Appendix G Water Supply Assessment - Anaheim

Appendices

SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim

Appendix G Water Supply Assessment

Appendices

The Planning Center August 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT

September 2009

Prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM

Prepared by:

3 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 200

Santa Ana, CA 92707 Project No. 2ANA012900

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Legislation........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 SB 610 – Costa – Water Supply Planning ....................................................... 2-1 3.0 The Platinum Triangle ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Proposed Project Description........................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Proposed Project Water Demands ................................................................... 3-7

4.0 City of Anaheim Water Demand and Supplies ............................................... 4-1 4.1 Overview of Supply and Demand.................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................... 4-8 4.3 Imported Water (Surface Water) ................................................................... 4-14 4.4 Recycled Water.............................................................................................. 4-17

5.0 Reliability of Water Supplies ............................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Metropolitan Water District............................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 State Water Project .................................................................................. 5-2 5.1.2 Colorado River Aqueduct ........................................................................ 5-7 5.1.3 Water Transfer and Exchange Programs ............................................... 5-10 5.1.4 Supply Management Strategies.............................................................. 5-11

5.2 Orange County Water District ....................................................................... 5-12 5.2.1 OCWD Long Term Facilities Plan (LTFP) ........................................... 5-14 5.2.2 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan (GMP)................................... 5-15 5.2.3 OCWD 2020 Water Master Plan Report (Water MPR)......................... 5-15

5.3 Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD or Department) ..................... 5-16 5.3.1 Water System......................................................................................... 5-16 5.3.2 Past and Current Efforts......................................................................... 5-18 5.3.3 Huntington Beach Sea Water Desalination Facility .............................. 5-20

5.4 Dry Year Reliability Comparison .................................................................. 5-21 6.0 Possible Water Supply Shortage ...................................................................... 6-1 7.0 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 7-1 8.0 References........................................................................................................... 8-1

September 2009 i

TABLES Table 3.1 Proposed Project Development Intensities ...................................................... 3-1 Table 3.2 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities ............................... 3-6 Table 3.3 Proposed Project Water Demand Increase....................................................... 3-8 Table 4.1 Water Service Area Population – Past, Current and Projected........................ 4-3 Table 4.2 City of Anaheim Historical Water Sales by Customer Class (AF)................ 4-4 Table 4.3 City of Anaheim Historical Production by Source (AF) ............................... 4-5 Table 4.4 Projected Water Demand and Supply City of Anaheim, including the Proposed

Project ...................................................................................................................... 4-6 Table 4.5 Groundwater Pumping by Well (AF) ........................................................... 4-12 Table 4.6 Estimated Pumping by Well to 2015 (AF) .................................................... 4-13 Table 4.7 Total Retail Water Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area for Orange County

- Includes Municipal and Industrial, and Agriculture (AF) .................................. 4-16 Table 5.1 SWP Deliveries to Metropolitan (AF) ............................................................ 5-4 Table 5.2 Historical Imported Water Use (AFY) ......................................................... 5-11 Table 5.3 Metropolitan’s Regional Imported Water Supply Reliability Projections.... 5-25 Table 5.4 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Normal Year .......... 5-29 Table 5.5 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Single Dry Year..... 5-30 Table 5.6 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water

Years 2006-2010.................................................................................................... 5-32 Table 5.7 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water




Years 2026-2030.................................................................................................... 5-36 Table 6.1 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35%

Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Normal Year ....................................... 6-4 Table 6.2 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35%

Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Single Dry Year.................................. 6-5 Table 6.3 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35%

Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2006-2010 .......... 6-6 Table 6.4 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35%




Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2026-2030 ........ 6-10 Table 6.8 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40%

Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Normal Year ..................................... 6-11

September 2009 ii

Table 6.9 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Single Dry Year................................ 6-12

Table 6.10 Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 40% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage Multiple Dry Years 2006-2010 ........ 6-13





