Orange County Grand Jury
• 2013-2014
Sustainable and Reliable Orange County Water Supply:
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 10 findings
F1
MWDOC’s SOC water reliability study objective of a 30 to 60 day emergency supply from local storage will fall short, requiring between 33 and 48 Mgd of additional capacity. Mitigation of this short fall may require the development of a new water source.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
MWDOC and OCWD should assemble and finance a strong inter-agency (OCWD, MWDOC, and select retailers) advocacy group to drive the final permitting and construction of several large scale seawater desalination plants with the objective of significantly accelerating the process and shortening project schedules. (F.1. through F.6.), (F.10.)
R5
MWDOC and OCWD should consider merging into a single wholesale agency to better evaluate, coordinate, and integrate more complex strategies involving the allocation and distribution of ground and imported water under emergency and climate change impacts. This merger would facilitate the implementation of Recommendations 1-4. (F.1.), (F.4.), (F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required. Responses to Findings F.1., F.2., F.4., F.5., F.6., F.8., and F.9. are required from the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County. Responses to Findings F.2., F.3., F.5., F.7., and F.9. are required from the Board of Directors of Orange County Water District. Responses to Recommendations R.1. through R.5. are required from the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County. Responses to Recommendations R.1. through R.5. are required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. APPENDICES
F2
The BDCP is an expensive, long-term, ($25 billion in capital and operations over 50 years) plan yet to be approved or funded project to restore the Bay Delta and improve exported water source reliability. The future effects of climate change on water allocations and the vulnerability of the dual, under delta tunnels have not been well defined and should be developed further before MWDOC allocates significant resources to its implementation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
MWDOC should continue to monitor and support the BDCP, but a favorable resolution of water supply allocations and tunnel vulnerability issues is required before significant resources should be expended. (F.2.), (F.8.)
F3
Most of the local and County water sources have been developed and optimized. Some additional capture of ground water and recycling of municipal waste water is in various stages of planning and execution, but these options are progressively more expensive to execute and, by themselves, are not game changers.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
OC water quality is widely and frequently monitored by both wholesalers and retailers and, in general, is well within the State standards. Some wells have been contaminated with seawater or industrial chemicals and are either capped or the water is treated on site. All wells and transfer interfaces are frequently monitored for water quality.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The largest, yet to be developed source of local water is the Pacific ocean. Two OC desalination projects are being evaluated by regulatory agencies and OC water districts, Poseidon’s 50 Mgd Huntington Beach project and the MWDOC’s Doheny Coastal Ocean Desalination Project rated at 15 Mgd potable/15 Mgd barrier injection at Doheny Beach.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
MWDOC and OCWD should assemble and finance a strong inter-agency (OCWD, MWDOC, and select retailers) advocacy group to drive the final permitting and construction of several large scale seawater desalination plants with the objective of significantly accelerating the process and shortening project schedules. (F.1. through F.6.), (F.10.)
F6
The MWDOC imported water supply source and transport infrastructure has been greatly improved, but it is vulnerable to several major events outside of their control. These include flooding or a large earthquake in the Bay Delta which could collapse levees. Quakes could also damage critical infrastructure such as conveyance piping, water treatment plants and pump stations. Contamination of Bay Delta intakes due to the seawater infiltration is a possibility; some say it’s likely. Long periods of drought could also result in the depletion of major State reservoir storage which are currently at 50% or less of annual average capacity.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
MWDOC and OCWD should develop an interconnection process flow network diagram connecting all relevant OC agencies (City, County, and MET) and use it to investigate the impact of ―what if‖ scenarios (various emergency outages due to failed wells and pumping stations, damaged piping, etc.) which could impact local district water supplies. Close coordination of resources and plans is necessary to integrate the local OC water infrastructure. (F.7.)
R5
MWDOC and OCWD should consider merging into a single wholesale agency to better evaluate, coordinate, and integrate more complex strategies involving the allocation and distribution of ground and imported water under emergency and climate change impacts. This merger would facilitate the implementation of Recommendations 1-4. (F.1.), (F.4.), (F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required. Responses to Findings F.1., F.2., F.4., F.5., F.6., F.8., and F.9. are required from the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County. Responses to Findings F.2., F.3., F.5., F.7., and F.9. are required from the Board of Directors of Orange County Water District. Responses to Recommendations R.1. through R.5. are required from the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County. Responses to Recommendations R.1. through R.5. are required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. APPENDICES
F7
The local OC water supply is less vulnerable to major events because of a number of innovative retail water supplier and OCWD efforts. The primary focus has been on large waste or surface run-off water reclamation, increased winter and emergency storage, conservation and rate pricing strategies, preventative maintenance, back-up and redundant equipment, and a large number of interconnections between district distribution pipelines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
MWDOC and OCWD should develop an interconnection process flow network diagram connecting all relevant OC agencies (City, County, and MET) and use it to investigate the impact of ―what if‖ scenarios (various emergency outages due to failed wells and pumping stations, damaged piping, etc.) which could impact local district water supplies. Close coordination of resources and plans is necessary to integrate the local OC water infrastructure. (F.7.)
F8
The imported water supply is less vulnerable to earthquakes and long term drought because of a number of recently completed projects such as: 1. Increasing southern California reservoir storage about doubled over the last 10 years and is currently at about 5.5 MAF (million acre-feet, an acre under one foot of water). 2. Upgrading the Diemer imported water treatment plant seismic design. 3. Developing the Diamond Valley reservoir and connecting pipeline to store Colorado River (COR) and State water for emergency use-note that transport piping does not cross the San Andreas Fault and should be less vulnerable to quake caused catastrophic failures. 4. Adding ozone treatment at three water treatment plants for disinfecting potable water. 5. Implementing an extensive conditioned maintenance program for mechanical and electrical equipment including the ability to fabricate, transport and install large diameter pipe spool pieces to repair damaged sections of piping. 6. Negotiating transfer agreements with Imperial and Central Valley agricultural districts for water exchanges and transfers during surplus wet years.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Permitting large water infrastructure construction projects consumes many years, and cuts across many agencies and jurisdictions. Permitting issues are frequently used by stakeholder special interests to manipulate outcomes that are not always consistent with the public’s greater good.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
MWDOC and OCWD should work with legislators, contractors, other stakeholders, and the regulatory agencies to streamline and accelerate the large infrastructure permitting process. The goal should be the development of a one-stop agency capable of representing and adjudicating conflicting or overlapping agency permit requirements. (F.9.), (F.10.)
F10
The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) has geological, demographic and water import issues which are similar to SOC. They are pursuing similar conservation and storage projects, but have also committed to water purchases from a large, 50 Mgd desalination plant located in Carlsbad to achieve a more diverse, local water portfolio. Their interest in seawater desalination has primarily been driven by an imported water curtailment of 50% in 1991. It has taken over 10 years and significant public involvement to obtain regulatory approvals. SDCWA has also completed a conceptual engineering study of the feasibility of locating a second large desalination plant at the Camp Pendleton Marine Base. The Grand Jury recognizes that it lacks jurisdiction over the San Diego Water County Water Authority, but makes the finding merely to demonstrate the complexity of desalination projects and length of time needed for regulatory approval is similar to Orange County. The Grand Jury believes that coordination and advocacy between water districts would be beneficial. RECOMMENDATIONS ―In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District and the Municipal Water District of Orange County which are affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.‖ Based on its investigation of water reliability and sustainability in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:
No recommendations for this finding