An in Depth Analysis of Orange Countys 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 18 , 2011____

th

Dr. Jonathan Taylor, Project Advisor Department of Geography

Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT... ACRONYMS. LIST OF FIGURES Section I. INTRODUCTION Purpose and Methodology Water Agencies Sustainability HISTORY OF WATER IN ORANGE COUNTY.. Before European Influence.. Spanish and Mexican Water Use. Agricultural Boom in Orange County.. The Beginning of Importing Water.. Improving Local Supplies THE POSSIBILTY OF A SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY Orange County Water 2010. Projected Water Supply in 2035.. Local Vs Non-Local Water Supplies... Reaching A Sustainable Supply... The Cost of Sustainability Benefits of Desalination... Benefits of Recycled Water.. PUBLIC ACEPTANCE, TOILET TO TAP?................................................................... Setbacks In San Diego.. Public Outcry, The Toowoomba Case.. Analyzing Public Perspectives.. GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES. Singapore.. Namibia. CONCLUSION. REFERENCES.. FIGURES.. 1 4 6 7 7 7 8 9 11 14 18 18 20 22 24 29 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 39 41 42 45 50 65 i ii iii

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI. VII. VIII.

APPENDIX.

II

Abstract Orange Countys 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 Countys 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.

Acronyms Used in this Report AF AFY BPP DWR GWRS LADWP MF MGD MWDOC MWD OCWD OCSD PUB RO SAWPA SOCWA SWP USEPA UWMP WCA Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Per Year Basin Production Percentage California Department of Water Resources Groundwater Replenishment System Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Microfiltration Million Gallons Per Day Municipal Water District of Orange County Metropolitan Water District Orange County Water District Orange County Sanitation District Public Utilities Board of Singapore Reverse Osmosis Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority South Orange County Wastewater Authority State Water Project United States Environmental Protection Agency Urban Water Management Plan Water Conservation Association

ii

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

iii

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

iv

Introduction Water in California has been an important issue since the states founding in the mid 19th century. Essential to the states 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 Californias arid climate regions being home to the majority of the states population, the need for water has led to an increasing dependence from areas outside of the region. The majority of Southern Californias 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 nonlocal 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 Californias 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 regions thirst. Dry years in California lead to less snow pack and keep water prices at a premium, forcing
1

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 regions 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
2

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 states 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 states 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 states 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
3

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. Singapores 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.

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 Countys 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 Countys 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.

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 Californias 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 Countys right to the Santa Ana River. OCWD is mainly responsible for managing Orange Countys 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

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. Californias 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

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 rivers 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. Annes 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

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. Yorbas 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

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 1960s (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

10

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 rivers 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 Rivers 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 Countys rights to the Santa Ana River (OCWD 1983). The Beginning of Importing Water

11

As Orange County was establishing water rights for its local sources California as a whole was growing larger and larger. Los Angeles, Orange Countys 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 Angeless 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
12

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 1950s progressed Orange Countys 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
13

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. Californias 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 1960s 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 1960s 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 Rivers 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

14

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 OCWDs 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 indirect 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

15

desalination plant in Orange County was abandoned (Grebbien 2002). Recycled water had taken a major step over desalination in becoming Orange Countys 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 1950s 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 OCWDs artificial recharge basins. The
16

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). OCWDs 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 Countys 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.
17

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 todays 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).
18

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 Countys 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 countys water supply (MWDOC 2011). As of now recycled water makes up about 6.5% of the countys total water supply. Surface storage water provides a small contribution to Orange Countys 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

19

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 countys 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 Countys 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

20

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 MWDOCs jurisdiction which is made up of 28 Orange County municipalities. MWDOCs 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.
21

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 Countys 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 countys 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 Countys 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 countys total water supply methods. Local vs. Non Local Water Supplies

22

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
23

1.5% and will provide a total of 47.47% of Orange Countys 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

