I

An in Depth Analysis of Orange County’s Water Future, A look at a

Completely Sustainable Water Supply in the next 25 Years.

_______________________________________________________

A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University Fullerton

_______________________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Environmental

Studies

_______________________________________________________

By Kevin Bryan Hostert

Approved By:

__________________________ __November 18th

, 2011____

Dr. Jonathan Taylor, Project Advisor Date

Department of Geography

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………... i

ACRONYMS…………………………………………………………………………………………. ii

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………………… iii

Section

I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………… 1

Purpose and Methodology……………………………………………………………… 4

Water Agencies………………………………………………………………………… 6

Sustainability…………………………………………………………………………… 7

II. HISTORY OF WATER IN ORANGE COUNTY…………………………………….. 7

Before European Influence…………………………………………………………….. 7

Spanish and Mexican Water Use………………………………………………………. 8

Agricultural Boom in Orange County………………………………………………….. 9

The Beginning of Importing Water…………………………………………………….. 11

Improving Local Supplies……………………………………………………………… 14

III. THE POSSIBILTY OF A SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY………………………………… 18

Orange County Water 2010……………………………………………………………. 18

Projected Water Supply in 2035……………………………………………………….. 20

Local Vs Non-Local Water Supplies…………………………………………………... 22

Reaching A Sustainable Supply………………………………………………………... 24

The Cost of Sustainability……………………………………………………………… 29

Benefits of Desalination………………………………………………………………... 32

Benefits of Recycled Water…………………………………………………………….. 33

IV. PUBLIC ACEPTANCE, TOILET TO TAP?......................................................... .......... 34

Setbacks In San Diego………………………………………………………………….. 35

Public Outcry, The Toowoomba Case………………………………………………….. 36

Analyzing Public Perspectives………………………………………………………….. 37

V. GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES……………………………………………………………. 39

Singapore……………………………………………………………………………….. 39

Namibia…………………………………………………………………………………. 41

VI. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………. 42

VII. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………….. 45

VIII. FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………….. 50

APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………………………. 65

i

Abstract

Orange County’s water has mainly been supplied by importing water from Northern

California and the Colorado River. For years the region has been highly dependent on foreign

water to provide for its increasing population. Current technologies have been developed around

the world that can provide more feasible ways of relieving imported supplies. With the

uncertainties of climate change bringing future droughts to California and the cost of maintaining

an aging canal system, Orange County needs to focus on creating more sustainable methods for

the future water supply. The purpose of this research is to examine the current and future of

Orange County’s water supply and determine the potential reality of a completely sustainable

supply for the region. Annual cost, environmental factors and initial capacity will be examined

to determine the value of a completely localized system. This research will present the value of

all local water methods and present a portrait of how these methods can contribute to a localized

system. This research will focus mainly on five methods of delivering water to Orange County.

These five methods are ocean desalination, recycled water, ground water recharge, surface

storage and the use of imported water.

ii

Acronyms Used in this Report

AF Acre-Feet

AFY Acre-Feet Per Year

BPP Basin Production Percentage

DWR California Department of Water Resources

GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System

LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

MF Microfiltration

MGD Million Gallons Per Day

MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County

MWD Metropolitan Water District

OCWD Orange County Water District

OCSD Orange County Sanitation District

PUB Public Utilities Board of Singapore

RO Reverse Osmosis

SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

SOCWA South Orange County Wastewater Authority

SWP State Water Project

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UWMP Urban Water Management Plan

WCA Water Conservation Association

iii

List of Tables

Table 1: MWDOC Normal Water Supply Demand Projections

Table 2: MWDOC Water Supply Demand Percentages

Table 3: MWD Agencies Normal Water Supply Demand Projections

Table 4: MWD Agencies Normal Water Supply Demand Projections by City

Table 5: Orange County Historical Water Demand Use

Table 6: Orange county Population Projections

Table 7: Normal Water Supply Demand Projections

Table 8: Orange County Normal Water Supply Demand Projections

Table 9: Orange County Water Supply Demand Percentages

Table 10: Local Vs Non-Local Water Supply

Table 10-1: Average Amount of Imported Water for Groundwater Recharge

Table 11: Local Vs Non-Local Water Supply in Percentages

Table 12: Orange County Wastewater Supply

Table 13: Orange County Recycled Wastewater Supply

Table 14: Potential Sustainable Water for Orange County

Table 15: Santa Ana River Storm Flow the Last 13 Years

Table 16: Orange County Water Strategies, Benefits Analyses

Table 17: Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local Vs Non-Local

Table 18: Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local Vs non-Local with MWD Projected Rates

Table 19: MWD Projected Rates for Import Water to 2020

Table 20: Orange County Water Strategy, Initial Cost of Current Local Water Methods

Table 21: Orange County Water Strategies, Estimated Cost of Future Water

iv

List of Maps

Map 1: Orange County Water Consumption

Map 2: Orange County Water Providers

Appendix

Image 1: MWD Member Agencies

Image II: Orange County Potable Water Supply Organizational Chart

1

Introduction

Water in California has been an important issue since the state’s founding in the mid 19th

century. Essential to the state’s agriculture economy and the ever-expanding population, the

demand for water has led to a decrease in natural water supply consumption. As Southern

California developed over the past century the need to meet the water demand became a

challenge. With Southern California’s arid climate regions being home to the majority of the

state’s population, the need for water has led to an increasing dependence from areas outside of

the region. The majority of Southern California’s water supply originates in the northern part of

the state or in the Colorado River, hundreds of miles from the population centers of Los Angeles,

Orange and San Diego Counties. The need to bring water to the Southland is essential to the

regions economic development and population growth. This system of canals, pipes and

reservoirs is what has allowed Southern California to become one of the largest population

centers in the United States. Water has not only helped population growth but has also

physically changed the landscape. Imported irrigation has permitted Southern California to look

like a desert oasis. The region is covered with non-native plants that only survive on the non-

local water supply. The redistributing of water from Northern California and the Colorado River

has been deemed an incredible engineering feat and this accomplishment has made the southland

completely dependent on outside water sources.

Southern California’s dependence on imported water causes many problems. The

restructuring of water systems creates many environmental issues for local ecosystems. Mono

and Owens Lake are examples of how the Los Angeles Aqueduct destroyed natural habitats. The

Colorado River Delta has dried up due to dams and diversions to quench the region’s thirst. Dry

years in California lead to less snow pack and keep water prices at a premium, forcing

2

consumers to conserve. The uncertainties of annual rainfall create reliability issues for imported

water. These problems will not vanish and have forced water producers to think of more

sustainable ways to increase the water supply. Orange County currently uses many sustainable

ways to increase its water supply, including groundwater recharge, recycling water, surface

storage, and ocean water desalination (proposed projects in Huntington Beach and Dana Point).

These sustainable methods of producing clean drinking water provide Orange County with

multiple ways of meeting its water demand. The only problem is Orange County still is very

dependent on imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River. The purpose of

this research is to determine if Orange County could potentially have a completely sustainable

water supply. A sustainable water supply for Orange County could help alleviate the region’s

dependence on imported water. Increasing sustainable and local water supplies will also be more

effective in the case of natural disasters. Currently millions of Californians depend on the canals

and pipes that feed our region. In the rare event of a major natural disaster that could disrupt the

flow of these aqueducts, Southern California could potentially be cut off and forced to be

dependent on its scarce local water supply.

As someone who has spent the last year and a half working for a public water agency, I

have become more aware of how large of an effort it is to supply water for Orange County. Like

most residents in Orange County I was aware that our water supply was based on purchasing

imported water from the Colorado River and Northern California. As someone who travels up

the Owens Valley to Mammoth I heard the stories of what the L.A. Aqueduct did to the region

and have seen the incredible low water levels at Mono Lake. Importing water creates

devastating impacts on far-away local ecosystems and destroys natural watersheds.

Unfortunately, the thirst of the state must be met and certain sacrifices have been made in order

3

to provide all Californians with water. The Delta Smelt in the San Joaquin River Delta is an

example of water demand vs. environmental impact. The smelt has caused great controversy

over water supply deliveries for farmers in the central valley. The fish were dying due to human

activity on the delta. The debate on saving the Delta Smelt would be obsolete if the state’s cities

and counties could provide themselves with local water supplies. The Delta Smelt controversy is

a result of the lower part of the state relying on imported water deliveries for nearly 75 years. As

the state’s population continues to grow over the 21st century, the need to supply this valuable

resource will only lead to more problems. Many parts of the state will need to improve on

creating sustainable water supplies. This research will focus on the County of Orange and the

possibility of a sustainable water supply. A localized water system for Orange County could

provide localized models for surrounding cities and counties. This could provide huge relief on

imported supplies and help water supply reliability while promoting environmental

sustainability.

Understanding the severity of water problems around the world made me question the

possibility of sustainable water resources. Knowing that technology has improved vastly since

the construction of the state’s current imported water facilities and understanding that other parts

of the world are becoming more involved in promoting sustainable water methods, I posed the

question: Is it possible for a region in California to be completely independent in its own water

capabilities? This question was presented to me a few years ago, when I saw a documentary

about Singapore and its goal of becoming completely sustainable from imported water.

Traveling to Singapore I realized how densely populated that small island nation was and

realized its population was only slightly larger than Orange County. With Singapore being

located on the equator it does have the advantage of receiving more annual rainfall than Orange

4

County. A disadvantage for Singapore is the small island nation is unable to catch and store its

large amounts of rainfall and is force to purchase imported water from neighboring Malaysia.

Singapore’s water success came from desalination, surface storage, and recycled water. This

made me think, why are these techniques not being used in Southern California to alleviate the

imported water demand? Can Orange County be like Singapore and strive for a completely

localized water system? Is it even possible? The research question I intend to answer is what

would it take to create a completely sustainable or localized water supply in Orange County in

the next 25 years? The question is not proposing that a system based on local water is ideally the

best idea but a plausible one. Some factors to consider: What would the cost be for a sustainable

system? Would there be more or less environmental impacts? Is it realistic? Do we have the

technology? The purpose of this research is to create an in-depth analysis of a

sustainable/localized water supply for the year 2035.

Purpose and Methodology

The idea of this study is to provide water agencies with a conceptual understanding of

how to bridge the gap for an entire localized water supply in Orange County. This research is

not declaring that a localized water system is the best option but will examine the positive and

negative effects of a sustainable system. The rationale is to provide an overall model of a

sustainable system including annual and initial start up cost. This model will also determine the

most environmentally friendly aspects of water production and how they will be enhanced in the

future. The overall purpose of this research is to open up the possibilities for further

development of sustainable water methods for Orange County and the surrounding regions.

5

The methods used for this study involved focusing on water supply data projections for

the next 25 years. Most of the data that has been used for this project has come from local water

agencies. Water supply data and projections have been provided by the cities of Fullerton, Santa

Ana, Anaheim and the agencies of the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)

and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). A majority of groundwater

supply data was provided by the Orange County Water District. The validity of this data is

determined by the accuracy provided by these agencies in their 2010 UWMP reports. The

research design was created to provide a general overall view of future water demands and how

this supply can be supplemented by encouraging more local efforts. Orange County’s water

supply and projections were based on combining all the data from these multiple water reports.

