. As mentioned previously all current recycled programs do not
place effluent water directly into residential drinking supply. A pipe to pipe method of
transferring recycled effluent directly into residential water supply does not currently exist. A
majority of recycled water is placed into the ground and enters the drinking supply indirectly.
The question that arises from this is why spend $630 million on a system that produces highly
treated drinking water just to place it into the ground? Currently tertiary treated water flows
down the Santa Ana River through the inland empire and is used for groundwater recharge by
OCWD. The United States EPA also states that reclaimed water for surface spreading typically
receives secondary treatment and may typically have a treatment that removes nitrates (USEPA
2004). This is the exact cause for the Santa Ana River. As Santa Ana River water flows towards
Orange County if goes through the Prado Wetlands where nitrates are removed naturally. The
idea that OCWD over treats it water for groundwater recharge does not add up. By treating
secondary wastewater effluent through microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advance UV
treatment is unnecessary treatment for indirect use only. This advance system should be used for
direct potable use. The major concern here is that many drinkable water sources contain at some
35
point recycled wastewater effluent that was placed in the system upstream. Even imported water
has this issue. Wastewater is distributed at many parts of the Colorado River before it reaches
the aqueduct that brings it to California. Understanding that water in all forms is recycled and
there is no concept of “fresh” water on the planet presents researchers with the dilemma of
explaining recycled water to the general public.
Setbacks in San Diego
Public acceptance for potable use of drinking water is the ultimate starting and stopping
point for Orange County to have a sustainable system. The technology exist\s and there is
enough water (including wastewater) in the county to provide for us all. Money can be saved in
the long run compared to relying on imported water. The system is also more environmentally
friendly than importing water or relying heavily on desalination. Public acceptance will most
likely be what prevents switching to this system. California has seen projects in the past fail
based on bad public relations. One project that comes to mind happened in San Diego, a region
that relies heavily on imported water. Unlike Orange County the San Diego region receives 90%
of its water supply form imported sources (Bridgeman 2004). The city decided to propose
building a water treatment facility similar to the one in Orange County. San Diego had treated
wastewater at the secondary level and used a portion of the effluent for agriculture/irrigation use.
The idea was to take advantage of all the wastewater that was lost to the ocean. The plan
included building an advance water treatment plant that could treat wastewater to drinking level
standards. Approximately 23,000 AFY of wastewater was proposed to be treated and distributed
it in the San Vicente reservoir where it would be blended with Colorado River water (Bridgeman
2004). After an estimated $600,000 spent on educating the public the proposed project was shot
down in December of 1999 (Bridgeman 2004). The city of San Diego was unable to convince
36
the public of the benefits of recycled water and in the end the project did not come to fruition.
After this Orange County took the lead of recycled water use in the Southern California region.
The most intriguing finding was that the public did not seem aware that water from the Colorado
River contains treated wastewater and is very similar to mixing treated wastewater in a local
reservoir. The only difference is that the second option is local and would be more reliable. The
situation in San Diego points out the incredible significance the general public plays when
deciding to build water treatment facilities.
Public Outcry, The Toowoomba Case
Public perception played a huge role in the city of Toowoomba, Australia. The city of
Toowoomba is located in Queensland just 100km west of the capital Brisbane. Toowoomba,
much like Southern California has suffered from water shortages over the years. In 2003 the
situation got so bad that the city had to implement water restrictions to its residents (Hurlimann
and Dolnicar 2010). Water restrictions would include banning of washing cars or watering
gardens. In June of 2005 the city council decided to take action and submitted funding proposals
to the National Water Commission (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). Later that year the city
proposed many options to fix its water shortage issues. One of the main proposals was to build
an advanced water treatment facility that would provide potable drinking water for the city. As
residents became aware of the recent proposal many were outrage at the idea of drinking treated
wastewater. In February of 2006 10,000 residents had signed a petition against the potable
recycle water initiative (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). The main concern for the residents of
Toowoomba was the city’s image. This beautiful garden city might turn into the image as the
“shit city” or know as Poowoomba (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). The residents also feared
that a water system based on recycling wastewater would lead to fewer businesses, industry,
37
families and less tourist flocking to the area (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). Residents also had
health concerns and that the treated water might contain pharmaceuticals or pathogens that could
cause problems to the human body. It is important to note that recycled water at this level has
been rigorously tested and has never shown signs of damage to human health. In July of 2006
the residents ultimately voted and turn down the recycled water facility. A town engulfed in a
huge water crises turn down an option that could have provided water security. One interesting
point to note that when surveyed over half the Toowoomba residents agreed that recycled water
was safe to drink and that 28% felt that the government should apply recycled water as a water
source without asking the public (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). Many observers of this
incident place blame on politicians and bad timing on top of a negative public perspective of
recycled water. Toowoomba once again shows that public viewpoints of recycled water are
negative and present a “yuck” factor towards them. In order for perceptions to change public
education must be enhanced and provided to more people.