September 2009 iii

FIGURES Figure 3.1 Regional Location of Proposed Project.......................................................... 3-2 Figure 3.2 Existing General Plan Land Uses for The Platinum Triangle ........................ 3-3 Figure 3.3 Proposed General Plan Land Uses for The Platinum Triangle....................... 3-4 Figure 3.4 Existing and Proposed Mixed Use Districts for The Platinum Triangle ........ 3-5 Figure 5.1 Anaheim Public Utilities Major Facilities & Service Area .......................... 5-17

APPENDICES Appendix A Water Demand Factor Support Data Appendix B Metropolitan Water Supply Support Data Appendix C Anaheim Water Conservation Support Data Appendix D Metropolitan Water Supply Allocation Plan Percentages

September 2009 iv

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS AB Assembly Bill AF Acre-feet AFY Acre-feet per year APUD, Department City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department ARSP Anaheim Resort Specific Plan ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center BEA Basin Equity Assessment BPP Basin Production Percentage CAWCD Central Arizona Water Conservation District CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City, Anaheim City of Anaheim CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CREED Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development CVP Central Valley Project CVWD Coachella Valley Water District DPH California Department of Public Health DSEIR Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report DWA, Desert Desert Water Agency DWR California Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Endangered Species Act FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FSEIR Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report GIS Geographic Information System GMP Groundwater Management Plan gpd Gallons per day GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System HGL Hydraulic grade line IID Imperial Irrigation District IRP Integrated Resources Planning IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District KPMC Kaiser Permanente Medical Center ksf Thousand square feet LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works LRP Local Resources Program LTFP Long Term Facilities Plan MAF Million acre-feet Metropolitan, MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MG Million gallons

September 2009 v

MGD Million gallons per day MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County OCCORD Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development OCP Orange County Projections OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District PTMU Platinum Triangle Mixed Use PVID Palo Verde Irrigation District QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement RA Replenishment Assessment RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan SAR Santa Ana River SB Senate Bill SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority sf Square feet SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority SSS Seasonal Shift Storage SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board UBC Uniform Building Code UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WCR Walnut Canyon Reservoir WRD Water Replenishment District WSA Water Supply Assessment YCWA Yuba County Water Agency

September 2009 vi

CITY OF ANAHEIM THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) has been prepared for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (the “Proposed Project”) in accordance with applicable sections of the Public Resources Code and California Water Code as referenced in Senate Bill 610. The Proposed Project provides for mixed-use development on approximately 820 gross acres located where the I-5 and SR-57 intersect. The Proposed Project would increase the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in The Platinum Triangle. The Proposed Project would reduce the amount of office and commercial square footage and increase the amount of residential units being requested as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed in Final EIR No. 334. These modifications were made in an effort to improve the overall jobs/housing balance in The Platinum Triangle at buildout, encourage a full range of transit oriented development opportunities for ARTIC, reduce traffic impacts to the City of Orange, and address some of the concerns of the previous project opponents. This WSA will provide information to verify that there is sufficient water supply to the City of Anaheim (“City”) to provide for the Proposed Project now and into the future. Previous Water Supply Assessments and Environmental Documents In May 2004, the City approved a Citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update Program and certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 330 in connection therewith. In February 2005, the City completed a WSA for the increase in development intensity proposed for The Platinum Triangle and concluded that there was adequate water supply through the year 2024/2025 to provide for the intensity of the development proposed. In October 2005, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 332 was certified and amendments to the General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan were approved to allow for the development of 9,500 residential units; 5,000,000 square feet (sf) of office use; and 2,254,400 sf of commercial use within The Platinum Triangle, as had been analyzed by the February 2005 WSA. The water demands associated with FSEIR No. 332 developed in the 2005 WSA were included in the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The City prepared a subsequent environmental impact report in connection with The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, for which FSEIR No. 334 was approved in December 2007 and reapproved in April 2008. However, following the approval of the FSEIR No. 334, a lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) and Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD) challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City’s exemplary historical record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, the City Council rescinded the certification

