Brea Response to Grand Jury Report

There is inadequate coordination between local land-use planning agencies and local water supply agencies, resulting in a process that fails to fully engage the issues. (a). Water agencies have tended to avoid interfering with or participating in growth-management decisions. (b). Cities and the County have tended to not critically evaluate the limitations of the water agencies' supply projections. Disagree. Planning being performed at the local, regional and state levels is aimed at using our existing water supplies more efficiently and developing new supplies and systems to accommodate the current'and future needs of our residents and businesses and to improve supply reliability where necessary. Although the water supply situation has changed drastically since the judicial ruling handed down in 2807, the same framework and goals still apply. The change in the underpinning of our water supplies, as noted by the Grand Jerry, is the significant immediate loss of a large portion of supplies from the State Water Project due to enforcement of the Endangered Species Act on a species by species basis starting with the Delta Smelt beginning in 2007. Until that time, the joint regional and local systems were meeting all demands and plans were in place to meet actual and projected demands out to 2035.

California's looming water supply crisis receives very little, if any, expressed concern from the public in comparison to the numerous other environmental issues presented during development project reviews. (a). Orange County's citizens and interest groups do not appear to grasp the seriousness of the water supply situation or the corr~plexitya nd urgency of the necessary solutions. (b). Several recent, substantial water supply awareness efforts are underway (e.g. the O.C. Water Summit) that show promise but appear targeted to audiences that are already informed. Agree that the water crisis receives little concern, but it is not for lack of trying by the water community. What are outlined below are the outreach efforts that are currently being utilized. The water industry has many communication and outreach avenues, but the spending by public entities is generally low compared to industries that would spend atmuch higher Bevels to brand or market new products. Still, water industry communr'cations can be and are effective. In recent years, the water industry has collectively advertised itself as the ""Fmily of Southern California Water Agencies" and promoted "Bewaterwise.cosn" to get the word out on the water supply situation and water conservation tips and opportunities. The City of Brea utilizes bill stuffers, newsletters, city website and a Water Conservation Coordinat~tro inform the public. Ira Orange County, we have monthly meetings of a Public Affairs Workgroup made up of the staff from all of the retaii agencies. They work to develop and implement consistent message points for the public. MET also has a Public Information Officers workgr~upth at coordinates outreach and communication among the MET member agencies. Due to the expense and the limited budgets of the retail agencies, the brunt of the TV and radio media outreach has been developed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through an advertising campaign for the LA & §an Diego markets. While we are always open to new methods of communication, we believe the existing communication system works. Polling conducted from time to time to track water industry messages and the understanding of the public indicates that high percentages of people understand there is a water crisis (76% in a recent survey by MWDOC). Furthermore, 78% indicated they would change their water using habits to conserve to prevent water rationing and 67% believe that their water agency does an effective job of keeping them informed about water supply. We also believe high percentages of the public are engaged because of recent actions such as the "run" on rebates for water conservation devices, which pushed spending up to a point where the available funding was exceeded several times over. Following is an outline of current countywide outreach efforts: = In June of 2008, Public Affairs Workgroup began developing a regional message that incorporated three critical elements of a long term communication strategy: The message must be positive @ Focus on water-use efficiency and eliminating water waste @ e Adaptable at the retails level A comprehensive, strategic communicatisn plan was developed that incorporates grassroots education, strategic partnerships and guerrilla marketing techniques. Research has shown that this approach has been most successful in achieving social change. The following logo was adopted: EW: WAf DO MORE WITH LESS This plan augments and enhances the large media campaign that Metropolitan is orchestrating increases visibility throughout the region Integrates new technology and social marketing channels as well. Critical part of the plan is to engage strategic partners to help carry the message. Everyday new partners are signing on. Current strategic partners include: lBM Wurley Sportswear Volcom Sempra Energy Surfer Magazine Latino Water Coalition Transworld Media Sunset Magazine Fuel TV Other parts of the program include: Huell Howser contracted with the Association of California Water Agencies to produce 15 episodes about California Water. This series is being utilized to help inform citizens. Cable channels are being used to get the word out Educatianal trips are provided by MET for each of its Directors to host community leaders to get the word out on water issues We have one of the best School Education Programs in the state for @ water awareness education in grades K-6; it reaches about 90,000 students per year and has reached about 3,000,000 since 1972. - Water Heroes a new program aimed at kids and families, focuses on 0 identifying water wasting habits and eliminating them. Over the past two years 7500 kids have signed up on www.ocwaterhero.com