Analyzing Public Perspectives
After the Toowoomba incident researchers decided to understand what exactly was the
science behind public concerns for recycled water. In a recent Australian survey researchers
went out to determine the public attitudes towards desalination and recycled water. In a survey
of over 1,000 participants the research discovered that a majority of Australians believed that
desalination was healthier than recycled water, with about 70% believing desalination was
healthy and 43% believing recycled water was healthy (Dolnicar and Schafer 2009). Also of the
participants an overwhelming majority of 85% believed that recycled water was environmentally
responsible and 80% believed that desalination used a lot of energy in production (Dolnicar and
Schafer 2009). The Australians surveyed also believe that both desalination and recycled water
38
were valuable and could save Australia from drought. One interesting thing to point out is that a
little over 20% of the peopled surveyed believe that desalination was purified sewage (Dolnicar
and Schafer 2009). This could conclude that acceptance for desalination in this survey could be
greater if the people were aware that desalination does not purify raw sewage. This also points
out the fact that the general public has little knowledge of alternative water methods. A good
follow up question for this survey would be, are citizens aware of the process of desalination/
recycle water is? If over 20% believe desalination is treating raw sewage if could be argued that
a majority of more people are not too familiar with desalination at all. Another important aspect
from this research is that when ask what was perceived as drinking water 79% of the people
agreed desalination water was fine to drink while only half felt recycled water was acceptable to
drink (Dolnicar and Schafer 2009). This research concludes that Australians have a bias towards
drinking desalinated water over recycled water. The negative perceptions of recycled water in
Australia still have many boundaries to cross. Though this survey was conducted in a foreign
country it still may represent attitudes of other places such as Orange County. Australians are
very similar economically, socially and politically to Californians. Australians have been
suffering through droughts for many years and understand the value of increasing water supplies.
Even with that said Australians find it hard to accept drinking water that once originated as
human waste.
In order for Orange County to have a sustainable water supply the greatest obstacle will
be overcoming negative perceptions of recycled water. Education will be extremely valuable in
creating better public awareness. Unfortunately the term sewage sounds so bleak but most
wastewater that enters a treatment plant only contains 10% of human waste. The rest is
concentrated of shower, sink and other household water uses. If more people are familiar with
39
the process of treating wastewater more individuals might approve it as a valuable source for the
water supply. With possible future droughts, increases in the cost of imported water, and
population growth Californians will need to be more aware of the water supply and how local
sustainable methods can be achieved.
Global Perspectives
California’s water issue may be unique when compared to global water problems but
many similarities exist. Australia, Singapore and Namibia all face water supply issues. By
addressing these problems and solutions California policy makers can determine what is
successful and applicable to California and Orange County’s water future.
Singapore
Singapore offers many similar water issues as Orange County. Singapore is a tiny island
nation with a population around 4.7 million and a land mass of 434 square miles (CIA 2011). On
the surface if would seem that these two regions would have nothing in common. Singapore is
located on the equator and receives a much greater amount of rainfall the Orange County. The
country receives almost 95 inches of annual rainfall, almost nine times the amount compared to
Orange County (PUB 2011). Singapore’s size limits it from being able to catch large amounts of
rainfall. The country struggles to capture its local rain runoff before it enters the ocean.
Singapore possesses no natural aquifers making groundwater storage almost impossible. The
small nation has been dependent on purchasing imported water from neighboring Malaysia. The
current imported water contracts for Singapore expire this year and in the year 2061. One major
difference between Singapore and Orange County is that Singapore imports its water from a
40
foreign country. Providing a sustainable water supply for Singapore is almost a matter of
national security.
In order to become more sufficient Singapore has addressed its water supply problems in
multiple ways. The country had diversified its water options by developing what is known as the
four national taps. The four national taps include four diverse methods; the first is importing
water from Johor Malaysia. The second is the creating more reservoirs to help increase rain
catchment for surface storage. The third tap is building multiple desalination plants to take
advantage of the surrounding ocean water. Finally the last tap is recycling wastewater that
normally would end up in the ocean. Singapore’s drive to have a self sufficient water supply
makes it a world leader in water sustainability.
