Score: +16 (18/12/2)
Ventura County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

Water Considerations for Cities May 17, 2017

Published: May 17, 2017 23 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 16 findings

F01
Providing water to the Cities is complicated. In many parts of the County, water is provided through imports from water wholesalers such as the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas), and the United Water Conservation District (UWCD). In other cases, water is obtained through local supplies, including ground water, runoff stored in reservoirs, and recycling. (Ref-08, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-19, Ref-20, Ref-21)
No recommendations for this finding
F02
Projected water demand in the wholesale agency reports is based on population projections from a number of sources including:  Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)  California Department of Finance  U.S. Census  Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG)/County Planning (Ref-22, Ref-23, Ref-24, Ref-25)
No recommendations for this finding
F03
Without a significant increase in the amount of available water, MWD projects by 2040, there will be water restrictions in eight out of every 10 years. Without significant conservation, annual retail water demand within MWD will outstrip resources by approximately 1.3 million AF or 22%. (Ref- 29) Water Considerations for Cities 3
No recommendations for this finding
F04
All but one of the Cities and all of the water suppliers have submitted 2015 UWMPs to the State for approval. These plans indicate:  There are sufficient water supplies for the long term. In some cases, this is based on anticipated increases in imported water. In other cases, it is based on having historical average supplies of surface water, groundwater, and the development of new water sources including recycling and desalting facilities. The increased importation of water is reliant on new infrastructure which has neither been approved nor funded.  Most of the Cities are predicting increased supply in excess of future demand.  All of the Cities have adopted drought regulations and enforcement measures for short-term drought.  The Cities’ plans do not quantify the impact of individual conservation measures. They do consider savings due to changes in household plumbing fixtures and outdoor water use. (Ref-08, Ref 10, Ref 11, Ref 12, Ref 13, Ref 14, Ref 15, Ref 16, Ref 17, Ref 18, Ref 19, Ref 20, Ref 21, Ref 26, Ref-27, Ref-28, Ref 30, Ref-31)
No recommendations for this finding
F05
The Cities all complied with the minimum State requirements for water conservation to address the recent drought. When drought conditions ease, some Cities may choose to ease water use restrictions. (Ref-32, Ref-33, Ref-34, Ref-35)
No recommendations for this finding
F06
All of the Cities’ UWMPs predict having sufficient water to serve the 2035 or 2040 estimated population. These predictions do not include any consideration of a water constrained future of frequent and extensive periods of drought. (Ref-08, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref- 15, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-20, Ref-21)
No recommendations for this finding
F07
The Cities’ UWMPs have complied with a State mandate requiring the prediction of water availability in the event of droughts lasting at least three years. Water providers’ projections may exceed the State minimum and consider droughts longer than three years. However, none of the Cities’ UWMPs exceed the minimum requirement. The recent drought lasted more than five years. (Ref-08, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-20, Ref-21)
No recommendations for this finding
F08
With limited exceptions, urban growth will take place inside the Cities and not in the unincorporated areas of the County. This is due to the combination of long standing County policies based on the 1969 Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development, greenbelt agreements, and the SOAR measures. (Ref-05, Ref-06, Ref-07)
No recommendations for this finding
F09
The City of San Buenaventura’s plan to annex land for development was turned down by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in February, 2017, due to inadequate future supplies of water. On April 20, 2017, LAFCo revised its decision to allow for the annexation dependent on 4 Water Considerations For Cities Ventura Water providing a letter of proof that the city has enough water. (Ref- 36)
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Most of the Cities’ UWMPs provide a cursory plan to address catastrophic failures or long-term interruptions within the system. These include infrastructure failures, damage to the groundwater caused by saltwater intrusion, or other environmental disasters. The Cities’ UWMPs typically state conservation measures will be instituted in the case of long term disruptions. Two water wholesalers, Calleguas and MWD, address catastrophic events in their UWMPs, primarily by identifying stored sources of water. Both Calleguas and MWD’s plans anticipate a 25% reduction in water supplies in the event of disaster. (Ref-08, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-19, Ref-20, Ref-21, Ref-26, Ref-27, Ref-28, Ref-30, Ref-31)