September 2009 ES-1

of The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent EIR No. 334 and the various related approvals and directed staff to prepare a new EIR for the project. One of the claims alleged in the CREED and OCCORD lawsuits was that the May 2007 WSA was inadequate because it failed to contain information pertaining to possible cutbacks in State Water Project (SWP) deliveries to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and MWD member agencies, such as the City. The possibility of cutbacks was due to federal court orders mandating increased in-stream flows and reduced SWP deliveries to protect the Delta smelt, an endangered species that is allegedly harmed by operation of the SWP pumps, which facilitate water deliveries to the southern part of the State through the SWP. While the May 2007 WSA complied with all applicable laws and accurately assessed all conditions at the time the May 2007 WSA was prepared, this current WSA will analyze the possibility of future cutbacks of SWP deliveries in light of the ongoing federal litigation pertaining to the Delta smelt and possible future regulatory changes due to possible future climate change impacts. The purpose of this WSA is to provide information to verify that there is sufficient water supply to the City to provide for the Proposed Project now and into the future. This WSA evaluates the additional water demands that will need to be served by the City as a result of the proposed intensification of development in The Platinum Triangle. This intensification is consistent with the land uses being addressed in the Proposed Project’s Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) No. 339, and the associated water demands require the preparation of a new WSA in conjunction with the subject EIR. The WSA also responds to some of the previous policy concerns raised by OCCORD and CREED in their earlier lawsuits. Water Demand In 2007/08, the City’s water demand was approximately 74,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) including unaccounted for water, which was actually over 5,000 AFY less than what was projected in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). In essence, this means that City businesses and residents are using less water than was originally forecast, which is likely due to the fact that (i) the previous UWMP conservatively over-estimated water demand, and (ii) water demand is being reduced due to effective conservation efforts being undertaken by the City and increased water efficiencies resulting from more stringent building codes and more efficient appliances (e.g., tankless water heaters, high-efficiency clothes washing machines, etc.). At the end of the 20-year planning period for this WSA, as required by SB 610, City water demand for 2029/30 is projected to be approximately 88,520 AFY. This projection includes future demands from the City based on the overall projected growth rate, as well as added demands from the Proposed Project, the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Project, and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion, all of which have been, or are being, addressed in other WSAs prepared since the 2005 UWMP.

September 2009 ES-2

The 2005 UWMP included a demand projection of 2,656 AFY for The Platinum Triangle, based on the development intensities previously analyzed by FSEIR No. 332. Build-out of these development intensities was assumed to take place within the 20-year time horizon typically associated with the General Plan; however, build-out may occur sooner or beyond the 20-year planning period. The adopted land uses considered in the current EIR include land use intensity increases adopted after the February 2005 WSA and, therefore, such increased land use intensities are not included in the 2005 UWMP. The total water demand projection for the increase in land use intensification that was not included in the 2005 UWMP is 1,804 AFY. Additionally, there are existing landscape irrigation demands within The Platinum Triangle, as well as existing demands associated with the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim, totaling 789 AFY that were included in the 2005 UWMP as existing citywide demand. These existing demands are not anticipated to change with any of the land use intensification proposed with the Proposed Project. Thus, the total water demand for the Proposed Project is 5,249 AFY, which includes the 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA that was included in the 2005 UWMP; the 789 AFY of existing demand that was included in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP; and the 1,804 AFY of additional demand addressed in this WSA. Supply Projections The City’s sources of supply consist of groundwater and imported surface water. In 2007/08, the City received approximately 79 percent of its water supply from groundwater and 21 percent from imported water. Analysis of water supply projections for the City demonstrates that projected supplies will exceed demand through fiscal year 2029/30. These projections consider water development programs and projects as well as water conservation, as described in the City’s 2005 UWMP and Section 5 of this WSA. The City’s groundwater and imported water supplies are anticipated to remain stable based on studies and reports of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), respectively. Statewide water planning is also considering current dry conditions and various Bay Delta pumping scenarios, which are also discussed in Section 5. Based on the expected long-term average Basin Production Percentage (BPP), the City’s water supply projection assumes that up to 67 percent will be groundwater, and 33 percent will be imported, which has been confirmed as reliable by Metropolitan. Additionally, analyses of normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios also demonstrate the City’s ability to meet demand during the 20-year analysis period. Finally, an analysis was conducted utilizing assumed temporary shortages in Metropolitan’s water supply, which demonstrates the City’s ability to meet demand under reasonably foreseeable temporary allocations to deal with cutbacks in SWP deliveries due to Delta smelt and other environmental issues, were such issues to materialize in any near term or future years.