Since 2003 Singapore has vigorously built multiple advance water treatment plants.
Currently the plants produce approximately 137,000 AFY making roughly 30% of Singapore’s
water supply (PUB 2011). In order to gain better public acceptance the Singapore Utilities
Board and the Singapore government refer recycled water as “Newater”. Unlike Orange County
the new water in Singapore is pipe directly into fresh water reservoirs where it is mixed with
natural rain water. The country also uses the Newater for industrial and irrigation purposes.
Public perception of Newater in Singapore seems more forgiving then in other parts of the world.
In order to gain public acceptance the Singapore government open up a Newater visitor center
offering tours and information on the process. The facility has seen over 400,000 visitors to date
(PUB 2011). The Singapore government decided that new branding of recycle water was needed
in order to gain public appeal. The term “old water” was referred to wastewater and “Newater”
was referred to water that was treated in the recycling plants. The term “water reclamation” was
used instead of the term “sewage treatment”. Rebranding recycled water terms helped alleviate
41
public concerns of drinking treated human sewage and provided a clearer understanding of the
recycling process. New branding of terms creates psychological advantages and helps policy
makers overcome some traditional hurdles.
Singapore has also increased it rain catchment possibilities. One unique way of
increasing catchment was to turn a local marina into a reservoir. The Marina Barrage is a dam
built across marina bay in the heart of downtown Singapore. The purpose of the dam is to keep
out salt water and preserve the fresh water that has now made the bay a reservoir. The marina
dam provides Singapore with 10% of its water supply and is the first urban reservoir in a major
city in the world (PUB 2011).
The last local water use Singapore has initiated in the past decade is desalination It would
only make sense to operate a desalination plant in a nation surrounded by ocean water. In 2005
the country opened its first plant online and by 2010 another plant was in operation.
Desalination is planned to provide 30% of Singapore’s water in the future (PUB 2011).
Singapore’s plan to diversify its water supply by enhancing reservoirs, recycling and
desalinating water makes it a world leader in water sustainability. On top of that the country is
actively promoting water conservation programs for its residents and businesses. Remarkably
this has all been accomplished in the past 15 years. Singapore demonstrates how Orange County
and the rest of California can create a path to sustainability and ending dependence on imported
water supplies.
Namibia
The country of Namibia located in the southern western part of Africa has been recycling
water for over the past 40 years. Namibia is one the driest countries in Africa. Namibia’s capital
42
Windhoek is located 350 miles away from any natural fresh water source. The average rainfall
for this region is about 360 mm of rain a year (Renard 2008). The ocean is located 150 miles
from the city making desalination impossible. The city’s annual water demand is at 17,000 AFY
(Lahnsteiner and Lempert 2007). Since 1969 the city of Windhoek has been recycling
wastewater on a large scale and has directly distributed the water into the drinking supply
(Renard 2008). Currently this is the only system of the planet that offers direct potable use. In
2001 the city updated its facilities and built a new plant that could supply up to 250,000
residents. Without this new water source the city would be deprived of 35% of its actual water
resource availability (Renard 2008). Since this process has been going on for almost 40 years
the citizens of Windhoek have come to accept the idea of drinking treated wastewater. The
population mainly has accepted this water source because it has too. The public of Namibia has
also taken pride over the years and has become proud to the fact that in many ways Windhoek is
a world leader in direct potable wastewater use. The Namibia model of providing potable reuse
of wastewater can be an example to all other arid regions in the world considering recycling
water supply use.