The water statistics were based on years with average rainfall and did not take into consideration

extremely dry years or extremely wet years. Water supply takes into consideration all water uses

(ex. industrial, residential, agriculture). Because of Orange County’s suburban landscape, the

majority of water use is for local municipal and industrial uses. Sustainable methods for water

production were groundwater recharge, surface water use and recycled water. Desalination was

considered sustainable for this research purpose but currently is not available in Orange County.

Groundwater recharge was considered sustainable based on the fact that a majority of the water

for recharge comes from local rainfall. Imported water for groundwater recharge averages

36,134 AFY on a ten year average (OCWD 2011). This percent of groundwater was taken into

consideration and not considered to be a local water source, therefore making it non-sustainable.

Surface water capture was only considered sustainable if the water capture had resulted from

local rainfall. The design of this research is to present the most feasible way Orange County can

established a completely local water supply.

6

The water supply data in this research mostly refers to direct water usage. Direct use

refers to municipal, agricultural and industrial water usage. Most direct use in Orange County is

focused on municipal and industrial use. Unlike other parts of the state, Orange County has little

land in agricultural use and a very small percentage of our water is used for agriculture (See

Table 5). Indirect use refers to all other usage. This usage includes using water to replenish our

groundwater basins and water to act as a barrier from sea water intrusion from the ocean. Sea

water intrusion refers to ocean water that seeps in to the aquifers and contaminates it. By

injecting fresh water into the ground indirectly sea water is block from entering the aquifers.

Water Agencies

The state of California contains hundreds of water agencies. Appendix I Image 2 is an

organization chart for Orange County water suppliers created by MWDOC. The chart shows

how the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation/

California Colorado River Board are in charge of our imported water sources. MWD acts as the

regional importer and is in charge of supplying Southern California’s 19 million residents with

imported water. MWDOC is the sub regional importer for our local area and supplies most of

Orange County with imported water. MWD is responsible for supplying the cities of Anaheim,

Santa Ana and Fullerton. The Orange County Water District act as a special government agency

to oversee and protect Orange County’s right to the Santa Ana River. OCWD is mainly

responsible for managing Orange County’s groundwater basin, located in the northern part of the

county. OCWD is a specialized government agency and is not considered a water supplier. In

California, efforts for creating sustainable water methods are provided mainly at the local level.

Because DWR and MWD have monopolized importing water to Southern California, local water

7

agencies are forced to create more local/sustainable techniques in order to have a more reliable

water supply.

Sustainability

Water methods that are considered sustainable in this report are all methods that produce

water at the local level. All supply methods that are not dependent on imported water are

considered sustainable in this report. These methods include ocean desalination, recycled water,

groundwater recharged and local surface storage. Certain water supply methods may be

considered non-sustainable due to the environmental impacts they create or the amount of fossil

fuels they consume. An example of this method would be the energy consumption for producing

desalinated water. These factors will be examined when creating a future water supply model

but for the purpose of this research all local methods will be considered sustainable.

History of Water in Orange County

The history of water use in Orange County can be traced back hundreds of years to the

time of the first inhabitants of California. California’s history is uniquely linked with the

continued search for finding more water. Records of water use in the county and in California

provide details of how our water policy has change over the years and where it is going.

Before European Influence

The original residents of Orange County were native Indian tribes known as the

Gabrielenos and Juanenos. These groups lived off the land and were mobile moving from place

to place to find food and water. Archeological evidence has suggested that the natives had

temporary villages at the mouth of the Santa Ana River (Grebbien 2002). The villages were

8

located on the bluffs of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach and were used as seasonal hunting

grounds during the dry season (Grebbien 2002). The first European inhabitants of what is now

Orange County were Spanish missionaries lead by Father Junipero Serra. In the later part of the

18th

century Father Serra would make his way into the county from San Diego by blazing the

Mustard Seed Trail (OCWD 1983). The Spanish mission system would be the first traces of

development by foreigners in California and would lead the approach to water irrigation. Father

Serra would become the founder of not just the missions but also water development for Orange

County.

The Santa Ana River is and was the most valuable local water resource for Orange

County. The river is formed high up in the San Bernardino Mountains, flows through San

Bernardino and Riverside Counties where its tributaries meet then flows into Orange County,

entering in the East Anaheim area. Native Americans were the first inhabitant of the river’s

banks dating back 12,000 years (SAWPA 2011). The natives used the river as a food and water

source but did not raise crops or irrigate the land. With small populations and a willingness to be

mobile the native Indian tribes were able to survive off the river. The notion of agriculture and

irrigation would come from the new Spanish settlers who would begin occupying the land in

1769 (SAPWA 2011).

Spanish and Mexican Water Use

The Santa Ana River was originally named the Saint Anne River by Junipero Serra.

Serra discovered the river with his fellow padres and Spanish soldiers on July 28, 1769, St.

Anne’s Day (OCWD 1983). The river then was much different then what we see today. It was

noted by the Spanish that the river was more than a mile wide and would change its banks and

9

course during large storm events. The river outflow has moved from Alamitos Bay to Newport

Bay in the past (OCWD 1983). Similar to the Native Americans the European settlers could

survive off the river, however things changed at the turn of the 19th

century. Jose Antonio Yorba

would be the first settler to take claim to the Santa Ana River. In 1810 Yorba had received the

first Spanish land grant that gave him 62,000 acres where the cities of Tustin, Orange, Santa Ana

and Costa Mesa stand today (OCWD 1983). Yorba would become the first person to use the

Santa Ana River for irrigation by building ditches and canals to divert parts of the river. Yorba’s

acts lead to the first judicial riparian water rights. The U.S. District Court confirmed Santa Ana

River rights in 1860. Land developers would slowly flock to California during the period from

1784 to 1833 but none would come to the Orange County area (OCWD 1983). As time went on

Mexico separated from Spanish rule and California became a Mexican state. This new state

would set the stage for water and land rights for the rest of the 19th

century.

Mexican rule had a huge impact on the future growth of Orange County. The Mexican

government granted secularization of the California missions allowing access to land for private

owners (OCWD 1983). In the twelve years following this act the Mexican government would

provide land to 600 private owners. This opened up the door for increase farming and irrigation

along the Santa Ana River. The ranchers were mainly focused on raising livestock however as

time went on hides and tallow became extremely valuable and were exported via the Pacific

Ocean. Richard H. Dana and the famous ship the Pilgrim helped export these goods (OCWD

1983).

Agricultural Boom in Orange County

10

As the Gold Rush began in Northern California the state would be admitted to the United

States of America. Many new settlers began questioning land grants from the previous Spanish

and Mexican governments. The ranchers who were exporting hides and tallow would face many

obstacles from the new settlers. As the state suffered from one of its worst droughts in 1863, the

ranching era would come to an end (OCWD 1983). As ranching died out agriculture became

more abundant in Orange County. The area known as Anaheim today was founded by German

settlers who successfully created vineyards which lead to an agricultural boom for the region.

During this agricultural boom many communities would pop up along the Santa Ana River.

During this time A.B. Chapman founded the City of Orange and William Spurgeon founded

Santa Ana. This was also the same time when another famous figure would ascend the Orange

County agricultural boom. James Irvine would relocate to start the Irvine Ranch after leaving his

work in San Francisco finding precious gold during the Gold Rush (OCWD 1983). The farming

era would lead to huge irrigation increases from the Santa Ana River. The water levels in the

basin would become lower leaving more arid land and more new soil for farming. Additional

farming would lead to more elaborate ways of irrigation. Irrigation systems would bring water

from streams to cultivate land by gravity. These systems were very successful and were used up

until the 1960’s (OCWD 1983). This may perhaps be argued the time that everything would

change in Orange County. The arid landscape of Southern California was beginning to flourish

all due to enhancement in local irrigation. Even President William Howard Taft noted the huge

contrast between the highly developed agricultural lands and the very arid desert surroundings

(OCWD 1983). This is what I like to refer to as the beginning of the current look for Orange

County. Innovated concepts of irrigation were changing the landscapes of Southern California

providing the region with unnatural vegetation that made the area look much greener than

11

normal. As the 19th

century continued the primary choice for agriculture would be oranges,

giving the county its distinctive name when it was established in 1889.

During the period when Orange County was established demand for water in the Santa

Ana River grew rapidly. Orange County, which was located on the southern part of the Santa

Ana River basin, had many issues over rights with the upstream territories. The northern

communities claimed that they had full rights to the Santa Ana River while the southern end

claimed they deserved half the river’s flow. Eventually the California Supreme Court would

overturn a previous ruling and determine that the north and south sides of the river should divide

the river quantity in half (OCWD 1983). As laws were set out to establish rights to the river the

demand kept on growing. As demand grew the use of the Santa Ana River’s groundwater basin

amplified. Groundwater was so vast in Orange County at this time that uncapped wells would

sometimes flood. As time went on groundwater started to diminish do to the great number of

river diversions. Eventually groundwater seepage would only occur during winter storms. Since

the storms delivered a large amount of rain at once it was hard to capture all that water making it

difficult to fully replenish the aquifers. This lead to the establishment of the Water Conservation

Association, a group comprised of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. By the

beginning of the 20th

century the association helped set aside 1,000 acres of federal land for

surface storage and to help replenish the groundwater basins (OCWD 1983). The WCA then

establish the upper and lower Santa Ana River Basins and the Senate Bill 1201 was introduced

creating the Orange County Water District and protecting Orange County’s rights to the Santa

Ana River (OCWD 1983).

The Beginning of Importing Water

12

As Orange County was establishing water rights for its local sources California as a

whole was growing larger and larger. Los Angeles, Orange County’s neighbor to the north

would become the first region to focus on importing water from a foreign source. William

Mulholland became an important figurehead for the Los Angeles Water Company in deciding

future water sources. Mulholland determine that Los Angeles’s population could not depend on

its local water resources. Mulholland, with his associate Fred Eaton looked into the Owens

River Valley as a potential source for Los Angeles. After much controversy the duo was able to

secure vital land and water rights. Construction began in 1908 on the L.A. Aqueduct and after

226 miles of piping and canals the aqueduct open on November 5, 1913 (LADWP 2011).

Southern California could now be supplied by water hundreds of miles away. This water was

provided to a climate vastly different from where it originated. The water restrictions that made

living in any arid climate extremely difficult were no longer in effect for Southern California.

Imported water by the Los Angeles Aqueduct would lead to prosperity and population growth.

Mulholland was even quoted saying, “Whoever brings the water brings the people (LADWP

2011).” The concept of acquiring water had gone from irrigating local sources to constructing

man-made rivers. The Los Angeles Aqueduct would be the first of many projects that would

bring imported water to Southern California.

As population grew in the south and harsh droughts hit California in the early 20s the

Owens Valley began to suffer water shortages. Los Angeles began pumping out of the aquifer

system in the Owens Valley to supply its needs. This pumping was unsettling for local farmers

and disputes continued. As the Los Angeles Aqueduct became more and more of a problem the

need for additional water became necessary. In 1925 the Department of Water and Power was

established and approved a $2 million bond with the backing of Los Angeles voters to construct

13

the Colorado River Aqueduct (LADWP 2011). The Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California (MWD) was established to provide Southern California with Colorado River water.