24

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).
25

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 Countys 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 Countys dependence on imported water. Desalination is an additional supply that could potentially alleviate Orange Countys 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 countys 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 Countys 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
26

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 Countys 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
27

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 countys wastewater to provide a sustainable water supply. An added important feature in shaping recycled water to be the countys 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
28

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
29

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
30

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
31

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 Countys 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
32

giant leaps to become more affordable and less demanding on energy. These plants should be thought of when glancing at Orange Countys 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 Countys future. The cost are adequate, reliability is good, environmental impacts are limited. The only factor in preventing this from

33

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 Countys 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 Countys 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
34

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
35

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 citys 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,
36

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
37

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
38

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 Californias 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 Countys 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). Singapores 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

39

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. Singapores 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 Singapores 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
40

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 Singapores water in the future (PUB 2011). Singapores 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. Namibias capital
41

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 citys 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 countys population is too large to sustain a local water supply. Orange Countys 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

42

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.

43

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.

44

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.

45

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 Israels Water Supply System. Science Direct, 132-149. Freeman, G., Poghosyan, M., Lee, M., (2008). Where Will We Get the Water? Assessing Southern Californias Future Water Strategies. Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. Freeman, C.B.,(2008). Californias 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 Californias 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.

46

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.

47

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/2011/04.01.11OCWD%20Board%20Approves%20GWRS%20Expansion.pdf Public Utilities Board of Singapore (PUB). (2011). Overview of Singapores 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). Singapores 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 Metropolitans 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.
48

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.

49

Table 1. MWDOC Normal Water Supply Demand Projections (AFY)

Water Supply Sources Imported Water Groundwater Surface Water Recycled Water Total
600,000
Acre Feet per Year
500,000

2010 220,132 220,052 5,485 39,642 485,311

2015 225,697 243,032 6,100 51,658 526,487

Projection Year 2020 2025 234,454 243,853 246,514 248,933 6,100 6,100 55,699 59,324 542,767 558,210

2030 247,545 250,553 6,100 59,492 563,690

2035 250,519 251,754 6,100 59,597 567,970

*Source,Municipal Water District of Orange County. (2011). 2010 Regional Urban Water Management

400,000
300,000 Recycled Water Surface Water Groundwater Imported Water 2010 2015 2020 Year 2025 2030 2035

200,000
100,000

Table 2. MWDOC Water Supply Demand Percentages

Water Supply Sources Imported Water Use Groundwater Use Surface Water Use Recycled Water
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

2010 45.36% 45.34% 1.13% 8.17%

Projection Year 2015 2020 2025 42.87% 43.20% 43.68% 46.16% 45.42% 44.59% 1.16% 1.12% 1.09% 9.81% 10.26% 10.63%

2030 43.92% 44.45% 1.08% 10.55%

2035 44.11% 44.33% 1.07% 10.49%

Percentage

Imported Water Use Groundwater Use Surface Water Use

Recycled Water

Year

50

Table 3. MWD Agencies Normal Water Supply Demand Projections (AFY)

Water Supply Sources Imported Water Groundwater Total 2010 46,719 85,177 131,896 Projection Year 2015 2020 2025 53,474 54,391 55,338 92,944 94,533 96,260 146,418 148,924 151,598 Projection Year 2015 2020 2025 37% 37% 37% 63% 63% 63% 2030 56,142 97,698 153,840 2035 56,284 97,946 154,230

Water Supply Sources % Imported Water Groundwater

2010 35% 65%

2030 36% 64%

2035 36% 64%

Table 4 Normal Water Supply Demand Projections by City(AFY)

Santa Ana
Water Supply Sources Imported Water Groundwater Recycled Total 2010 14,101 23,006 0 37,107 Projection Year 2015 2020 2025 15,935 16,225 16,452 25,998 26,473 26,843 0 0 0 41,933 42,698 43,295 2030 16,717 27,276 0 43,993 2035 16,717 27,276 0 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
Water Supply Sources Imported Water Groundwater Recycled Total 2010 22,031 44,898 0 66,929 Projection Year 2015 2020 2025 25,263 25,671 26,476 46,917 47,674 49,169 220 255 255 72,180 73,345 75,645 2030 27,036 50,209 255 77,245 2035 27,106 50,339 255 77,445

* Source, The City of Anaheim. (2011).Urban Water Management Plan 2010.