LAFCO is the agency charged with facilitation constructive changes in governmental structure to promote efficient delivery of services. To this end, LAFCO is conducting a governance study of MWDOC which is .the designated representative for nearly all of the Orange County retail water agencies, acting on their behalf with their surface water supplier Metropolitan. (a). There are a number of points of governance disagreement between MWDOC and several of its member agencies. This is creating an impediment to the on-going effectiveness of these agencies in critical areas of Orange County's water supply management. (b). The current disagreement is a distraction from the greater good of the agencies working toward Orange County's water future. (c). The stakeholders in LAFCO's study failed to meet their March 11, 2009 deadline for LAFCO's public hearing on this matter. Continued delays are unacceptable. Agree. This issue needs to be resolved.

Orange County is uniquely fortunate to have a vast, high-quality, well-managed groundwater basin serving its north geographical area. However, in its south reaches, it has an equally large, high-growth area with virtually no available groundwater resources. (a). The difference in groundwater availability creates a "haves versus have- nots" situation that is conducive to inherent conflicts. (b). The difference in groundwater availability provides opportunities for responsible participants to develop and construct long-term solutions which will benefit the entire County. Agree on finding 4.a., but we do not find a problem with this. This recognition of water rights mirrors the way Orange County was developed. Development in South County was enhanced by the south county water agencies ability to obtain imported supplies and develop extensive recycled water programs. the City of Brea is not part of the Orange County Water Basin and therefore has invested in California Domestic Water to help supplement around 50% of its imported water supply. Disagree partially on finding 4.b. The finding is not clearly stated, but appears to include two implications that we believe require expanded information. The first implication is that local resources are not being fully developed in south Orange County. This is not correct. Critical groundwater, recycled water and ocean water supplies are all being developed in south Orange County. While the Grand Jury is correct in its supposition that there are opportunities presented in this issue as well as problems, the second implication here is that the OCWD Groundwater Basin has the capacity to serve the entire county. This is not correct. The groundwater basin is managed and utilized to provide water supplies to its overlying constituent landowners. The operable storage in the basin has been developed at substantial cost and is insufficient to meet all demands within the basin. Currently, the groundwater basin meets about 62% of the needs of the overlying agencies (historically, has ranged from 62% to 80%) and the groundwater cost is substantially less than the cost of impofied water. if additional supplies can be developed, the % distribution to the overlying entities would increase. It will never reach 100% and so it can be concluded that the supplies from the basin must remain in the basin to benefit the basin constituents. This is also consistent with water rights law and the OCWD Act that formed OCWD and governs how it operates and manages the basin. Use of storage in the OCWD basin is allowed by agreement with OCWD. OCWD has entered into storage arrangements that allow MET to store up to 66,000 AF of imported water and to recall as much as 20,000 AF out of this same storage in any one year. This additional yield out of storage benefits everyone in Southern California. In addition, a February 2006 Emergency Services Program Agreement was developed with OCWD that allows emergency water supplies from the basin to be exchanged with south Orange County. This program is currently being used to alllow exchange of water to south Orange County during emergency situations. Finally, development of projects by OCWD like the Ground Water Replenishment System (GWRS), benefit the south County area as well as all of southern California. Allowing access to the lower cost groundwater outside of the basin or allowing access to more storage by south Orange County would increase the cost to the basin agencies and put them at risk. GRAND JURY RECOMMENDA'I'IONS: R.l: Each Orange County municipal planning agency, in cooperation with its respective water supply agency, should prepare for adoption by its city council, a dedicated Water Element to its General Plan in conjunction with a future update, not to exceed June 30, 2010. This document should include detailed implementation measures based on objective-based policies that match realistic projections of the County's future water supplies. These objectives, policies and implementation measures should address imported supply constraints, including catastrophic outages and incorporate the realistic availability and timing of "new" water sources such as desalination, contaminated groundwater reclamation and surface water recycling. (Findings F1a & b, and F2 a & b) This Will NOT be implemented because each agency that serves water already prepares an Urban Water Management Plan and updates it every five years. in addition, MET prepares an UWMP, its IRP and updates, and its Water Supply Outlook periodically. Collectively, these documents provide what has been suggested. For new developments of greater than 500 units, a Water Supply Assessment must be completed -this is existing law. In addition, the water community measures performance (supplies vs. demands) as we move forward and will be able to make adjustments in the process. However, complying with the Grand Jury request for every municipal planning agency would be a duplication of efforts and ineffective in accomplishing the goal of the recommendation.