The project would also lead to the construction of the Hoover Dam along the Colorado River

which would give a majority of its energy use to Los Angeles and MWD (MWD 2011). Today

MWD serves three cities in Orange County and also serves the Municipal Water District of

Orange County (MWDOC). The Colorado River Aqueduct travels from Lake Havasu to Lake

Mathews, a distance of 242 miles. The first cities in Orange County to receive MWD deliveries

were Santa Ana, Fullerton and Anaheim in 1942 (OCWD 1983). In 1952 MWDOC was created

to serve Colorado River imported water to other Orange County cities. Beginning in 1949

OCWD began purchasing Colorado River water to replenish the Orange County groundwater

basin. Orange County was now becoming dependent on imported water similar to other counties

in Southern California.

As World War II came to an end and the 1950’s progressed Orange County’s population

continued to grow rapidly. It was becoming evident that more water resources would need to be

established to sustain the growing population. Proposition One, also known as the California

Water Resources Development Bond Act was approved by only a margin of 173,000 votes out of

a total 5.8 million (DWR History). The approved bond would lead the California Department of

Water Resources to construct an aqueduct that would take water from Sacramento and other

central valley rivers to Southern California. The canal would be known as the California

Aqueduct (State Water Project). The water from these rivers is supplied by Sierra Nevada snow

pack. This system would deliver water to the San Francisco Bay Area, Central California and

Southern California. The first SWP water deliveries to Orange County came in 1973 (OCWD

1983). Orange County was now receiving water that had originated from Northern California

14

and the Colorado River, a combined 670 miles away from its original source. By the

development of the California Aqueduct, the state had become a vast engineering marvel.

California’s water system acted as a plumbing structure on a gigantic scale. The days of

harvesting Santa Ana surface flow were over in Orange County. By the mid 1960’s OCWD was

purchasing 200,000 AF of imported water for recharge purposes and was also using this water to

protect the groundwater basin from salt water intrusion from the Pacific Ocean (OCWD 2008).

Improving Local Supplies

During the 1960’s disputes were raised over Santa Ana River rights once again. In 1962

OCWD filed action for Santa Ana River rights north to Prado Dam. Prado Dam was established

in 1941 for flood control purposes and was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(OCWD 1983). The decision would eventually give OCWD guaranteed water rights up to Prado

Dam. The decision also provided OCWD with the legal right to 42,000 AF of Santa Ana River

water per year. As a result, the Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency was created to conduct

water quality testing of the river. Orange County had established protected rights to the Santa

Ana River and its tributaries. OCWD began trying to maximize the Santa Ana River’s potential

to recharge the groundwater basin. The district began diverting parts of the Santa Ana River into

large basins to maximize groundwater potential. Orange County once again was looking towards

the Santa Ana River to provide its local water supply. Today OCWD has acquired enough land

to store over 26,000 AF of Santa Ana River water (OCWD 2011).

OCWD improvements of groundwater management also lead to saltwater barrier

projects. As mentioned previously, OCWD was using imported water to be injected into the

ground in order to protect the groundwater basin from the Pacific Ocean. Orange County had

15

two barriers located within its boundaries. The first was the Alamitos Barrier located on the Los

Angeles Orange County boarder. The Alamitos Barrier was a joint effort between Los Angeles

County Flood Control and OCWD (OCWD 1983). The Alamitos Barrier led to the conclusion

that salt water was penetrating the groundwater basin in other areas along the coast. One of these

areas was in Fountain Valley, close to OCWD headquarters. This new injection barrier would be

known as the Talbert Barrier and was completed in 1976. The Talbert Barrier was unique

because the water it received came from OCWD’s Water Factory 21. Factory 21 was a

prototype named after the facilities that would be planned to follow it in the 21st century (OCWD

1983). The factory was able to produce 15 MGD (million gallons per day) of highly treated

wastewater and was the first of its kind in the world (OCWD 1983). Wastewater was treated

through primary and secondary treatment at the Orange County Sanitation District and was

delivered to OCWD. The advance treatment included chemical clarification, air stripping,

recarbonation, filtration, granular activated carbon absorption and chlorination (OCWD 1993).

For the first time in Orange County water was being produced by means of wastewater

purification. Despite the fact that the water produced at Water Factory 21 was designed for in-

direct use for salt water protection, the water passed all state and federal drinking standards. By

1991 the California Department of Health Services granted OCWD a permit to inject 100% of

recycled wastewater into the Talbert Barrier without blending with other water sources (OCWD

1993). During the 1970/80s the county also looked at building a federally funded desalination

plant to produce clean water out of ocean water influent. Due to high fuel cost from the 1973 oil

embargo it became very expensive to produce the desire 15 MGD it was proposed to do. With

high energy cost and a dwindling economy the federal government had to cut spending and the

16

desalination plant in Orange County was abandoned (Grebbien 2002). Recycled water had taken

a major step over desalination in becoming Orange County’s new local water source.

With the success of Water Factory 21 OCWD looked towards new opportunities for

recycled water. This time the district would look into providing water for urban use. Up until

this time parks and golf courses used drinkable water to water their grass. At the time treated

wastewater did not meet standards for reuse. The Green Acres Project was designed to provide

recycled water use within 5 miles of the Water Factory 21(Grebbien 2002). The water went

through primary and secondary treatment at OCSD before receiving tertiary treatment at OCWD.

By 2002 the Green Acres Project was providing 7,000 AF of water to Santa Ana, Newport

Beach, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley.

As Orange County began developing innovative ways to increase its local water supply

OCWD looked for extra ways to increase its groundwater supply. In the mid to late 1940s the

Santa Ana River Basin was being overdrawn by 12,000 AF of water per year (Grebbien 2002).

Natural groundwater recharge would not stop overdraft and OCWD began to purchase water

from MWD. The imported water provided the county with an immediate fix to its groundwater

problems but a viable long term plan was needed. With huge population increases in the 1950’s

and with groundwater levels dropping to 20 feet below sea level the district was purchasing up to

200,000 AF of imported water by 1964 (OCWD 1993). In 1974 OCWD looked to capture more

storm water by building a pipeline to divert water from the Santa Ana River to Anaheim Lake

(previously Anaheim Lake was supplied with MWD supplies). In 1977 a gravel pit known as

Burris Pit was purchase to capture more river water. Kramer and Miller basins were purchased

and put on line by the mid 1980s to capture more local runoff. (OCWD 1993). The Santiago

Creek Project became the last major development for OCWD’s artificial recharge basins. The

17

project was to construct a huge pipeline connecting Burris Pit (adjacent to the Santa Ana River

between Lincoln and Ball Road) to Santiago Creek up in the Villa Park Area. The project cost

$25 million and was completed in 1991 (Grebbien 2002). OCWD’s recharge capabilities had

grown to 400,000 AF of water a year, relieving the county of requiring imported water to

replenishing its aquifers.

As the approach of the new millennium came large federal and state piping projects were

diminishing in California. Hefty amounts of land development had also made it difficult to

purchase land for groundwater basins. Local water agencies were forced into creating more

creative ways of producing water. By establishing more local projects water agencies could

create better water reliability and less dependence on imported sources. By the year 2000

Orange County’s groundwater production rate had increase by 75% from 1979 (Grebbien 2002).

With Water Factory 21, the Green Acres Project and improvements in groundwater recharge

Orange County was leading the way in sustainable water production for the Southern California

region. With these improvements imported supplemental water had increased in price from $98

AF in 1979 to $431AF in 2000 (Grebbien 2002). The need to create more sustainable methods

was necessary. By the turn of the century OCWD and OCSD Board of Directors approved the

design of a new advanced water treatment plant. The plant, known as the Ground Water

Replenishment System was designed to produce 72,000 AFY (ace feet per year) of wastewater

for indirect water use (Grebbien 2002). The GWRS plant was completed in January of 2008

making it the largest advance water treatment facility in the world. Unlike Water Factory 21,

(demolished in 2004 to make room for the GWRS Plant) which used reverse osmosis to treat

water, GWRS used a three method approach. After wastewater was treated at OCSD it entered

the GWRS plant where it receives microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advance UV treatment.

18

In March 2011 OCWD board of directors approve expansion to the plant giving GWRS the

capacity to produce 103,000 AFY when it is completed in September of 2014 (OCWD News).

As recycled water production increases in Orange County ocean desalination plants are also

being proposed currently in Huntington Beach and Dana Point. The turn of the century marked

great improvements for localized water efforts in the county. However Orange County expands

its local water resources it will take a lot more money and effort to create a completely

sustainable supply by the year 2035.

The Possibility of a Sustainable Supply

The history of water in Orange County provides a brief perspective on today’s current

water issues. The county has promoted innovative and sustainable ways to meet small amounts

of its water supply. This section explores if it is possible for the county to create a completely

sustainable supply based on local resources.

Orange County Water 2010

In Orange County a majority of our water arrives from imported water supplies.

Imported water is controlled by two agencies in the county, MWD and MWDOC. Map 2

illustrates the jurisdiction of both agencies. The imported water is either from the State Water

Project (sometimes referred to as the California Aqueduct) or from the Colorado River

Aqueduct. The water is received at Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda and is distributed

throughout the county. 2010 water supply data for is provided on the agency level in table 1

through 4. In the year 2010 MWDOC purchased 220,132 AF of imported water for its member

agencies (MWDOC 2011). Santa Ana, Anaheim and Fullerton (Non-MWDOC members)

received a total of 41,369 AF of imported water in 2010 (Anaheim, Fullerton, and MWD 2011).

19

21,586 AF of imported water was also purchased by OCWD as an in-direct use to replenish the

Orange County groundwater basin (OCWD 2011). In 2010 a total of 282,774 AF of imported

water was distributed throughout the county; approximately 7.6% was for indirect use and 92.4%

for direct use. To put imported direct use into perspective it is determined that 1,237,858 people

in Orange County relied on imported direct water for the year 2010.

Groundwater was also a major contributor to the water supply in 2010. Many Orange

County residents may not be aware that groundwater makes up a significant amount of the local

water supply. Looking at Map 1 we see the region of Northern Orange County received a huge

quantity of groundwater in 2010. The key reason for this is that this part of the county is located

above a massive groundwater basin that was created by the Santa Ana River. In the year 2010

the MWDOC service area received a total of 220,052 AF of groundwater (MWDOC 2011). The

cities of Fullerton, Anaheim and Santa Ana received approximately 90,527 AF of groundwater in

2010 (Anaheim, Fullerton, and MWD 2011).

Reclaimed water, also known as recycled water is another source for Orange County’s

water supply. Currently recycled water is only used for irrigation and agricultural uses. An

example of direct recycled water use would be for watering a golf course or a city park. In 2010

39,642 AF of recycled water contributed to the county’s water supply (MWDOC 2011). As of

now recycled water makes up about 6.5% of the county’s total water supply.

Surface storage water provides a small contribution to Orange County’s water supply. In

2010 surface storage was at 5,485 AFY for the county making it a minute 1% of the total water

supply (MWDOC 2011). Surface storage in Orange County is mainly water that is captured in

reservoirs from rain runoff. The lack of large amounts of annual rainfall throughout the region

20

make surface storage a challenging approach for providing large amounts of water supply.

Another challenge to storing water in the county is due to the limited space available and the

high prices for land.

Water use is generally broken down into agricultural use and municipal/industrial use.