Fullerton
Water Supply Sources Imported Water Groundwater Recycled Total 2010 10,587 17,273 0 27,860 Projection Year 2015 2020 2025 12,276 12,495 12,410 20,029 20,386 20,248 0 0 0 32,305 32,881 32,658 2030 12,389 20,213 0 32,602 2035 12,461 20,331 0 32,792

* Source, The City of Fullerton. (2011). Urban Water Management Plan 2010.

51

Table 5. Historical Water Demand Use (AFY)

Water Demand Type Municipal/Industrial Agriculture Total 1990 447,100 20,800 467,900 Year 1995 2000 2005 417,700 500,800 504,997 10,700 20,600 16,781 428,400 521,400 521,778 Year 1995 2000 98% 96% 2% 4%

Water Demand Type Municipal/Industrial Agriculture

1990 96% 4%

2005 97% 3%

*Source,Municipal Water District of Orange County. (2011). 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan.

600,000
500,000

Acre Feet Per Year

400,000

300,000
200,000 100,000

Municipal/Industrial
Agriculture

0 1990 1995 2000 2005

*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.

52

Table 6. Orange County Population Projections

Yea r Popul a ti on Projecti ons for O.C.
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

3,010,232 3,078,040 3,145,848 3,213,656 3,281,464 3,349,272

Popul a ti on Projecti ons for MWDOC 2,300,021 2,370,931 2,441,838 2,512,752 2,583,659 2,654,569
*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.

3,600,000 3,400,000

3,200,000
Population

3,000,000 2,800,000 2,600,000 2,400,000

2,200,000 2,000,000

Population Projections for O.C. Population Projections for MWDOC

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Year
*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.

Table 7. Normal Water Supply Demand Projections (AFY)

Projection Year
Wa ter Suppl y Projecti ons (AFY) Ora nge County (Agency Da ta ) 2010 Avg AFY Us e O.C.
2010 617,207 635,159 2015 673,125 649,466 2020 691,946 663,774 2025 710,063 678,081 2030 717,785 692,389 2035 722,455 706,696

740,000
720,000 700,000

Acre Feet per Year

680,000
660,000 640,000

Orange County (Agency Data) 2010 Avg AFY Use O.C.

620,000
600,000

580,000 560,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
*Source,Municipal Water District of Orange County. (2011). 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan.

53

54

Table 10. Local vs. Non-Local Water Supply (AFY)

2010 302,985 314,222 617,207 2015 315,305 357,820 673,125 Projection Year 2020 2025 324,979 335,325 366,967 374,738 691,946 710,063 2030 339,821 377,964 717,785 2035 342,937 379,518 722,455

Non-Local Local Total

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.

Average Import GW % Water Supply

2010 36,134 6%

Projection Year 2015 2020 2025 36,134 36,134 36,134 5% 5% 5%

2030 36,134 5%

2035 36,134 5%

Table 11. Local vs. Non-Local Water Supply (Percentages)

Projection Year 2015 2020 2025 46.84% 46.97% 47.22% 53.16% 53.03% 52.78%

Non-Local Local
54.00% 53.00% 52.00%
51.00% 50.00% 49.00% 48.00%

2010 49.09% 50.91%

2030 47.34% 52.66%

2035 47.47% 52.53%

Non-Local Local

47.00% 46.00% 45.00%

44.00% 43.00%

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

*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).