Conclusion
The idea of a place like Orange County having a completely local and sustainable water
supply may seem impossible to most people. The county’s population is too large to sustain a
local water supply. Orange County’s climate is too dry and presents many challenges in
capturing local rain runoff. The cost of desalination is expensive and public acceptance of
recycled water is low. All we know today are the facts. A majority of Orange County receives
sustainable water through its vast groundwater basin. The majority of the other water is
imported. An important thing to consider when looking to the future is that Orange County
43
replenishes its aquifers with a majority of water that is not legally theirs. In 1968 OCWD
received the rights to conserve 42,000 AFY of Santa Ana River water (OCWD 2008). This
means that Orange County by law only has the rights to 42,000 AFY of water provided by the
Santa Ana River. In contrast OCWD uses hundreds of thousands AF of river water to restore the
aquifer. Currently counties located upstream do not intake their full share of the river. One day
these counties could wise up and prevent OCWD from receiving the majority of its groundwater
supplies. If this were to occur the county could become dramatically desperate for imported
water. With a huge demand for imported water and projections of MWD imported supplies
doubling in cost over the next ten years Orange County could be in a real dilemma. This can all
be prevented if the county invests in the initial cost for a sustainable water supply system and
heavily promotes public awareness and education of the benefits of recycling water. This
research concludes that a localized water system in Orange County will have less annual cost
than a imported water model in 2035. The initial cost may be high but might be a vital
investment to securing independence and reliability. Overall this research provides just a
glimpse at the possibilities of a sustainable future. Further research would have to include
focusing on potential sites for advance water treatment facilities. Survey research on Orange
County residents would provide an in depth analyses of residents concerns of a localize water
system. Orange County residents’ concerns about the “yuck” factor in drinking recycled water
must be addressed and solved. This report did not deal much with conservation efforts for the
region. Data provide by MWDOC has shown conservation is working and will continue to work
with added public awareness campaigns. The state of California might want to consider
rewarding cities and counties for increasing use of sustainable methods. Orange County and the
State of California are heading into a territory of extremely high cost for import water supplies.
44
As these supplies rise consumers will see increases in monthly water bills. In order for the cost
to drop Orange County will need to invest in a more reliable water supply. The research
presented in this report provides Orange County with that local water supply capabilities and can
be used to lead the way for a sustainable water future.
45
References
[Anon], . (2000). Indirect potable reuse hits snags in California. Civil Engineering, 70(6), 24.
Association of California Water Agencies. The Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply
Act of 2012. Summary of Expenditures.
http://www.acwa.com/spotlight/california-water-2012-water-bond
Bell, R.P. (2009). South Orange Costal Desalination Project. Update and Approach to Intake
and Discharge Design and Approvals. Presentation by Richard B. Bell, PE Principal Engineer
and Project Manager Municipal Water District of Orange County. October 16th
2009.
Bennett, A. (2011). Potable Water: New Technology Enables Use of Alternative Water Sources.
Filter + Separation.
Bridgeman, J. (2004). Public perception towards water recycling in California. Water &
Environment Journal, 18(3), 150-154.
California Department of Water Resources. (2009). California Water Plan Updated 2009.
Volume 1. Chapter 5. Managing an Uncertain Future.
California Department of Water Resources. (2009). California Water Plan Updated 2009.
Volume 1. Chapter 4. California Water Today.
California Department of Water Resources. (2009). California Water Plan Updates 2009.
Volume 3. South Coast Hydrological Region.
California Department of Water Resources. (2009). California Water Plan Highlights Updated
2009. Integrated Water Management.
California Department of Water Resources. History of Water Development and the State Water
Project. http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/history.cfm
Center for Demographic Research California State University Fullerton. (2007). Orange County
Projections 2006: Population, Housing and Employment Through 2035. Volume 12, Number 1.
Central Intelligence Agency.(2011). The World Fact Book.
Cayan, D., Lures, A.L., Hanemann, M., Franco, G., (2006). Senarios of Climate Change in
California: An Overview. California Climate Change Center.
Close, C., Durbin, H., Evans-Wlker, D., Ippagunata, R., Lee, B. (2006). Water Reclamation and
Reuse. Water Environmental Research, Volume 78, Number 10.
Cooley, H., Gleick, P.H., Wolff, G. (2006) Desalination, With a Grain of Salt, A California
Perspective. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.
46
Department of Water Resources. Center for Watershed Sciences. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. University of California – Davis.
Dolnicar, S. , & Schafer, A. (2009). Desalinated versus recycled water: Public perceptions and
profiles of the accepters. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 888-900.
Dreizin, Y., Tenne, a., Hoffman, D. (2008). Integrating Large Scale Seawater Desalination Plants
within Israel’s Water Supply System. Science Direct, 132-149.
Freeman, G., Poghosyan, M., Lee, M., (2008). Where Will We Get the Water? Assessing
Southern California’s Future Water Strategies. Los Angeles County Economic Development
Corporation.
Freeman, C.B.,(2008). California’s Water: An LAO Primer. Legislative Analyst Office.
Gleick, P.H., Cooley, H.C., Groves, D., (2005). California Water 2030: An Efficient Future. A
Report of the Pacific Institute, Oakland California.
Grebbien, V. (2002). The History of Orange County Water District and the River it Runs.
Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt., R., Mount., J, Moyle., P., Thompson, B.(2009).
California Water myths. Public Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt., R., Mount., J, Moyle., P., Thompson, B.
(2011). Managing California’s Water From Conflict to Reconciliation. Public Policy Institute of
California.
Hanak, E. (2011). California Water: Planning for a Better Future. Public Policy Institute of
California.
Hanak, E. (2008). Water Supply and Quality. Public Policy Institute of California.
Hamer, W. (2007). The cost of water and water markets in southern california, usa. WIT
Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 103(PAGE), 489-498.
Hurlimann, A. , & Dolnicar, S. (2010). When public opposition defeats alternative water projects
– the case of toowoomba australia. Water Research, 44(1), 287-297.
Hurlimann, A. , & Dolnicar, S. (2011). Voluntary relocation - an exploration of Australian
attitudes in the context of drought, recycled and desalinated water. Global Environmental
Change Part A: Human & Policy Dimensions, 21(3), 1084-1094.
Johnson, T., (2010). Recycled Water For Recharge A Growing Resource for Sustainable
Groundwater Replenishment. Water Replenishment District of Southern California. Version 3.
47
Lahnsteiner, J. , & Lempert, G. (2007). Water management in windhoek, namibia. Water Science
and Technology, 55(1-2), 1-2.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP 2011). The Story of the Los Angeles
Aqueduct. http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/
Lund, J.R., Howitt, R.E., Medellin-Azuara, J., Jenkins, M.W., (2009). Water Management
Lessons for California from Statewide Hydro-economic Modeling. A Report for the California
Markus, M., (2009). The Groundwater Replenishment System. Journal AWWA, 49-51.
Mickey, M. (2011). El Paso explores solar energy for desalination plant. World Water: Water
Reuse & Desalination. Summer 2011.
Morrison, K. (2011) Collaborative Thinking Sparks Singapore’ Drive Toward Water
Sustainability. Solutions Q2, Creative Solutions For Vital Infrastructure. Addressing Water
Scarcity.
Multiple Water Agencies. The Water Cycle Never Ends. National demonstration and
Engagement Program. Detailed Full Proposal Reclaimed Water is viewed as an acceptable
alternative water for augmenting drinking water supplies. Submitted February 21, 2011.
Municipal Water District of Orange County. (2011). 2010 Regional Urban Water Management
Plan. Report prepared by Malcolm Prinie, Inc.
Municipal Water District of Orange County (2009). Municipal Water District of Orange County
Response to the Grand Jury on “Paper Water” – September 2009.
Newlin, B. , Howitt, R. , Jenkins, M. , & Lund, J. (2002). Southern california water markets:
Potential and limitations. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 128(1), 21-32.
Orange County Sanitation District. (2010). What it Takes to Treat Wastewater.
Orange County Water District, 1933-2008. (2008). OCWD 75th
Anniversary Supplement.
Orange County Water District. (2011). Orange County Water District 2009-2010 Report on
Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin Annual recharge Report.
Orange County Water District. (2009). Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update.
Orange County Water District. (1993). 1993 Annual Report, Reflections on 60 years.
Orange County Water District. (1996). 1996 Annual Report.
Orange County Water District. (1983). The Annual Report, 50th
Anniversary Edition.
Orange County Water District. GWRS Project and Operating Cost for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
Orange County Water District. (2010). H.R. 5039 GWRS Expansion Testimony House
Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power.
48
Orange County Water District News. (3/30/11) OCWD Board of Directors Approves
Construction to Expand World Renowned Groundwater Replenishment System.
http://www.gwrsystem.com/images/stories//press-release/Archive/2011/04.01.11-
OCWD%20Board%20Approves%20GWRS%20Expansion.pdf
Public Utilities Board of Singapore (PUB). (2011). Overview of Singapore’s Drainage
Management Approach.
Public Utilities Board of Singapore (PUB). Ensuring Water Sustainability for Singapore: Turning
Scarcity to Opportunity.
Public Utilities Board of Singapore (PUB). (2010). Singapore’s Experience in Ensuring Water
Sustainability.
Renard, N. (2008) Recycling Wastewater, A Solution to Contribute to Sustainability in Water.
Expo Zara Goza.
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA 2011). Santa Ana River Watershed.
http://www.sawpa.org/watershedinfo.html
Sheehan, L. (2009). Summary of Cost and Benefits of Water Supply Alternatives. California
Coastkeeper Alliance.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010). Integrated Water Resources
Plan 2010 Update.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2011). History and first Annual Report
Commemorated Edition.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010). Annual Report 2010. Chapter 7
Finance.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010) Annual Report 2010. Chapter 1.
Delivering Metropolitan’s Water Supplies.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010) Annual Report 2010. Chapter 3.
Water Resource Management.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010). Long Term Financial Plan 2010
Update. October 4th
2010.
The City of Anaheim (2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Report prepared by Malcolm
Prinie, Inc.
The City of Anaheim Utilities Financial Services. (2011). Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Commodity Adjustment Clause. Pages 2.1.1-2.1.6.
The City of Fullerton (2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Report prepared by Malcolm
Prinie, Inc.
The City of Santa Ana. (2005). Urban Water Management Plan 2005.
49
The City of Santa Ana. (2010). Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Transit Zoning Code.
Prepared by PBS&J.
Tortajada, C. (2006). Water management in Singapore. International Journal of Water
Resources Development, 22(2), 227-240.
Voutchkov, N. (2005). Desalination-Water for the Next Generation. Industry Focus. Poseidon
Resource Corporation.
Voutchkov, N. (2010). Seawater desalination: US desalination industry addresses obstacles to
growth. Filter + Separation.
United States Census Bureau. (2010).Orange County, California. State and County QuickFacts.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency.(2004). Guidelines for Water Reuse. Municipal
Support Division. Office of Wastewater Management.
World Bank Advisory Assistance Program. (2006). Dealing with Water Scarcity in Singapore:
Institutions, Strategies, and Enforcement. Environment and Social Development Department
East Asia and Pacific Region The World Bank Washington, D.C.
Zorilla, J.(2011). Sustainable design uses tidal flow and renewable energy. World Water: Water
Reuse & Desalination. Summer 2011.
50
Projection Year
Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported Water 220,132 225,697 234,454 243,853 247,545 250,519
Groundwater 220,052 243,032 246,514 248,933 250,553 251,754
Surface Water 5,485 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100
Recycled Water 39,642 51,658 55,699 59,324 59,492 59,597
Total 485,311 526,487 542,767 558,210 563,690 567,970
Projection Year
Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported Water Use 45.36% 42.87% 43.20% 43.68% 43.92% 44.11%
Groundwater Use 45.34% 46.16% 45.42% 44.59% 44.45% 44.33%
Surface Water Use 1.13% 1.16% 1.12% 1.09% 1.08% 1.07%
Recycled Water 8.17% 9.81% 10.26% 10.63% 10.55% 10.49%
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Acr
e F
ee
t p
er
Ye
ar
Year
Recycled Water
Surface Water
Groundwater
Imported Water
Table 1.MWDOC Normal Water Supply Demand Projections (AFY)
*Source,Municipal Water District of Orange County. (2011). 2010 Regional Urban Water Management
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Year
Imported Water Use
Groundwater Use
Surface Water Use
Recycled Water
Table 2.
MWDOC Water Supply Demand Percentages
51
Projection Year
Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported Water 46,719 53,474 54,391 55,338 56,142 56,284
Groundwater 85,177 92,944 94,533 96,260 97,698 97,946
Total 131,896 146,418 148,924 151,598 153,840 154,230
Projection Year
Water Supply Sources % 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported Water 35% 37% 37% 37% 36% 36%
Groundwater 65% 63% 63% 63% 64% 64%
Santa Ana Projection Year
Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported Water 14,101 15,935 16,225 16,452 16,717 16,717
Groundwater 23,006 25,998 26,473 26,843 27,276 27,276
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 37,107 41,933 42,698 43,295 43,993 43,993
*Source, The City of Santa Ana. (2010). Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Transit Zoning Code.
*Data based on .103 AFY per person and 62% BPP
Anaheim Projection Year
Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported Water 22,031 25,263 25,671 26,476 27,036 27,106
Groundwater 44,898 46,917 47,674 49,169 50,209 50,339
Recycled 0 220 255 255 255 255
Total 66,929 72,180 73,345 75,645 77,245 77,445
* Source, The City of Anaheim. (2011).Urban Water Management Plan 2010.
Fullerton Projection Year
Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported Water 10,587 12,276 12,495 12,410 12,389 12,461
Groundwater 17,273 20,029 20,386 20,248 20,213 20,331
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 27,860 32,305 32,881 32,658 32,602 32,792
* Source, The City of Fullerton. (2011). Urban Water Management Plan 2010.
Table 3.MWD Agencies Normal Water Supply Demand Projections (AFY)
Table 4
Normal Water Supply Demand Projections by City(AFY)
52
Year
Water Demand Type 1990 1995 2000 2005
Municipal/Industrial 447,100 417,700 500,800 504,997
Agriculture 20,800 10,700 20,600 16,781
Total 467,900 428,400 521,400 521,778
Year
Water Demand Type 1990 1995 2000 2005
Municipal/Industrial 96% 98% 96% 97%
Agriculture 4% 2% 4% 3%
Table 5.Historical Water Demand Use (AFY)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
1990 1995 2000 2005
Acr
e F
ee
t P
er
Ye
ar
Municipal/Industrial
Agriculture
*Over the past 20 years almost all of Orange County's water supply has been devoted to municipal and industrial purposes. With large amounts of water going to municipal water supplies conservation can be a key to solving O.C. water worries.
*Source,Municipal Water District of Orange County. (2011). 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan.
53
Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Population Projections for O.C. 3,010,232 3,078,040 3,145,848 3,213,656 3,281,464 3,349,272
Population Projections for MWDOC 2,300,021 2,370,931 2,441,838 2,512,752 2,583,659 2,654,569
Projection Year
Water Supply Projections (AFY) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Orange County (Agency Data) 617,207 673,125 691,946 710,063 717,785 722,455
2010 Avg AFY Use O.C. 635,159 649,466 663,774 678,081 692,389 706,696
Table 6.Orange County Population Projections
*Source-Center for Demographic Research California State University Fullerton. (2007). Orange County Projections 2006: Population, Housing and Employment Through 2035. Volume 12, Number 1.-Municipal Water District of Orange County. (2011). 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan.
*Orange County is projected to have and increase of 350,000 people over the next 25 years. This 13% growth is considered relatively small but will add more pressure to imported and local water supplies. MWDOC service area also having a 13% population increase.
2,000,000
2,200,000
2,400,000
2,600,000
2,800,000
3,000,000
3,200,000
3,400,000
3,600,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Po
pu
lati
on
Year
Population Projections for O.C.
Population Projections for MWDOC
560,000
580,000
600,000
620,000
640,000
660,000
680,000
700,000
720,000
740,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Acr
e F
ee
t p
er
Ye
ar
Orange County (Agency Data)
2010 Avg AFY Use O.C.
Table 7.
Normal Water Supply Demand Projections (AFY)
*Source,Municipal Water District of Orange County. (2011). 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan.
54
55
Projection Year
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Non-Local 302,985 315,305 324,979 335,325 339,821 342,937
Local 314,222 357,820 366,967 374,738 377,964 379,518
Total 617,207 673,125 691,946 710,063 717,785 722,455
Projection Year
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Average Import GW 36,134 36,134 36,134 36,134 36,134 36,134
% Water Supply 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Projection Year
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Non-Local 49.09% 46.84% 46.97% 47.22% 47.34% 47.47%
Local 50.91% 53.16% 53.03% 52.78% 52.66% 52.53%
43.00%
44.00%
45.00%
46.00%
47.00%
48.00%
49.00%
50.00%
51.00%
52.00%
53.00%
54.00%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Non-Local
Local
Table 10.Local vs. Non-Local Water Supply (AFY)
*In order to become completely independent from imported water Orange County would need to increase its sustainable water supply by 343,00 AFY (48% of 2035 water supply).
Table 10-1*36.134 AF of groundwater were considered non-sustainable due to the average amount
of imported water has been used to recharge O.C. groundwater basin.
Table 11.Local vs. Non-Local Water Supply (Percentages)
56
57
Desalination Plants 2035
Huntington Beach 56,000
SOCODP 16,000
Total 72,000
Recycled 2035
Ocean Outfall H20 274,250
Total 274,250
Storm Flow Loses 2035
Santa Ana River 61,518
Total 61,518
Year 2035
Desalination 72,000
Ocean Outfall 274,250
Sustainable H20 379,518
Santa Ana River 61,518
Total 787,286
Table 14.Potential Sustainable Water for Orange
County(AFY)
58
Year SAR Storm Flow Captured Storm Flow/ Local Water Water Lost
1997-98 300,604 67,685 232,919
1998-99 23,673 52,159 0
1999-00 40,269 37,164 3,105
2000-01 54,621 28,879 25,742
2001-02 10,615 24,327 0
2002-03 97,810 49,098 48,712
2003-04 57,317 41,119 16,198
2004-05 469,515 80,072 389,443
2005-06 85,734 89,097 0
2006-07 12,901 36,090 0
2007-08 68,896 60,670 8,226
2008-09 53,662 53,007 655
2009-10 135,775 61,035 74,740
Total 799,740
13yr Average 61,518
Table 15.