During the early years of Orange County much of the water supply was devoted for agricultural

purposes. Today agricultural use makes up a small percentage of the water supply. Table 5

indicates that in the last 20 years agricultural use has range from two to four percent of the

county’s overall supply. Municipal/industrial use accounts for the majority of direct use in

Orange County. The 2010 water supply for Orange County was mostly intended for

municipal/industrial use. From this use imported water made up 43.24%, groundwater 49.45%,

recycled water 6.42% and surface storage water at 0.89% of the total water supply. Compared to

other counties in the region Orange County’s imported water use is low but still provides a

substantial amount water.

Projected Water Supply in 2035

For this report water supply data gathered from MWDOC, Fullerton, Anaheim and Santa

Ana were used to project water demands for Orange County. For MWDOC, Fullerton and

Anaheim the data projected was provided in the agencies 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.

The Santa Ana UWMP was not available for 2010 so data for Santa Ana was provided by the

Santa Ana Water Supply Assessment and projections were based on an average annual use of

62% of groundwater. Santa Ana total water supply was projected with a .103 AFY use per

person. This was the current per person use of water in AF for Santa Ana in 2010. Table 5 and

5.1 detail the demand projections for Fullerton, Santa Ana and Anaheim. Current demand for

21

these three cities is 131,896 AF for the year 2010, with imported water making up 35% and

groundwater consumption making up 65% of the total water consumed. The demand projection

for this area does not alter greatly when focusing on future water expenditure. In 2035 64% of

the water supply will be provided by groundwater and 36% will be provided by imported water.

It is also important to note that the city of Anaheim is predicting that 255 AF of recycled water

will contribute to its water supply in 2035.

The demand projections for MWDOC, provided in Table 1 and 2 are a cumulative

account for all of its member agencies. Map 2 explains MWDOC’s jurisdiction which is made

up of 28 Orange County municipalities. MWDOC’s projections are based on each individual

member municipality providing projections on five year increments. Most of these cities’

projections are in correlation with their city general plan (MWDOC 2011). The important issue

to consider is all projections used in this research were all created by local municipalities in

Orange County. All MWDOC member agencies contributed to creating the water supply

projections for the next 25 years.

Population projections were also used to determine future water demands and to

strengthen the previously established data. Table 6 indicates that Orange County will have a

13% increase in population by 2035 (Center for Demographic Research CSUF 2007). Using the

average water use of AFY per person of .211 in 2010 I was able to estimate what water demand

would be in 2035 (MWDOC 2011). This estimate is based on the AFY use per person not

changing in the next 25 years. Table 7 presents these projections and the projections provided by

MWDOC and the three MWD sub agencies. The projection based on the water agencies data

shows that there will be an increase in approximately 105,000 AF of water demand by 2035.

The population formula projection indicates that there will be a 72,000 AF increase in demand.

22

Both projections show that the total amount of water demand will be in the low 700,000s AFY

by 2035. For the purpose of this study the projection data used by the water agencies was

determined to be more valuable based on the breakdown of water sources and their expected

uses. The population model is used only as a supplement to the other data. Using the combined

agency data it is determined that Orange County will have a demand of 722,455 AF of water in

the year 2035.

Total Orange County water supply demand is projected in Table 8 and 9. Imported water

will still be a valuable source of potable water in the future. Imported water is projected to make

up 42.47% of Orange County’s water supply in the year 2035. This is only a 0.77%

improvement from the 2010 supply. Even with the slight improvement the overall supply of

imported water coming into the county will increase by almost 40,000 AF to accommodate a

13% increase in population growth. Groundwater demand will also remain relatively unchanged

in the next 25 years. Groundwater is expected to make up 48.4% of the county’s total water

supply by 2035. This is actually a 1.05% decrease compared to our current groundwater intake.

Overall groundwater consumption will increase approximately 45,000 AF in the year 2035.

Surface storage water will remain unchanged making up for only .88% of the county needs in

2035 and will increase by 1,000 AF in the future. Recycled water will supply 8.25% of Orange

County’s water in 2035. This is an increase of almost 2% over the next 25 years and a change in

capacity of almost 20,000 AF. Overall when analyzing these numbers it appears that not much

change will occur in the next 25 years in the county’s total water supply methods.

Local vs. Non Local Water Supplies

23

With projections for water supply methods portrayed over the next 25 years established, a

projection of local sustainable use can now be calculated. As mentioned previously all supplies

other than imported water were considered sustainable for this report. These supplies include

groundwater, surface storage water and recycled water. Desalination is also considered

sustainable but currently desalination projects are only being proposed and not in the

construction stage. In order to determine sustainable vs. non-sustainable water the total imported

water supply was subtracted from the overall water supply. This created a total number for

groundwater, surface water and recycled water. OCWD currently and in the past has used

imported water as a small supplement for groundwater recharge. Since imported water is not

considered sustainable the 10 year average of imported water use in the groundwater basins was

subtracted from the sustainable water total and added to the imported total. Table 10-1 breaks

down the imported groundwater figures and projects the percentages compared to the total

supply over the next 25 years. For this research it is important to consider that all water used to

recharge Orange County aquifers comes from a local source (excluding the imported 10 year

average). OCWD does not rely on imported water but will use the water generally in a year

with high amounts of snow and rainfall. In a year with high amounts of rainfall it is important

for OCWD to purchase as much available imported water to alleviate years with little local

natural rainfall. The use of imported water is used to replenish groundwater basins during the

dry summer months.

With sustainable vs. non-sustainable numbers established I was able to enter them into a

spreadsheet and project them using the anticipated total water supply for Orange County. Table

10 shows local and non-local water supplies estimated for the next 25 years. Table 11 provides

the supply by percentages. According to these findings non-local water production will drop by

24

1.5% and will provide a total of 47.47% of Orange County’s water supply by the year 2035.

Local supplies will increase by 1.6% and will present a total of 52.53% of the water supply for

2035. As mention previously non-local supplies will increase by 40,000 AF in the next 25 years

and local supplies will increase by 65,000 AF by 2035. This local increase is due to the fact that

there will be slightly more recycled water added to water supply and groundwater will also add

more to the water supply in the future. In order for Orange County to have a completely

sustainable water supply it will have to replace 342,937 AF of water with local methods by the

year 2035. With a valid non-local supply figure established we can now examine the means to

which this goal can be accomplished.

Reaching a Sustainable Supply

Looking towards the future of water in Orange County two methods were proposed to

reach the 342,937 AF goals. Understanding that surface storage water was contributing a small

portion to the 2010 water supply and knowing that land was at a premium in Orange County the

method was not considered to be a contributor to fixing the problem. Groundwater will remain a

vital water supply method in the future but will be reaching its capacity due to the limited

quantity of available land to create more artificial groundwater basins. Also groundwater is

highly dependent on seasonal rainfall and future droughts could limit the reliability of the supply.

In order for Orange County to have a vital local supply the methods for producing water must be

extremely dependable. The two water methods that have the best source of reliability for the

future are ocean desalination and recycled water. There are multiple forms of desalination but in

this case ocean desalination implies taking water directly from the ocean and making it potable.

These two methods were also considered because the technology already exists and they do not

25

contain as many limiting factors as the other methods presented. Recycled water was also

believed to be an important method based on its current use in the county.

Recycled water is an extremely efficient and reliable way to produce potable water.

Table 12 indicates the 2010 use of recycled water in Orange County. Currently 36% of the

wastewater we received is treated for direct and indirect water use. Table 13 indicates of the

water being recycled 37% is for direct use (Irrigation, agriculture, etc) and 63% is used for

indirect purposes such as groundwater replenishment and seawater intrusion barrier. Glancing

towards the year 2035 the percentages stay comparable with 37% of wastewater being recycled

for water use. Of this use 36% is for direct purposes while 64% will be for indirect use. It is

imperative to comprehend that in both 2010 and in 2035 direct use for recycled water does not

include piping water directly to the drinking system. This denotes that the projections indicate

that all recycled use will be for irrigation and industrial purposes. In order for Orange County to

have a completely sustainable water supply, recycled water will eventually have to be inserted

directly into the drinking water system. In order for the region to have a dependable local water

supply, increases of wastewater purification must take place. Table 12 also signifies the amount

of treated wastewater that was sent to the ocean in 2010. This is wastewater treated at

secondary/tertiary levels and is placed in the ocean by sanitation districts. Water that is treated at

secondary and tertiary levels does not meet recycled water standards. OCSD and SOCWA

treated a total of 313,107 AF of wastewater in 2010 with 201,454 AF (64%) going to the ocean

(MWDOC 2011). OCSD, a facility that pumps wastewater to the OCWD GWRS plant treated

266,000 AF of wastewater in the year 2010 (MWDOC 2010). The distinctive feature of

wastewater is that it will increase as population increases in Orange County. In 2035 it is

predicted the OCSD and SOCWA will be treating 438,321 AF of wastewater (MWDOC 2011).

26

Of this wastewater 274,250 AF will be treated and sent to the ocean (MWDOC 2011). The other

164,071 AF will be used for recycling purposes (MWDOC 2011). One way to cut down on

Orange County’s dependence on foreign water is to maximize wastewater potential. If the

county desired to recycle all of its wastewater to potable use, large amounts of imported water

would no longer be needed. If the county produced a GWRS plant at SOCWA and expanded the

GWRS plant adjacent to OCSD it could potentially turn the extra 274,250 AF of wastewater to

potable drinking water in 2035. The notion that wastewater is a valuable source for potable

water supply may perhaps relieve Orange County’s dependence on imported water.

Desalination is an additional supply that could potentially alleviate Orange County’s

future water demands. The potential benefits of desalination is that it presents an unlimited

water supply and is not hindered by future droughts. Currently in Orange County two

desalination plants are being proposed: one in Huntington Beach (Poseidon Project) and the

other in Dana Point (South Orange County Desalination Plant). If these plants become

operational, one day they will provide an additional supply of local water to the county. Table

14 indicates that the Poseidon project estimates that the plant would produce 56,000 AFY and

the South Orange County plant would produce 16,000 AFY. This would total 72,000 AFY and

would lower the county’s 2035 import water supply by 21%.

Improving of storm water capture mainly for the Santa Ana River could be another

potential source of enhancing Orange County’s water supply. The benefit for increasing storm

water capture is that this water cost nothing to produce. Treating rain runoff is also far cheaper

than desalination and recycling water. One major issue is the limited amount of land and the

inadequate advances in technology to make this a possibility. Capturing large amounts of storm

flow provide many challenges to engineers. Table 15 demonstrates the amount of storm flow that

27

has occurred in the Santa Ana River in the last 13 years. As the table indicates, in years with

large amounts of storm flow huge amounts were lost to the ocean. In the extremely wet year of

2004-05 the Santa Ana River had a total storm flow of nearly 470,000 AF (OCWD 2011). The

2004-05 storm flow met the needs of 76% of Orange County’s 2010 water supply. That large

amount of water is free and provided by our local sky and runs through our local watersheds.

Unfortunately in 2004-05 only 80,000 AF of that water was captured and place into the water

supply. Most people who were in Orange County for that winter year would understand that the

weather that year was very rare and it not likely that the Santa Ana River will produce that much

storm flow on an annual basis. The rationale for bringing up the 2004-05 storm flow is just to

indicate that Orange County will continue to lose large amounts of rainfall to the ocean. Over

the past 13 years the Santa Ana River has discharged almost 800,000 AF of fresh water into the

Pacific Ocean (OCWD 2011). The annual ocean loss came out to a little over 61,000 AF per

year (OCWD 2011). This means that Orange County over the past 13 years lost on average

61,000 AF of water to the ocean. The 72,000 AF produced by the two proposed desalination

plants would be matching just a little more than the annual Santa Ana River loses to the ocean.