55

56

Table 14. Potential Sustainable Water for Orange County(AFY)

Desalination Plants Huntington Beach SOCODP Total Recycled Ocean Outfall H20 Total Storm Flow Loses Santa Ana River Total Year Desalination Ocean Outfall Sustainable H20 Santa Ana River Total 2035 56,000 16,000 72,000 2035 274,250 274,250 2035 61,518 61,518 2035 72,000 274,250 379,518 61,518 787,286

57

Table 15. Santa Ana River Storm Flow Last 13 Years (AFY)
Year 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 SAR Storm Flow 300,604 23,673 40,269 54,621 10,615 97,810 57,317 469,515 85,734 12,901 68,896 53,662 135,775 Captured Storm Flow/ Local Water 67,685 52,159 37,164 28,879 24,327 49,098 41,119 80,072 89,097 36,090 60,670 53,007 61,035 Total 13yr Average
*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

Water Lost 232,919 0 3,105 25,742 0 48,712 16,198 389,443 0 0 8,226 655 74,740 799,740 61,518

58

Table 16. Orange County Water Strategies, Benefit Analyses

Methods Imported Water Groundwater Storm Water Capture Recycled Water Ocean Desalination Surface Storage

Cost (AFY) $701 $425 $350 $887 $1,287 $760-1400

Initial Cost $0 $0 $40-$63 $637 $300 $2,500

Capacity (AFY) 324,235 338,000 17,000-40,000 103,000 56,000 200,000-500,000

Reliability

Environment Local Supply No Yes/No Yes Yes Yes Yes/No

Positive Neutral Negative

* 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 Californias Future Water Strategies. Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.

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 Californias 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 ENGINEERS 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

59

Table 17. Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local vs. Non-Local (Year 2035)
Methods Imported Water Groundwater Storm Water Capture Recycled Water Ocean Desalination Surface Storage Cost (AFY) $701 $425 $350 $887 $1,287 $1,400 Local Supply 0 349,700 0 294,655 72,000 6,100 722,455 Local Cost 0 $148,622,500 $0 $261,358,985 $92,664,000 $8,540,000 $511,185,485 Import Supply 306,803 349,700 0 59,597 0 6,355 722,455 Import Cost $215,068,903 $148,622,500 $0 $52,862,539 $0 $8,897,000 $425,450,942

Totals

* 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

Table 18. Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local vs. Non-Local (Year 2035)
Methods Imported Water Groundwater Storm Water Capture Recycled Water Ocean Desalination Surface Storage Cost (AFY) $1,214 $425 $350 $887 $1,287 $1,400 Local Supply 0 349,700 0 294,655 72,000 6,100 722,455 Local Cost 0 $148,622,500 $0 $261,358,985 $92,664,000 $8,540,000 $511,185,485 Import Supply 306,803 349,700 0 59,597 0 6,355 722,455 Import Cost $372,458,842 $148,622,500 $0 $52,862,539 $0 $8,897,000 $582,840,881

Totals

* 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

60

Table 19. MWD Projected Rates for Import Water to 2020

Yea r $ per AF 2010 $701 2011 $744 2012 $794 2013 $833 2014 $877 2015 $920 2016 $970 2017 2018 2019 2020

$1,023 $1,079 $1,146 $1,214

$1,400

$1,200 $1,000 $800 $600

$400 $200

$0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 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.

61

Table 20. Orange County Water Strategies, Initial Cost of Current Local Water Methods
Methods Cost (AFY) Initial Cost Capacity (AFY)

Recycled Water Desalination

$887 $1,287

$637 $0

103,000 0

Table 21. Orange County Water Strategies, Estimated Initial Cost of Future Water
Methods Cost (AFY) Initial Cost Capacity (AFY)

Recycled Water Desalination

$887 $1,287 Total

$1,185 $360 $1,545

191,655 72,000 263,655

* Initial cost in the millions

62

63

64

Appendix

65

Image I Southern California Water Agencies

66

67