Santa Ana River Storm Flow Last 13 Years (AFY)
*Source-Orange County Water District. (2011). Orange County Water District 2009-2010 Report on Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin Annual recharge Report
59
Methods Cost (AFY) Initial Cost Capacity (AFY) Reliability Environment Local Supply
Imported Water $701 $0 324,235 No
Groundwater $425 $0 338,000 Yes/No
Storm Water Capture $350 $40-$63 17,000-40,000 Yes
Recycled Water $887 $637 103,000 Yes
Ocean Desalination $1,287 $300 56,000 Yes
Surface Storage $760-1400 $2,500 200,000-500,000 Yes/No
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Sources: -Orange County Water District. GWRS Project and Operating Cost for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.http://www.gwrsystem.com/images/stories/pdfs/Operating_Costs_Fact_Sheet.pdf-Freeman, G., Poghosyan, M., Lee, M., (2008). Where Will We Get the Water? Assessing Southern California’s Future Water Strategies. Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. -Orange County Water District . (2011). Orange County Water District 2009-2010 Report on Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin Annual recharge Report. -Orange County Water District .(2008).,2006-2007 ENGINEER’S REPORT ON GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS,WATER SUPPLY AND BASIN UTILIZATION IN THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT. -The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.(2010) .Annual Report 2010. Chapter 7 Finance-Municipal Water District of Orange County .(2008). The Dana Point Ocean Desalination Project, Recommended Next Steps and the Cost There of. www.mwdoc.com/documents/FeasibilityStudySummary.ppt
Table 16.
Orange County Water Strategies, Benefit Analyses
* Reliability- based on annual water supply access *Environment- based on environmental Impact
*Source-Freeman, G., Poghosyan, M., Lee, M., (2008). Where Will We Get the Water? Assessing Southern California’s Future Water Strategies. Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.
60
Methods Cost (AFY) Local Supply Local Cost Import Supply Import Cost
Imported Water $701 0 0 306,803 $215,068,903
Groundwater $425 349,700 $148,622,500 349,700 $148,622,500
Storm Water Capture $350 0 $0 0 $0
Recycled Water $887 294,655 $261,358,985 59,597 $52,862,539
Ocean Desalination $1,287 72,000 $92,664,000 0 $0
Surface Storage $1,400 6,100 $8,540,000 6,355 $8,897,000
Totals 722,455 $511,185,485 722,455 $425,450,942
Methods Cost (AFY) Local Supply Local Cost Import Supply Import Cost
Imported Water $1,214 0 0 306,803 $372,458,842
Groundwater $425 349,700 $148,622,500 349,700 $148,622,500
Storm Water Capture $350 0 $0 0 $0
Recycled Water $887 294,655 $261,358,985 59,597 $52,862,539
Ocean Desalination $1,287 72,000 $92,664,000 0 $0
Surface Storage $1,400 6,100 $8,540,000 6,355 $8,897,000
Totals 722,455 $511,185,485 722,455 $582,840,881
Table 17.Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local vs. Non-Local
(Year 2035)
* The difference in cost between a complete local supply and a partially imported supply is $85,734,543. Import water being a less expensive option.*Based off 2010 MWD rates for Tier 1 treated water
* The difference in cost between a complete local supply and a partially imported supply is $71,655,396. Import water being a more expensive option.*Based off 2020 MWD projected rates for Tier 1 treated water
Table 18.
Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local vs. Non-Local(Year 2035)
61
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$ per AF $701 $744 $794 $833 $877 $920 $970 $1,023 $1,079 $1,146 $1,214
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Table 19.MWD Projected Rates for Import Water to 2020
*Rates based on treated tier 1 service*Source-The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010). Long Term Financial Plan 2010 Update. October 4 th 2010.
62
Methods Cost (AFY) Initial Cost Capacity (AFY)
Recycled Water $887 $637 103,000
Desalination $1,287 $0 0
Methods Cost (AFY) Initial Cost Capacity (AFY)
Recycled Water $887 $1,185 191,655
Desalination $1,287 $360 72,000
Total $1,545 263,655
* Initial cost in the millions
Table 20.
Orange County Water Strategies, Initial Cost of Current Local Water Methods
Table 21.
Orange County Water Strategies, Estimated Initial Cost of Future Water
63
64
65
Appendix
66
Image I
Southern California Water Agencies
67