With a lot of energy and cost going to recycling and desalination plants, future engineers must

look to preventing storm water losses to help Orange County have a sustainable water supply.

Table 14 shows the potential local water supply that can exist in Orange County if certain

variables are taken into consideration. Orange County currently and in the future will have

enough of a tangible water supply inside its borders to sustain its population. Not only is there

enough water but the technology currently exist for desalination and recycled water to be put

online and to supplement imported water supplies. For this to happen there are a few necessary

steps that must occur. The first and most important factor is that public opinion on drinking

28

recycled water must be strengthened. Currently there are no places in the world where recycled

water is used for potable drinking supply on this proposed scale. Second the need for the two

desalination plants must be approved and developed. These plants produce relatively small

amounts of fresh water but provide enough to help the county become sustainable. The third and

most challenging aspect is to maximize the capture of Santa Ana River storm flow. It is

important to collect water in years with highly above average rainfall. If all of these methods can

be implemented by 2035, Orange County would have approximately 787,000 AF of localized

water (Table 14). This would be 65,000 AF more than the expected water demand in 2035.

Given that, the county could mainly focus on two of these sustainable outcomes to reach a

sustainable goal.

The motivation for making recycled water the prime method for 2035 was based on many

factors. One important reason is that Orange County currently has the largest advanced water

treatment plant in the world. The current GWRS plant has the capacity to produce 72,000 AF

and has been approved to expand and produce over 100,000 AF. Orange County has made great

steps in the evolution of recycling water and this report suggest that these steps could lead to

recycling all of the county’s wastewater to provide a sustainable water supply. An added

important feature in shaping recycled water to be the county’s premium water source is the

potential advantages. Table 16 breaks down the water strategies and the benefits for Orange

County. Recycled water is far superior for reliability than all other water methods outside of

desalination. Recycled water also has little harm to the environment whereas desalination plants

must be built on the coast, creating various environmental concerns. The cost of recycling water

is not cheap but is inexpensive when comparing it to desalination or building more storage

capacity. The 2035 localized water model presented in Table 14 utilizes recycling water as a

29

main source for supply but recognizes that other methods are just as important to creating a

sustainable model. Another major reason why desalination was not chosen as the primary source

for future water consumption is based on location. Building a large plant located on the Orange

County coastline would almost seem impossible to do, not only due to limited land, but also

because of environmental issues and public concerns. Both of the proposed desalination plants

that were added to the sustainable model in this research are already situated on abandoned

industrial sites and would not contribute to more development. Moving forward it seems that

recycled water is the best option for Orange County.

The Cost of Sustainability

The 2035 localized water model has been established. It is clear that recycled water adds

the most benefits and the least amount of negatives in a future of environmental sensitivity and

possible droughts. The ultimate issue that would stop a sustainable model in its tracks would be

the cost. In the year 2010 imported water costs for MWD Tier 1 treated service water was $701

an AF (MWD Finance). Currently OCWD reports that their GWRS plant produces an AF of

water at $877 (OCWD, GWRS Cost Summary). These numbers immediately bring up concerns

about the future cost of a localized water plan. In addition it is important to mention that there is

no startup cost for importing water. All the heavy lifting was completing years ago when the

SWP and Colorado River Aqueducts were constructed. The infrastructure for the imported

system needs updating but cost would be implied to the state and Orange County would not bear

all the cost, unlike if it decided to expand on GWRS. Table 17 represents the annual cost for the

projected current water supply system the county already has. Keep in mind this is the system

that is heavily based on imported water. Santa Ana River storm flow capture was not added to

the table because all agencies did not predict enhancing Santa Ana storm capture in their

30

estimates. The total annual cost of the current system projected in 2035 would be approximately

$406 million. Compared that to the completely localized system which would total in annual

cost to approximately $511 million. A sustainable system would cost the county an extra $105

million annually. If this cost were adding to the 2009 total housing units in Orange County each

unit would have to pay an extra $101 on their annual water expenses (U.S. Census Orange

County, Quick Facts). The debate on whether Orange County residents would be willing to

spend more on their water bill in order to have a completely sustainable water supply is open to

further research. For this project it will be assumed that this extra cost would be a major factor

in preventing a local system coming to fruition in 2035.

The future cost of imported water could give justification to developing a sustainable

system. In 1979 the cost for imported water averaged $98 an AF. In 1994 imported rates were

equal to $412 an AF. Currently import water rates are at $701 an AF and are expected to rise

according to MWD (MWD Finance). MWD long term financial plan forecast that imported

water rates will increase dramatically over the next ten years. Table 19 indicates these changes

and shows in the year 2020 MWD Tier 1 treated water rates will be at $1,214 per AF (MWD

Finance). If these rates are forecasted to be accurate this could ultimately change the outlook on

a sustainable water supply for Orange County. One conjecture must be made that GWRS and

desalination prices will remain the same over this period. Further research could possibly

indicate that as time goes on technological advances will help bring down the prices for recycled

and desalinized water. An additional aspect to consider is that the projection data for import cost

only goes to 2020 and there was no available data for 2035. A hypothesis could be made that the

cost of imported water would be substantially higher than in 2020. Since there is no available

data for what imported water cost will be in 2035 the data for 2020 was used. With these

31

assumptions taken into consideration our 2035 model appears greatly dissimilar. Table 18

indicates these changes and calculates the annual dollar amount to operate both systems under

the new projected price of imported water. With the new calculations the annual savings for

using the sustainable model would save Orange County approximately $72 million. If this cost

were added to the 2009 total housing units Orange County would be saving $69 per house hold

(U.S. Census Orange County, Quick Facts). An important fact to note is that this model does not

take into consideration initial cost for building the needed infrastructure for desalination plants

and added recycling facilities. Table 20 and 21 show estimated initial cost for sustainable water

production in Orange County. OCWD has just recently approved to expand its GWRS facility to

produce 30,000 AF of water. This tops the facility production rate at 103,000 AF with a total

initial cost of $637 million (OCWD 2010). Currently no desalination plants are being

constructed so there is no initial cost. In Table 21 estimated cost to build a sustainable system

are provided. It would cost Orange County an estimated $1.545 billion to get a completely

sustainable system online. $360 million would be the initial cost to build the two desalination

plants and the other $1.2 billion would be used to build the advance water treatment plants. The

recycled water costs were calculated based on the cost of the OCWD GWRS initial cost for

103,000 AF ($637 million). Desalination costs were estimated based on the initial cost for a

56,000 AF plant ($300 million). These numbers are calculated and provide approximate initial

cost for a localized supply.

The initial expansion to provide a sustainable water future in Orange County presents

great financial cost. $1.545 billion is a large amount of money and it would be hard to justify

spending this amount when water systems already exist. The people of Orange County would

most likely not approve government spending of over a billion dollars to provide the region with

32

a water supply in which a majority comes from wastewater. On the other hand it might end up

being a far better investment. MWD imported water rates are projected to increase a great

amount. If this comes to fruition a sustainable system would be cheaper on an annual basis as

was previously determined. The county could save nearly $72 million a year with this system

and it would take a little over 21 years to save $1.545 billion. Added to this is the possibility of

money coming in from a 2012 ballot measure that if passed would provide $11.25 billion in

water bond money. Overall the initial expenses seem uninviting but there are clear savings that

could make sustainability worth the cost.

Benefits of Ocean Desalination

Ocean desalination offers many benefits for Orange County’s water supply. One

intriguing factor is that the source of water for desalination is limitless. Many dry areas of the

world, like the Middle East use desalination as a large contributor to water supply. One aspect

that separates the Middle East from Orange County is that fossil fuels are less expensive in the

Middle East and can provide for the high energy cost of desalination (Freeman and Poghosyan

2008). Energy use for desalination is immense and if the plant is powered by fossil fuels this

could cause great impact on the environment and large amounts of greenhouse gases being

released. As technology improves desalination will become more viable more energy efficient.

In El Paso, Texas solar power has been used to power an inland desalination plant which

produces 104,098 cubic meters of fresh water a day (Mickey 2011). The United Kingdom

invested in a plant that treats brackish water in a tidal zone. The concept is that the tidal area is a

mixed of salt and fresh water runoff and can be desalinated at lower energy cost (Zorilla 2011).

In China the Tianjin MED desalination plant is powered by waste heat generated by an

electricity plant to reduce production cost (Zorilla 2011). Overall desalination keeps on making

33

giant leaps to become more affordable and less demanding on energy. These plants should be

thought of when glancing at Orange County’s water future but will have a tough time being

implemented due to the lack of coastal land and the NIMBY attitude that will present itself by

residents if plants are built. Overall desalination may fulfill a small role in the future water

supply opening up the main contributor which will consist of recycled wastewater.

Benefits of Recycled Water

A sustainable system based on recycled water offers many benefits to Orange County.

One of the main benefits of recycling water is that the water comes from wastewater which is

already located in the counties boarders. As mentioned before Orange County treats a lot of

wastewater and disposes it into the ocean. The suggestion that wastewater has a value to it and

can be treated to add a significant amount to the local water supply is immense. Another

important aspect to point out is that this method of supply is not affected by drought or future

climate change. Environmental impacts also make recycled water an intriguing source. In most

cases water is provided by a natural source such as a river, stream or lake. In order for humans

to consume water they must interrupt the natural cycle of these native water bodies. Reusing

wastewater relieves the pressure to take water away from the environment. Importing water,

producing groundwater and desalination all take water from a natural source and cultivate it for

human consumption. Recycled water not only prevents these acts but it cleans up a substance

that normally is released into the ocean. Even energy consumption from recycling plants

generally is less than desalination and importing water across the state. Overall recycled water

offers the best sustainable supply option for Orange County’s future. The cost are adequate,

reliability is good, environmental impacts are limited. The only factor in preventing this from

34

happening is the public perception and the idea of drinking water that once came from a toilet.

Public Acceptance, Toilet to Tap?

According to the sustainable model the majority of Orange County’s water must be

supplied by wastewater to meet our future needs. Recycling wastewater has always presented

challenges. Currently treatment of wastewater is mainly used to supplement Orange County’s

groundwater supply at a minimal level. Other indirect potable uses include urban irrigation and

protecting sea water intrusion to the aquifers.

In order for Orange County to have a sustainable water system recycled wastewater must

be applied to the drinking supply. As mentioned previously all current recycled programs do not

place effluent water directly into residential drinking supply. A pipe to pipe method of

transferring recycled effluent directly into residential water supply does not currently exist. A

majority of recycled water is placed into the ground and enters the drinking supply indirectly.