September 2009 ES-3

Moreover, should extraordinary circumstances require it, the City can meet its water demand by (1) increasing production of groundwater beyond the BPP up to the basin safe yield, (2) increasing imported water purchases from available storage programs, and/or (3) decreasing demand through water conservation measures. Reliability of future water supplies to the region will be ensured through continued implementation of the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, OCWD’s Long Term Facilities Plan, local agency programs, and the combined efforts and programs among member and cooperative agencies of Metropolitan. These agencies include all water wholesalers and retailers, the Orange County Sanitation District, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. The plans are described in the City’s 2005 UWMP and Section 5 of this WSA. Conclusion The information included in this water supply assessment identifies a sufficient and reliable water supply for the City, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for The Platinum Triangle, as analyzed by FSEIR No. 332 and projected in the February 2005 Platinum Triangle WSA, plus the currently proposed intensification of land use within The Platinum Triangle (the Proposed Project). These supplies are also sufficient to provide for overall City-wide growth at the rate projected in the most recent Orange County Projections (OCP - 2006 Population and Housing Projections), published in 2008 by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, which develops higher growth projections than those used in the 2005 UWMP (both of which include the Mountain Park development) plus additional water demands within the City resulting from development proposed after the UWMP was adopted. These added demands include the Proposed Project, demands analyzed by the May 2007 WSA for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (KPMC), and demands associated with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion Project (ARSP), which are being analyzed in a separate WSA.

September 2009 ES-4

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Platinum Triangle -- Background The Platinum Triangle consists of approximately 820 acres and is located at the confluence of Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 57 (SR-57), in the City of Anaheim (City) in Orange County, California. The Platinum Triangle encompasses Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, The Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station, and surrounding light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and supporting retail uses. One mixed-use development in The Platinum Triangle has been completed and several more are under construction or in the planning stages. Proposed, existing, approved and pending land uses for The Platinum Triangle are included in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project DSEIR No. 339. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330 On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved a comprehensive Citywide General Plan and Zoning Code Update Program and certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 330 and associated Mitigation Monitoring Programs. The adopted General Plan provided a new vision for The Platinum Triangle. It was determined, however, that future individual development projects and infrastructure improvements within the project area would require further environmental review and analysis. The First WSA and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 In February 2005, the City completed a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for The Platinum Triangle, which included an analysis of the overall water demands for the City plus The Platinum Triangle as proposed at that time, the existing water supply sources, and the reliability of those supplies over a 20-year planning period, including each agency that impacts water supply and water quality to the region. The WSA concluded that the City’s water supplies were sufficient during normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years over a 20-year planning period. The February 2005 WSA analyzed the development intensity included in the FSEIR No. 332, and concluded that there was adequate water supply to provide for the intensity of development proposed. In October 2005, SEIR No. 332 and amendments to the General Plan and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan were approved to allow for the development of 9,500 residential units; 5,000,000 square feet (sf) of office use; and 2,254,400 sf of commercial use within The Platinum Triangle, as had been analyzed by February 2005 WSA. The associated water demands for the proposed developments were subsequently included in the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

1-1 September 2009

WSA for Gene Autry Experience Project In February 2007, a WSA Amendment for The Platinum Triangle was completed to include water demand increase as a result of the intensification of development proposed by the Gene Autry Experience Project, which encompasses approximately 17.7 acres at the southwest corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard within the Gene Autry District of the Platinum Triangle. The February 2007 WSA Amendment updated the February 2005 WSA to account for an additional 699 dwelling units beyond those included in the February 2005 WSA. WSA for The Platinum Triangle Expansion The February 2007 WSA was again amended in May 2007 to include the water demand increase as a result of the intensification of development proposed by The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (as was envisioned in 2007), as well as the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. The proposed Platinum Triangle Expansion Project included three potential alternatives for increased densities within The Platinum Triangle. The May 2007 WSA for The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed the alternative with the highest water demand. Also included in the May 2007 WSA were water demands associated with the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, a 27-acre site which includes a hospital, administrative and medical offices, central utility plant, retail areas, and associated parking. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 334 In 2007, the City prepared a subsequent environmental impact report in connection with The Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. FSEIR No. 334 was approved in December 2007 and reapproved in April 2008. However, following the approvals, a lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) and Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD) challenging the adequacy of FSEIR No. 334. In consideration of the City’s exemplary historical record in avoiding CEQA litigation and its commitment to proper environmental review, the City Council repealed the certification of FSEIR No. 334 and its related approvals, and directed staff to prepare a new SEIR for the project. One of the claims alleged in the CREED and OCCORD lawsuits was that the May 2007 WSA was inadequate because it failed to contain information pertaining to possible cutbacks in State Water Project (SWP) deliveries to the Metropolitan Water District (Metropolitan) and Metropolitan member agencies, such as the City. The possibility of cutbacks was due to federal court orders mandating increased in-stream flows and reduced SWP deliveries to protect the Delta smelt, an endangered species that is allegedly harmed by operation of the SWP pumps, which facilitate water deliveries to the southern part of the State through the SWP. While the May 2007 WSA complied with all applicable laws and accurately assessed all conditions at the time the May 2007 WSA was prepared, this current WSA will analyze the possibility of future cutbacks of SWP

1-2 September 2009

deliveries in light of the ongoing federal litigation pertaining to the Delta smelt and possible future regulatory changes due to possible future climate change impacts. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 Now, the City proposes to increase the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in The Platinum Triangle under adopted General Plan and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The Proposed Project would reduce the amount of office and commercial square footage and increase the amount of residential units as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed in FSEIR No. 334. These modifications were made in an effort to improve the overall jobs/housing balance in The Platinum Triangle at buildout, encourage a full range of transit oriented development opportunities and reduce traffic impacts. Purpose of this WSA The purpose of this WSA is to provide information to verify that there is sufficient water supply to the City to provide for the Proposed Project now and into the future. This WSA develops the additional water demands that will need to be served by the City as a result of the proposed intensification of development in The Platinum Triangle. This intensification is consistent with the land use being addressed in the Proposed Project’s environmental impact report (DSEIR No. 339). This proposed land use intensification and commensurate additional water demand requires the preparation of a new WSA in conjunction with the subject EIR.

1-3 September 2009

2.0 LEGISLATION Because of the size of the Proposed Project, the State of California, through Senate Bill (SB) 610, requires that a Water Supply Assessment be completed to evaluate the potential affect of the proposed development on current and future water supplies. While the Proposed Project will be implemented by numerous individual development projects that may have fewer than the threshold of 500 units (or a water use equivalent of commercial or office square footage) that triggers the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, collectively the total project exceeds the threshold. Thus, the City has caused this Water Supply Assessment to be prepared. The following outlines the requirements of SB 610.

2.1 SB 610 – Costa – Water Supply Planning

SB 610 was chaptered into law on October 9, 2001. It mandates that a city or county approving certain projects subject to CEQA (i) identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, and (ii) request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. The assessment is to include the following:

1. A discussion of whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing.

2. The identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and contracts.

3. A description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.

4. A demonstration of water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts by the following means: a. Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. b. Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply

that has been adopted by the public water system. c. Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure

associated with delivering the water supply. d. Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to

convey or deliver the water supply.

5. The identification of other public water systems or water service contract holders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system.

2-1 September 2009

6. If groundwater is included for the supply for a proposed project, the following additional information is required: a. Review of any information contained in the Urban Water Management Plan

(UWMP) relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. b. Description of any groundwater basin(s) from which the proposed project will

be supplied. Adjudicated basins must have a copy of the court order or decree adopted and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system has the legal right to pump. For non-adjudicated basins, information on whether the DWR has identified the basin as over-drafted or has projected that the basin will become over-drafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of DWR that characterizes the condition of the basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken in the basin to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition.

c. