Water for Los Angeles County

Recommendations 3

• R1

  Page 117
  10 Glendale Water and Power (GWP), Long Beach Water Department, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Pasadena Water and Power Department, City of San Fernando Public Works Water, and the City of Santa Monica Water Department should support instructional literature and possible funding efforts for home purple pipe installations and gray water systems. Geographic Water Use To gain an understanding of water use, six LAC cities’ water departments were reviewed to see if they were targeting any specific geographic areas. The cities 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 98 selected were Santa Monica, Glendale, San Fernando, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Los Angeles. None of the cities questioned targeted specific geographic areas at the current time. San Fernando targeted the top ten internal users for water and has achieved a 5% reduction in use. The city was planning to review the top ten external users of water. HOW WAS THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO PUBLIC WORKS WATER WAS ABLE TO REPLACE 75% OF ITS WATER CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE?
• R2

  Page 127
  Extraction Well Number 2. The NHOU-R2 was not expected to be operational until 2015. The NHOU-R2 would not address the lower concentration or secondary plume that had already escaped the NHOU zone of influence. Although the concentration of the secondary plume was low in terms of Superfund Clean-up targets, it was still too high in terms of a drinking water source. The California Department of Public Health considered this secondary plume an extremely impaired drinking water source that could not be provided to the consumer without further treatment to meet state standards. A viable solution was to construct a groundwater purification complex in the SFB. The purification complex would expedite the groundwater remediation and contaminant mass removal associated with the secondary contamination plume, and enable LADWP to utilize all of its groundwater production wells in the SFB that are threatened or shutdown due to contamination. This purification complex would be a very cost effective way of ensuring LADWP’s future water supply compared to the cost of imported water, recycled water, and desalination. In order to determine the design criteria for the purification complex and to obtain the necessary approval form the California Department of Public Health, LADWP began a six-year, $19 million Groundwater System Improvement Study in the SFB. As part of this study, LADWP would secure a monitoring well-drilling contract by mid 2010 to install approximately forty new monitoring wells in the SFB that would assist with further characterizing the contamination in the SFB. LADWP was also working with the cities of Glendale and Burbank to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a list of projects needed to address various cleanup issues in the SFB. The MOU would allow the cities to more effectively secure federal funding for the needed facilities to clean up the SFB. LADWP was also implementing a cost-effective wellhead treatment to restore groundwater production while centralized treatment facilities were advanced. LADWP was maintaining and operating the initial NHOU-R2 remedy through various funding agreements from USEPA. No other federal funding had been provided to LADWP for addressing the groundwater contamination in the SFB. LADWP believed additional funding would be acquired in the future. Glendale Water and Power stated their supply of water from the SFB has not been affected by the contamination. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 108 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.3 LADWP should continue maximum efforts to obtain USEPA funding for the cleanup of the San Fernando Basin Aquifer. 2.4 LADWP should develop a detailed projection of the cost of the cleanup and securing the filtration processes on the wells of the San Fernando Basin Aquifer to obtain the maximum water output according to its legal rights, including the timeframe for completing this process. 2.5 LADWP should have a new review made of the amount of water that can be pumped from the SFB. Due to the future increased demand for water and possible reductions in water sources the SFB may be a major source of potable water. Owens Valley LADWP reported significant expenditures to date for environmental restoration and annual recurring maintenance of Owens River, and Owens and Mono Lakes. LADWP owned and operated the LAA that transported water from the Owens River and Mono and Owens Lake (OROML) to the City of Los Angeles. No major construction had occurred on the aqueduct or attendant facilities in recent years. There were no planned construction projects for this system known at the time of this report. However, LADWP was required by court order to restore habitat in the OROML, estimated to cost approximately $78 million. Water from the OROML is imported by LADWP. Due to the population growth of the city LADWP purchased water rights and started importing water via the Los Angeles Aqueduct from the OROML in 1913. LADWP expanded its presence and drew more water in successive years causing Mono and Owens lakes to dry up. Flow of the Owens River and other streams and rivers was diverted into the LAA and over time severe environmental damage began to occur. The LADWP was sued by the USEPA for dust mitigation. The main damage was that the dry lakebeds became dust hazards. Even before the environmental concerns became an issue, the diversion of water damaged the agricultural industry creating water wars between the LADWP and the residents of the affected areas. In 1989 the California Supreme Court halted all water diversions by LADWP and ordered an extensive ecosystem study to be prepared by the Water Resources Control Board (WCRB). After a series of legal defeats, the LADWP agreed to increase the permanent flows of the creeks and rivers to restore Owens Lake and Mono Lake. The California Supreme Court ruling required the Owens Lake level must reach three feet before LADWP can take 15,000 AFY. Once the level reached thirteen feet, LADWP will be allowed to take 30,000 AFY. This amount was only one-third of the amount of water taken by LADWP in 1988. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 109 Mono Lake’s recovery plan also followed the same timeline as Owens Lake’s except that it was ordered by the court in response to a lawsuit filed by the Audubon Society which cited the California Fish and Game Code and not any environmental concerns. Weather, over which no one has any control, cooperated with the LADWP for the recovery of the ecosystem by providing a large supply of water, thus advancing the timeline. However, recent years of low rain and snow pack had hampered the supply of water, causing a shortage in the allowable water for the LADWP. Statistics show that in 2008 LADWP received one-half of OROML water it did in 2001. IEA Report In 2002, the Industrial, Economic, and Administration (IEA) prepared a survey of the LADWP that contained numerous important and critical recommendations. The IEA again prepared a survey of LADWP in a report published on February 5, 2009 with follow-up to the 2002 recommendations and significant new recommendations. The significant issues raised from the 2002 review were organizational changes that impact operational continuity, adequate sources of water supply, improved communication with the consumer and required enhancements to infrastructure, and the lack of strategic planning process, Chart 6 delineates the areas covered in the IEA 2002 report that were reviewed in the IEA 2009 report as to the relevancy of the areas covered and the progress by LADWP in responding to those recommendations. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 110 Chart 6 IEA Recommendations (Chart made by CGJ based on information from the IEA Report Chart 6 indicates it was apparent that LADWP had received moderate to highly significant recommendations on the planning process but had only some or limited progress. The CGJ interviewed members of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners (BWPC) and various senior management-level personnel concerning the strategic planning process. It appeared the proper level of recognition in the usefulness of this highly regarded management tool was lacking. The CGJ interviewed the GWP about key issues in the management of its organization and the successes in accomplishing goals and strategies. GWP was extremely proud of its planning process and the output of its strategic plan document. As the CGJ reviewed this document, it was apparent GWP understood how to accomplish the task of completing and utilizing the strategic plan. Its plan included specific targeted tasks, due dates, impact statements, persons responsible and progress measurement criteria. Review Area and specific recommendations Not Moderately High Some Limited Moderate Significant Strategic Planning Emphasize strategic Planning 1 1 Culture change on strategic planning 1 1 Organizational changes 1 1 Examine Preferred Practices Model 1 1 Integrate Joint System 1 1 Joint System performance measurements 1 1 Total 0 2 4 3 3 0 0 Adequacy of Water Resources: Storage on LA Aquaduct 1 1 Use of MWD analysis of need 1 1 Alternate sources other than MWD 1 1 Legal issue with San Diego on MWD volume 1 1 Limitations of recycled water 1 1 New Quality Standards 1 1 Identify unaccounted water sources 1 1 Upgrade Pumping Capacity 1 1 Total 2 1 5 2 0 2 4 Water Quality Number of samples exceeding secondary samples 1 1 BWG-developed single-index measurement 1 1 Establish formal water Quality Goal 1 1 Benchmark against other cities 1 1 IT for useful data 1 1 Formal goals and objectives for the WSCS 1 1 Solicite expert advice on annual report 1 1 Proactive process for customer info on water quality 1 1 Formal well turn-on and turn-off process 1 1 Four alternates in Finding 12 1 1 Total 2 5 3 6 2 0 2 Installation & Maintenance of Water Infrastructure: Main line replacement project costs collected and analyzed 1 1 IT System fior WETS more user friendly 1 1 Time Schedule for in-house truck line construction 1 1 Establish time and cost performance targets for Trunk Line 1 1 Total 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Grand Total 4 8 16 11 5 2 10 RELEVANCY FOLLOW-UP PROGRESS 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 111 The CGJ also noted that the IEA made recommendations concerning the use of recycled water. The CGJ’s investigation indicated recycled water was a relevant issue with insufficient progress. Later in this report, the CGJ addressed the issues and opportunities of using recycled water. As mentioned earlier in the report, Orange County has made significant strides and accomplished marked results in this area. Further, the IEA 2009 report made new recommendations. Some of the key recommendations included: • Support MWD/DWR current efforts on water transfers, and Delta levee improvements and benchmark progress against new reliability goals • Urge and team with MWD to take a leadership role in the development of a new generation of The California Water Plan that provides a blueprint for a state-wide drought shortage sharing policy, and a long-term drought period water transfer options program • Develop a LADWP drought use reduction targets and performance as a percent of standardized state-wide baseline water use • Use their California Conservation Councils’ Best Management Practices as benchmarks against other utilities’ achievements, through investments in standardized reporting • Create a unit cost of water policy goal, together with acceptable rate increases to achieve policy objectives regarding source reliability, water quality and environmental protection • The linkages between strategic objectives and the budget must be clearly stated. Ideally, all major budget decisions should be based on the strategic plan, and all strategic plan elements should have clear support in the budget • Once a comprehensive strategic plan is in place, an annual review of the strategic plan should be completed in time for the annual budget process to incorporate into the budget proposal any changes in the goal objectives • Each business unit should review its operating plan to assure it is aligned with the strategic plan and to make modifications to their operating plan to reflect changes in the operating environment as well as progress made on achieving business unit goals and objectives. The CGJ again recognized that IEA stressed the importance and the objectives of completing a comprehensive strategic plan. IEA also recommended significant improvements to the billing system and information being provided to the consumer. The CGJ has included these recommendations in Section III of this report concerning Smart Bills. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.6 The Mayor of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should mandate that top management complete a strategic plan with appropriate goals and objectives, target completion
• R3

  Page 107
  Panel Discussion The City of San Fernando Public Works Water had an ordinance that required 50% of a yard has vegetation. It also used the water from purged fire hydrants to clean the streets, water the planted median strips in the city and other needs for water in the city. There were no city ordinances restricting daily watering. Pasadena Water and Power held workshops to provide tips for consumers on conservation. The city required consumers to water their properties only once per week for ten minutes per zone. The City of Santa Monica Water Department used processed runoff water from the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Facility for city sprinklers and also at the cemetery. There were no city ordinances restricting water use by homeowners and businesses for landscaping. The Long Beach Water Department required that residents only water their plants and lawns three days per week: Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays for ten minutes per zone. The CGJ had received a number of methods being utilized to promote water conservation. The following list is not in order of effectiveness or number of water districts that are using them: • Promote public participation in reporting excess water usage such as broken sprinklers, watering on unauthorized days and broken water lines • Increase public awareness programs for water conservative appliances • Educate consumers on water availability and supply • Promote water rate structures to encourage heavy users to reduce water usage • Utility employees provide water conservation analysis for commercial and high usage consumers • Water districts promote programs to provide smart meters so the consumer can understand the usage in their household • Water districts provide programs to redirect rain spout water for external usage, including the use of rain barrels 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 103 • Water districts provide increased usage of treated wastewater including educating the user of the safety of using treated wastewater • Use water tank trucks to capture the water from water main purging operations and using this water for various civic water needs • Convert lawns to water conserving plants and flora • Provide intermediate meters that measure inside versus outside consumption. This allows the consumer to determine where the water usage is going. It might be possible for the utility company to distinguish rates for life support versus outside water usage • Promote the use of purple pipes in homes to capture the water from dishwashers, showers and sinks for outside lawn use • Promote the use of rain barrels to capture water runoff • Establish an ordinance for limited watering days and duration of outside landscaping • Establish a comprehensive list of water sensitive plants and ground cover that can be purchased for outside landscaping • Hold quarterly meetings to discuss successful water conservation methods for implementation within each district SECTION II LADWP, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL DISCUSSION Mayor’s Plan In May 2008, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa coordinated with the LADWP a report titled, Securing L.A.’s Water Supply. The plan was an attempt to respond to water shortages in 2007 and to initiate a proposal to rethink existing and future water supplies. The plan would respond to a demand for an additional 100 thousand AF of water per year by