The question that arises from this is why spend $630 million on a system that produces highly

treated drinking water just to place it into the ground? Currently tertiary treated water flows

down the Santa Ana River through the inland empire and is used for groundwater recharge by

OCWD. The United States EPA also states that reclaimed water for surface spreading typically

receives secondary treatment and may typically have a treatment that removes nitrates (USEPA

2004). This is the exact cause for the Santa Ana River. As Santa Ana River water flows towards

Orange County if goes through the Prado Wetlands where nitrates are removed naturally. The

idea that OCWD over treats it water for groundwater recharge does not add up. By treating

secondary wastewater effluent through microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advance UV

treatment is unnecessary treatment for indirect use only. This advance system should be used for

direct potable use. The major concern here is that many drinkable water sources contain at some

35

point recycled wastewater effluent that was placed in the system upstream. Even imported water

has this issue. Wastewater is distributed at many parts of the Colorado River before it reaches

the aqueduct that brings it to California. Understanding that water in all forms is recycled and

there is no concept of “fresh” water on the planet presents researchers with the dilemma of

explaining recycled water to the general public.

Setbacks in San Diego

Public acceptance for potable use of drinking water is the ultimate starting and stopping

point for Orange County to have a sustainable system. The technology exist\s and there is

enough water (including wastewater) in the county to provide for us all. Money can be saved in

the long run compared to relying on imported water. The system is also more environmentally

friendly than importing water or relying heavily on desalination. Public acceptance will most

likely be what prevents switching to this system. California has seen projects in the past fail

based on bad public relations. One project that comes to mind happened in San Diego, a region

that relies heavily on imported water. Unlike Orange County the San Diego region receives 90%

of its water supply form imported sources (Bridgeman 2004). The city decided to propose

building a water treatment facility similar to the one in Orange County. San Diego had treated

wastewater at the secondary level and used a portion of the effluent for agriculture/irrigation use.

The idea was to take advantage of all the wastewater that was lost to the ocean. The plan

included building an advance water treatment plant that could treat wastewater to drinking level

standards. Approximately 23,000 AFY of wastewater was proposed to be treated and distributed

it in the San Vicente reservoir where it would be blended with Colorado River water (Bridgeman

2004). After an estimated $600,000 spent on educating the public the proposed project was shot

down in December of 1999 (Bridgeman 2004). The city of San Diego was unable to convince

36

the public of the benefits of recycled water and in the end the project did not come to fruition.

After this Orange County took the lead of recycled water use in the Southern California region.

The most intriguing finding was that the public did not seem aware that water from the Colorado

River contains treated wastewater and is very similar to mixing treated wastewater in a local

reservoir. The only difference is that the second option is local and would be more reliable. The

situation in San Diego points out the incredible significance the general public plays when

deciding to build water treatment facilities.

Public Outcry, The Toowoomba Case

Public perception played a huge role in the city of Toowoomba, Australia. The city of

Toowoomba is located in Queensland just 100km west of the capital Brisbane. Toowoomba,

much like Southern California has suffered from water shortages over the years. In 2003 the

situation got so bad that the city had to implement water restrictions to its residents (Hurlimann

and Dolnicar 2010). Water restrictions would include banning of washing cars or watering

gardens. In June of 2005 the city council decided to take action and submitted funding proposals

to the National Water Commission (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). Later that year the city

proposed many options to fix its water shortage issues. One of the main proposals was to build

an advanced water treatment facility that would provide potable drinking water for the city. As

residents became aware of the recent proposal many were outrage at the idea of drinking treated

wastewater. In February of 2006 10,000 residents had signed a petition against the potable

recycle water initiative (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). The main concern for the residents of

Toowoomba was the city’s image. This beautiful garden city might turn into the image as the

“shit city” or know as Poowoomba (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). The residents also feared

that a water system based on recycling wastewater would lead to fewer businesses, industry,

37

families and less tourist flocking to the area (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). Residents also had

health concerns and that the treated water might contain pharmaceuticals or pathogens that could

cause problems to the human body. It is important to note that recycled water at this level has

been rigorously tested and has never shown signs of damage to human health. In July of 2006

the residents ultimately voted and turn down the recycled water facility. A town engulfed in a

huge water crises turn down an option that could have provided water security. One interesting

point to note that when surveyed over half the Toowoomba residents agreed that recycled water

was safe to drink and that 28% felt that the government should apply recycled water as a water

source without asking the public (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). Many observers of this

incident place blame on politicians and bad timing on top of a negative public perspective of

recycled water. Toowoomba once again shows that public viewpoints of recycled water are

negative and present a “yuck” factor towards them. In order for perceptions to change public

education must be enhanced and provided to more people.

Analyzing Public Perspectives

After the Toowoomba incident researchers decided to understand what exactly was the

science behind public concerns for recycled water. In a recent Australian survey researchers

went out to determine the public attitudes towards desalination and recycled water. In a survey

of over 1,000 participants the research discovered that a majority of Australians believed that

desalination was healthier than recycled water, with about 70% believing desalination was

healthy and 43% believing recycled water was healthy (Dolnicar and Schafer 2009). Also of the

participants an overwhelming majority of 85% believed that recycled water was environmentally

responsible and 80% believed that desalination used a lot of energy in production (Dolnicar and

Schafer 2009). The Australians surveyed also believe that both desalination and recycled water

38

were valuable and could save Australia from drought. One interesting thing to point out is that a

little over 20% of the peopled surveyed believe that desalination was purified sewage (Dolnicar

and Schafer 2009). This could conclude that acceptance for desalination in this survey could be

greater if the people were aware that desalination does not purify raw sewage. This also points

out the fact that the general public has little knowledge of alternative water methods. A good

follow up question for this survey would be, are citizens aware of the process of desalination/

recycle water is? If over 20% believe desalination is treating raw sewage if could be argued that

a majority of more people are not too familiar with desalination at all. Another important aspect

from this research is that when ask what was perceived as drinking water 79% of the people

agreed desalination water was fine to drink while only half felt recycled water was acceptable to

drink (Dolnicar and Schafer 2009). This research concludes that Australians have a bias towards

drinking desalinated water over recycled water. The negative perceptions of recycled water in

Australia still have many boundaries to cross. Though this survey was conducted in a foreign

country it still may represent attitudes of other places such as Orange County. Australians are

very similar economically, socially and politically to Californians. Australians have been

suffering through droughts for many years and understand the value of increasing water supplies.

Even with that said Australians find it hard to accept drinking water that once originated as

human waste.

In order for Orange County to have a sustainable water supply the greatest obstacle will

be overcoming negative perceptions of recycled water. Education will be extremely valuable in

creating better public awareness. Unfortunately the term sewage sounds so bleak but most

wastewater that enters a treatment plant only contains 10% of human waste. The rest is

concentrated of shower, sink and other household water uses. If more people are familiar with

39

the process of treating wastewater more individuals might approve it as a valuable source for the

water supply. With possible future droughts, increases in the cost of imported water, and

population growth Californians will need to be more aware of the water supply and how local

sustainable methods can be achieved.

Global Perspectives

California’s water issue may be unique when compared to global water problems but

many similarities exist. Australia, Singapore and Namibia all face water supply issues. By

addressing these problems and solutions California policy makers can determine what is

successful and applicable to California and Orange County’s water future.

Singapore

Singapore offers many similar water issues as Orange County. Singapore is a tiny island

nation with a population around 4.7 million and a land mass of 434 square miles (CIA 2011). On

the surface if would seem that these two regions would have nothing in common. Singapore is

located on the equator and receives a much greater amount of rainfall the Orange County. The

country receives almost 95 inches of annual rainfall, almost nine times the amount compared to

Orange County (PUB 2011). Singapore’s size limits it from being able to catch large amounts of

rainfall. The country struggles to capture its local rain runoff before it enters the ocean.

Singapore possesses no natural aquifers making groundwater storage almost impossible. The

small nation has been dependent on purchasing imported water from neighboring Malaysia. The

current imported water contracts for Singapore expire this year and in the year 2061. One major

difference between Singapore and Orange County is that Singapore imports its water from a

40

foreign country. Providing a sustainable water supply for Singapore is almost a matter of

national security.

In order to become more sufficient Singapore has addressed its water supply problems in

multiple ways. The country had diversified its water options by developing what is known as the

four national taps. The four national taps include four diverse methods; the first is importing

water from Johor Malaysia. The second is the creating more reservoirs to help increase rain

catchment for surface storage. The third tap is building multiple desalination plants to take

advantage of the surrounding ocean water. Finally the last tap is recycling wastewater that

normally would end up in the ocean. Singapore’s drive to have a self sufficient water supply

makes it a world leader in water sustainability.

Since 2003 Singapore has vigorously built multiple advance water treatment plants.

Currently the plants produce approximately 137,000 AFY making roughly 30% of Singapore’s

water supply (PUB 2011). In order to gain better public acceptance the Singapore Utilities

Board and the Singapore government refer recycled water as “Newater”. Unlike Orange County

the new water in Singapore is pipe directly into fresh water reservoirs where it is mixed with

natural rain water. The country also uses the Newater for industrial and irrigation purposes.

Public perception of Newater in Singapore seems more forgiving then in other parts of the world.

In order to gain public acceptance the Singapore government open up a Newater visitor center

offering tours and information on the process. The facility has seen over 400,000 visitors to date

(PUB 2011). The Singapore government decided that new branding of recycle water was needed

in order to gain public appeal. The term “old water” was referred to wastewater and “Newater”

was referred to water that was treated in the recycling plants. The term “water reclamation” was

used instead of the term “sewage treatment”. Rebranding recycled water terms helped alleviate

41

public concerns of drinking treated human sewage and provided a clearer understanding of the

recycling process. New branding of terms creates psychological advantages and helps policy

makers overcome some traditional hurdles.

Singapore has also increased it rain catchment possibilities. One unique way of

increasing catchment was to turn a local marina into a reservoir. The Marina Barrage is a dam

built across marina bay in the heart of downtown Singapore. The purpose of the dam is to keep

out salt water and preserve the fresh water that has now made the bay a reservoir. The marina

dam provides Singapore with 10% of its water supply and is the first urban reservoir in a major

city in the world (PUB 2011).

The last local water use Singapore has initiated in the past decade is desalination It would

only make sense to operate a desalination plant in a nation surrounded by ocean water. In 2005

the country opened its first plant online and by 2010 another plant was in operation.

Desalination is planned to provide 30% of Singapore’s water in the future (PUB 2011).

Singapore’s plan to diversify its water supply by enhancing reservoirs, recycling and

desalinating water makes it a world leader in water sustainability. On top of that the country is

actively promoting water conservation programs for its residents and businesses. Remarkably

this has all been accomplished in the past 15 years. Singapore demonstrates how Orange County

and the rest of California can create a path to sustainability and ending dependence on imported

water supplies.

Namibia

The country of Namibia located in the southern western part of Africa has been recycling

water for over the past 40 years. Namibia is one the driest countries in Africa. Namibia’s capital

42

Windhoek is located 350 miles away from any natural fresh water source. The average rainfall

for this region is about 360 mm of rain a year (Renard 2008). The ocean is located 150 miles

from the city making desalination impossible. The city’s annual water demand is at 17,000 AFY

(Lahnsteiner and Lempert 2007). Since 1969 the city of Windhoek has been recycling

wastewater on a large scale and has directly distributed the water into the drinking supply

(Renard 2008). Currently this is the only system of the planet that offers direct potable use. In

2001 the city updated its facilities and built a new plant that could supply up to 250,000

residents. Without this new water source the city would be deprived of 35% of its actual water

resource availability (Renard 2008). Since this process has been going on for almost 40 years

the citizens of Windhoek have come to accept the idea of drinking treated wastewater. The

population mainly has accepted this water source because it has too. The public of Namibia has

also taken pride over the years and has become proud to the fact that in many ways Windhoek is

a world leader in direct potable wastewater use. The Namibia model of providing potable reuse

of wastewater can be an example to all other arid regions in the world considering recycling

water supply use.

Conclusion

The idea of a place like Orange County having a completely local and sustainable water

supply may seem impossible to most people. The county’s population is too large to sustain a

local water supply. Orange County’s climate is too dry and presents many challenges in

capturing local rain runoff. The cost of desalination is expensive and public acceptance of

recycled water is low. All we know today are the facts. A majority of Orange County receives

sustainable water through its vast groundwater basin. The majority of the other water is

imported. An important thing to consider when looking to the future is that Orange County

43

replenishes its aquifers with a majority of water that is not legally theirs. In 1968 OCWD

received the rights to conserve 42,000 AFY of Santa Ana River water (OCWD 2008). This

means that Orange County by law only has the rights to 42,000 AFY of water provided by the

Santa Ana River. In contrast OCWD uses hundreds of thousands AF of river water to restore the

aquifer. Currently counties located upstream do not intake their full share of the river. One day

these counties could wise up and prevent OCWD from receiving the majority of its groundwater

supplies. If this were to occur the county could become dramatically desperate for imported

water. With a huge demand for imported water and projections of MWD imported supplies

doubling in cost over the next ten years Orange County could be in a real dilemma. This can all

be prevented if the county invests in the initial cost for a sustainable water supply system and

heavily promotes public awareness and education of the benefits of recycling water. This

research concludes that a localized water system in Orange County will have less annual cost

than a imported water model in 2035. The initial cost may be high but might be a vital

investment to securing independence and reliability. Overall this research provides just a

glimpse at the possibilities of a sustainable future. Further research would have to include

focusing on potential sites for advance water treatment facilities. Survey research on Orange

County residents would provide an in depth analyses of residents concerns of a localize water

system. Orange County residents’ concerns about the “yuck” factor in drinking recycled water

must be addressed and solved. This report did not deal much with conservation efforts for the

region. Data provide by MWDOC has shown conservation is working and will continue to work

with added public awareness campaigns. The state of California might want to consider

rewarding cities and counties for increasing use of sustainable methods. Orange County and the

State of California are heading into a territory of extremely high cost for import water supplies.

44

As these supplies rise consumers will see increases in monthly water bills. In order for the cost

to drop Orange County will need to invest in a more reliable water supply. The research

presented in this report provides Orange County with that local water supply capabilities and can

be used to lead the way for a sustainable water future.

45

References

[Anon], . (2000). Indirect potable reuse hits snags in California. Civil Engineering, 70(6), 24.

Association of California Water Agencies. The Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply

Act of 2012. Summary of Expenditures.

http://www.acwa.com/spotlight/california-water-2012-water-bond

Bell, R.P. (2009). South Orange Costal Desalination Project. Update and Approach to Intake

and Discharge Design and Approvals. Presentation by Richard B. Bell, PE Principal Engineer

and Project Manager Municipal Water District of Orange County. October 16th

2009.

Bennett, A. (2011). Potable Water: New Technology Enables Use of Alternative Water Sources.

Filter + Separation.

Bridgeman, J. (2004). Public perception towards water recycling in California. Water &

Environment Journal, 18(3), 150-154.

California Department of Water Resources. (2009). California Water Plan Updated 2009.

Volume 1. Chapter 5. Managing an Uncertain Future.

California Department of Water Resources. (2009). California Water Plan Updated 2009.

Volume 1. Chapter 4. California Water Today.

California Department of Water Resources. (2009). California Water Plan Updates 2009.

Volume 3. South Coast Hydrological Region.

California Department of Water Resources. (2009). California Water Plan Highlights Updated

2009. Integrated Water Management.

California Department of Water Resources. History of Water Development and the State Water

Project. http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/history.cfm

Center for Demographic Research California State University Fullerton. (2007). Orange County

Projections 2006: Population, Housing and Employment Through 2035. Volume 12, Number 1.

Central Intelligence Agency.(2011). The World Fact Book.

Cayan, D., Lures, A.L., Hanemann, M., Franco, G., (2006). Senarios of Climate Change in

California: An Overview. California Climate Change Center.

Close, C., Durbin, H., Evans-Wlker, D., Ippagunata, R., Lee, B. (2006). Water Reclamation and

Reuse. Water Environmental Research, Volume 78, Number 10.

Cooley, H., Gleick, P.H., Wolff, G. (2006) Desalination, With a Grain of Salt, A California

Perspective. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.

46

Department of Water Resources. Center for Watershed Sciences. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. University of California – Davis.

Dolnicar, S. , & Schafer, A. (2009). Desalinated versus recycled water: Public perceptions and

profiles of the accepters. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 888-900.

Dreizin, Y., Tenne, a., Hoffman, D. (2008). Integrating Large Scale Seawater Desalination Plants

within Israel’s Water Supply System. Science Direct, 132-149.

Freeman, G., Poghosyan, M., Lee, M., (2008). Where Will We Get the Water? Assessing

Southern California’s Future Water Strategies. Los Angeles County Economic Development

Corporation.

Freeman, C.B.,(2008). California’s Water: An LAO Primer. Legislative Analyst Office.

Gleick, P.H., Cooley, H.C., Groves, D., (2005). California Water 2030: An Efficient Future. A

Report of the Pacific Institute, Oakland California.

Grebbien, V. (2002). The History of Orange County Water District and the River it Runs.

Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt., R., Mount., J, Moyle., P., Thompson, B.(2009).

California Water myths. Public Policy Institute of California.

Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt., R., Mount., J, Moyle., P., Thompson, B.

(2011). Managing California’s Water From Conflict to Reconciliation. Public Policy Institute of

California.

Hanak, E. (2011). California Water: Planning for a Better Future. Public Policy Institute of

California.

Hanak, E. (2008). Water Supply and Quality. Public Policy Institute of California.

Hamer, W. (2007). The cost of water and water markets in southern california, usa. WIT

Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 103(PAGE), 489-498.

Hurlimann, A. , & Dolnicar, S. (2010). When public opposition defeats alternative water projects

– the case of toowoomba australia. Water Research, 44(1), 287-297.

Hurlimann, A. , & Dolnicar, S. (2011). Voluntary relocation - an exploration of Australian

attitudes in the context of drought, recycled and desalinated water. Global Environmental

Change Part A: Human & Policy Dimensions, 21(3), 1084-1094.

Johnson, T., (2010). Recycled Water For Recharge A Growing Resource for Sustainable

Groundwater Replenishment. Water Replenishment District of Southern California. Version 3.

47

Lahnsteiner, J. , & Lempert, G. (2007). Water management in windhoek, namibia. Water Science

and Technology, 55(1-2), 1-2.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP 2011). The Story of the Los Angeles

Aqueduct. http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/

Lund, J.R., Howitt, R.E., Medellin-Azuara, J., Jenkins, M.W., (2009). Water Management

Lessons for California from Statewide Hydro-economic Modeling. A Report for the California

Markus, M., (2009). The Groundwater Replenishment System. Journal AWWA, 49-51.

Mickey, M. (2011). El Paso explores solar energy for desalination plant. World Water: Water

Reuse & Desalination. Summer 2011.

Morrison, K. (2011) Collaborative Thinking Sparks Singapore’ Drive Toward Water

Sustainability. Solutions Q2, Creative Solutions For Vital Infrastructure. Addressing Water

Scarcity.

Multiple Water Agencies. The Water Cycle Never Ends. National demonstration and

Engagement Program. Detailed Full Proposal Reclaimed Water is viewed as an acceptable

alternative water for augmenting drinking water supplies. Submitted February 21, 2011.

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

Plan. Report prepared by Malcolm Prinie, Inc.

Municipal Water District of Orange County (2009). Municipal Water District of Orange County

Response to the Grand Jury on “Paper Water” – September 2009.

Newlin, B. , Howitt, R. , Jenkins, M. , & Lund, J. (2002). Southern california water markets:

Potential and limitations. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 128(1), 21-32.

Orange County Sanitation District. (2010). What it Takes to Treat Wastewater.

Orange County Water District, 1933-2008. (2008). OCWD 75th

Anniversary Supplement.

Orange County Water District. (2011). Orange County Water District 2009-2010 Report on

Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin Annual recharge Report.

Orange County Water District. (2009). Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update.

Orange County Water District. (1993). 1993 Annual Report, Reflections on 60 years.

Orange County Water District. (1996). 1996 Annual Report.

Orange County Water District. (1983). The Annual Report, 50th

Anniversary Edition.

Orange County Water District. GWRS Project and Operating Cost for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.

Orange County Water District. (2010). H.R. 5039 GWRS Expansion Testimony House

Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power.

48

Orange County Water District News. (3/30/11) OCWD Board of Directors Approves

Construction to Expand World Renowned Groundwater Replenishment System.

http://www.gwrsystem.com/images/stories//press-release/Archive/2011/04.01.11-

OCWD%20Board%20Approves%20GWRS%20Expansion.pdf

Public Utilities Board of Singapore (PUB). (2011). Overview of Singapore’s Drainage

Management Approach.

Public Utilities Board of Singapore (PUB). Ensuring Water Sustainability for Singapore: Turning

Scarcity to Opportunity.

Public Utilities Board of Singapore (PUB). (2010). Singapore’s Experience in Ensuring Water

Sustainability.

Renard, N. (2008) Recycling Wastewater, A Solution to Contribute to Sustainability in Water.

Expo Zara Goza.

Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA 2011). Santa Ana River Watershed.

http://www.sawpa.org/watershedinfo.html

Sheehan, L. (2009). Summary of Cost and Benefits of Water Supply Alternatives. California

Coastkeeper Alliance.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010). Integrated Water Resources

Plan 2010 Update.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2011). History and first Annual Report

Commemorated Edition.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010). Annual Report 2010. Chapter 7

Finance.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010) Annual Report 2010. Chapter 1.

Delivering Metropolitan’s Water Supplies.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010) Annual Report 2010. Chapter 3.

Water Resource Management.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010). Long Term Financial Plan 2010

Update. October 4th

2010.

The City of Anaheim (2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Report prepared by Malcolm

Prinie, Inc.

The City of Anaheim Utilities Financial Services. (2011). Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.

Commodity Adjustment Clause. Pages 2.1.1-2.1.6.

The City of Fullerton (2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Report prepared by Malcolm

Prinie, Inc.

The City of Santa Ana. (2005). Urban Water Management Plan 2005.

49

The City of Santa Ana. (2010). Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Transit Zoning Code.

Prepared by PBS&J.

Tortajada, C. (2006). Water management in Singapore. International Journal of Water

Resources Development, 22(2), 227-240.

Voutchkov, N. (2005). Desalination-Water for the Next Generation. Industry Focus. Poseidon

Resource Corporation.

Voutchkov, N. (2010). Seawater desalination: US desalination industry addresses obstacles to

growth. Filter + Separation.

United States Census Bureau. (2010).Orange County, California. State and County QuickFacts.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency.(2004). Guidelines for Water Reuse. Municipal

Support Division. Office of Wastewater Management.

World Bank Advisory Assistance Program. (2006). Dealing with Water Scarcity in Singapore:

Institutions, Strategies, and Enforcement. Environment and Social Development Department

East Asia and Pacific Region The World Bank Washington, D.C.

Zorilla, J.(2011). Sustainable design uses tidal flow and renewable energy. World Water: Water

Reuse & Desalination. Summer 2011.

50

Projection Year

Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Imported Water 220,132 225,697 234,454 243,853 247,545 250,519

Groundwater 220,052 243,032 246,514 248,933 250,553 251,754

Surface Water 5,485 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100

Recycled Water 39,642 51,658 55,699 59,324 59,492 59,597

Total 485,311 526,487 542,767 558,210 563,690 567,970

Projection Year

Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Imported Water Use 45.36% 42.87% 43.20% 43.68% 43.92% 44.11%

Groundwater Use 45.34% 46.16% 45.42% 44.59% 44.45% 44.33%

Surface Water Use 1.13% 1.16% 1.12% 1.09% 1.08% 1.07%

Recycled Water 8.17% 9.81% 10.26% 10.63% 10.55% 10.49%

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Acr

e F

ee

t p

er

Ye

ar

Year

Recycled Water

Surface Water

Groundwater

Imported Water

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

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

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Year

Imported Water Use

Groundwater Use

Surface Water Use

Recycled Water

Table 2.

MWDOC Water Supply Demand Percentages

51

Projection Year

Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Imported Water 46,719 53,474 54,391 55,338 56,142 56,284

Groundwater 85,177 92,944 94,533 96,260 97,698 97,946

Total 131,896 146,418 148,924 151,598 153,840 154,230

Projection Year

Water Supply Sources % 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Imported Water 35% 37% 37% 37% 36% 36%

Groundwater 65% 63% 63% 63% 64% 64%

Santa Ana Projection Year

Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Imported Water 14,101 15,935 16,225 16,452 16,717 16,717

Groundwater 23,006 25,998 26,473 26,843 27,276 27,276

Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 37,107 41,933 42,698 43,295 43,993 43,993

*Source, The City of Santa Ana. (2010). Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Transit Zoning Code.

*Data based on .103 AFY per person and 62% BPP

Anaheim Projection Year

Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Imported Water 22,031 25,263 25,671 26,476 27,036 27,106

Groundwater 44,898 46,917 47,674 49,169 50,209 50,339

Recycled 0 220 255 255 255 255

Total 66,929 72,180 73,345 75,645 77,245 77,445

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

Fullerton Projection Year

Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Imported Water 10,587 12,276 12,495 12,410 12,389 12,461

Groundwater 17,273 20,029 20,386 20,248 20,213 20,331

Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27,860 32,305 32,881 32,658 32,602 32,792

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

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

Table 4

Normal Water Supply Demand Projections by City(AFY)

52

Year

Water Demand Type 1990 1995 2000 2005

Municipal/Industrial 447,100 417,700 500,800 504,997

Agriculture 20,800 10,700 20,600 16,781

Total 467,900 428,400 521,400 521,778

Year

Water Demand Type 1990 1995 2000 2005

Municipal/Industrial 96% 98% 96% 97%

Agriculture 4% 2% 4% 3%

Table 5.Historical Water Demand Use (AFY)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1990 1995 2000 2005

Acr

e F

ee

t P

er

Ye

ar

Municipal/Industrial

Agriculture

*Over the past 20 years almost all of Orange County's water supply has been devoted to municipal and industrial purposes. With large amounts of water going to municipal water supplies conservation can be a key to solving O.C. water worries.

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

53

Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Population Projections for O.C. 3,010,232 3,078,040 3,145,848 3,213,656 3,281,464 3,349,272

Population Projections for MWDOC 2,300,021 2,370,931 2,441,838 2,512,752 2,583,659 2,654,569

Projection Year

Water Supply Projections (AFY) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Orange County (Agency Data) 617,207 673,125 691,946 710,063 717,785 722,455

2010 Avg AFY Use O.C. 635,159 649,466 663,774 678,081 692,389 706,696

Table 6.Orange County Population Projections

*Source-Center for Demographic Research California State University Fullerton. (2007). Orange County Projections 2006: Population, Housing and Employment Through 2035. Volume 12, Number 1.-Municipal Water District of Orange County. (2011). 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan.

*Orange County is projected to have and increase of 350,000 people over the next 25 years. This 13% growth is considered relatively small but will add more pressure to imported and local water supplies. MWDOC service area also having a 13% population increase.

2,000,000

2,200,000

2,400,000

2,600,000

2,800,000

3,000,000

3,200,000

3,400,000

3,600,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Po

pu

lati

on

Year

Population Projections for O.C.

Population Projections for MWDOC

560,000

580,000

600,000

620,000

640,000

660,000

680,000

700,000

720,000

740,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Acr

e F

ee

t p

er

Ye

ar

Orange County (Agency Data)

2010 Avg AFY Use O.C.

Table 7.

Normal Water Supply Demand Projections (AFY)

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

54

55

Projection Year

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Non-Local 302,985 315,305 324,979 335,325 339,821 342,937

Local 314,222 357,820 366,967 374,738 377,964 379,518

Total 617,207 673,125 691,946 710,063 717,785 722,455

Projection Year

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Average Import GW 36,134 36,134 36,134 36,134 36,134 36,134

% Water Supply 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Projection Year

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Non-Local 49.09% 46.84% 46.97% 47.22% 47.34% 47.47%

Local 50.91% 53.16% 53.03% 52.78% 52.66% 52.53%

43.00%

44.00%

45.00%

46.00%

47.00%

48.00%

49.00%

50.00%

51.00%

52.00%

53.00%

54.00%

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Non-Local

Local

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

*In order to become completely independent from imported water Orange County would need to increase its sustainable water supply by 343,00 AFY (48% of 2035 water supply).

Table 10-1*36.134 AF of groundwater were considered non-sustainable due to the average amount

of imported water has been used to recharge O.C. groundwater basin.

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

56

57

Desalination Plants 2035

Huntington Beach 56,000

SOCODP 16,000

Total 72,000

Recycled 2035

Ocean Outfall H20 274,250

Total 274,250

Storm Flow Loses 2035

Santa Ana River 61,518

Total 61,518

Year 2035

Desalination 72,000

Ocean Outfall 274,250

Sustainable H20 379,518

Santa Ana River 61,518

Total 787,286

Table 14.Potential Sustainable Water for Orange

County(AFY)

58

Year SAR Storm Flow Captured Storm Flow/ Local Water Water Lost

1997-98 300,604 67,685 232,919

1998-99 23,673 52,159 0

1999-00 40,269 37,164 3,105

2000-01 54,621 28,879 25,742

2001-02 10,615 24,327 0

2002-03 97,810 49,098 48,712

2003-04 57,317 41,119 16,198

2004-05 469,515 80,072 389,443

2005-06 85,734 89,097 0

2006-07 12,901 36,090 0

2007-08 68,896 60,670 8,226

2008-09 53,662 53,007 655

2009-10 135,775 61,035 74,740

Total 799,740

13yr Average 61,518

Table 15.

Santa Ana River Storm Flow Last 13 Years (AFY)

*Source-Orange County Water District. (2011). Orange County Water District 2009-2010 Report on Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin Annual recharge Report

59

Methods Cost (AFY) Initial Cost Capacity (AFY) Reliability Environment Local Supply

Imported Water $701 $0 324,235 No

Groundwater $425 $0 338,000 Yes/No

Storm Water Capture $350 $40-$63 17,000-40,000 Yes

Recycled Water $887 $637 103,000 Yes

Ocean Desalination $1,287 $300 56,000 Yes

Surface Storage $760-1400 $2,500 200,000-500,000 Yes/No

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Sources: -Orange County Water District. GWRS Project and Operating Cost for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.http://www.gwrsystem.com/images/stories/pdfs/Operating_Costs_Fact_Sheet.pdf-Freeman, G., Poghosyan, M., Lee, M., (2008). Where Will We Get the Water? Assessing Southern California’s Future Water Strategies. Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. -Orange County Water District . (2011). Orange County Water District 2009-2010 Report on Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin Annual recharge Report. -Orange County Water District .(2008).,2006-2007 ENGINEER’S REPORT ON GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS,WATER SUPPLY AND BASIN UTILIZATION IN THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT. -The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.(2010) .Annual Report 2010. Chapter 7 Finance-Municipal Water District of Orange County .(2008). The Dana Point Ocean Desalination Project, Recommended Next Steps and the Cost There of. www.mwdoc.com/documents/FeasibilityStudySummary.ppt

Table 16.

Orange County Water Strategies, Benefit Analyses

* Reliability- based on annual water supply access *Environment- based on environmental Impact

*Source-Freeman, G., Poghosyan, M., Lee, M., (2008). Where Will We Get the Water? Assessing Southern California’s Future Water Strategies. Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.

60

Methods Cost (AFY) Local Supply Local Cost Import Supply Import Cost

Imported Water $701 0 0 306,803 $215,068,903

Groundwater $425 349,700 $148,622,500 349,700 $148,622,500

Storm Water Capture $350 0 $0 0 $0

Recycled Water $887 294,655 $261,358,985 59,597 $52,862,539

Ocean Desalination $1,287 72,000 $92,664,000 0 $0

Surface Storage $1,400 6,100 $8,540,000 6,355 $8,897,000

Totals 722,455 $511,185,485 722,455 $425,450,942

Methods Cost (AFY) Local Supply Local Cost Import Supply Import Cost

Imported Water $1,214 0 0 306,803 $372,458,842

Groundwater $425 349,700 $148,622,500 349,700 $148,622,500

Storm Water Capture $350 0 $0 0 $0

Recycled Water $887 294,655 $261,358,985 59,597 $52,862,539

Ocean Desalination $1,287 72,000 $92,664,000 0 $0

Surface Storage $1,400 6,100 $8,540,000 6,355 $8,897,000

Totals 722,455 $511,185,485 722,455 $582,840,881

Table 17.Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local vs. Non-Local

(Year 2035)

* The difference in cost between a complete local supply and a partially imported supply is $85,734,543. Import water being a less expensive option.*Based off 2010 MWD rates for Tier 1 treated water

* The difference in cost between a complete local supply and a partially imported supply is $71,655,396. Import water being a more expensive option.*Based off 2020 MWD projected rates for Tier 1 treated water

Table 18.

Orange County Annual Supply Cost Local vs. Non-Local(Year 2035)

61

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

$ per AF $701 $744 $794 $833 $877 $920 $970 $1,023 $1,079 $1,146 $1,214

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Table 19.MWD Projected Rates for Import Water to 2020

*Rates based on treated tier 1 service*Source-The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2010). Long Term Financial Plan 2010 Update. October 4 th 2010.

62

Methods Cost (AFY) Initial Cost Capacity (AFY)

Recycled Water $887 $637 103,000

Desalination $1,287 $0 0

Methods Cost (AFY) Initial Cost Capacity (AFY)

Recycled Water $887 $1,185 191,655

Desalination $1,287 $360 72,000

Total $1,545 263,655

* Initial cost in the millions

Table 20.

Orange County Water Strategies, Initial Cost of Current Local Water Methods

Table 21.

Orange County Water Strategies, Estimated Initial Cost of Future Water

63

64

65

Appendix

66

Image I

Southern California Water Agencies

67