Related Recommendations (1)
R01
The Grand Jury recommends the 10 city councils collaborate with all the County water purveyors to develop long term plans to respond to catastrophic disruptions of water supplies. (C-07)
F11
The State of California Bay-Delta Authority and the California Department of Water Resources’ worst-case scenario projects water imports from the State Water Project (via the Sacramento Delta) could be unavailable for a year. (Ref-37)
Related Recommendations (1)
R01
The Grand Jury recommends the 10 city councils collaborate with all the County water purveyors to develop long term plans to respond to catastrophic disruptions of water supplies. (C-07)
F12
Calleguas delivers water to about 75% of the County. Three quarters of Calleguas’ water comes from Northern California through the State Water Project aqueduct. If an earthquake were to damage the aqueduct, Calleguas would run out of water in about a month. Authorities state an earthquake cutting off the aqueduct isn’t a question of “if”; it’s a question of “when”. (Ref-38)
Related Recommendations (1)
R01
The Grand Jury recommends the 10 city councils collaborate with all the County water purveyors to develop long term plans to respond to catastrophic disruptions of water supplies. (C-07)
F13
Building water purification facilities, desalination plants, desalters, recycling plants, additional pipelines, and storage facilities are expensive capital projects. The costs will be paid for by the current and future ratepayers. For example, seawater desalination costs more than twice as much as importing water into the County. (Ref-39, Ref-40)
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The source of imported water for Ventura County is precipitation, primarily from the Sierra snowpack and rainfall in the Colorado River Basin. Over the last 100 years, the amount of precipitation in parts of the Sierra has steadily declined. The snowpack is also reduced by rising temperatures in California over the last century. (Ref-41, Ref-42, Ref-43, Ref-44, Att-02, Att-03)
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Since 1912, the average temperature in the State has increased by .06 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. This warming trend contributes to increased amounts of precipitation falling as rain, not snow, in the Northern Sierra. The State Water Project, which provides much of the water used in the County, depends upon precipitation falling as snow instead of rain. Most Sierra rainfall is not captured and thus not available for public use. (Ref-42, Ref-43) (Att-02, Att-03)
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The City of Santa Paula has not complied with the State requirement to submit its 2015 UWMP by the deadline of July 1, 2016. On October 27, 2016 the State sent the City a letter regarding the non-submittal of its UWMP. A complete draft had not been accepted by the State for review as Water Considerations for Cities 5 of April 13, 2017. Failure to comply threatens the City’s eligibility for future State grants or loans. (Ref-45, Ref-46) Conclusions C-01. Cities’ water plans are based on historic water availability patterns which may no longer be applicable. Over the last 100 years, water availability from precipitation has been trending downward and may never return to what was considered average. (FA-04, FA-06, FA-14, FA-15) C-02. Cities’ plans address the minimum, state-required, three-year drought scenarios. None of the UWMPs address a long term drought, even though the current drought has lasted over five years. (FA-04, FA-05, FA-06, FA- 07) C-03. Long term city plans are based on the optimistic view there will be as much water available in 2035 or 2040, as there was in 2010. Additional future water resources are not well-defined other than being described as imported water or coming from recycling and conservation efforts. (FA-01,
Related Recommendations (1)
R06
The Grand Jury recommends the Santa Paula City Council direct staff to comply with State requirements for submission of the 2015 UWMP. (C-08) Responses Responses Required From: City Council, City of Camarillo (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R-01, R- 02, R-03, R-04, R-05) City Council, City of Fillmore (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R-01, R- 02, R-03, R-04, R-05) City Council, City of Moorpark (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R-01, R- 02, R-03, R-04, R-05) City Council, City of Ojai (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R-01, R-02,

Conclusions 1

Agency Responses 10

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 5

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Camarillo City
Moorpark City
Oxnard City
San Buenaventura City
Santa Paula City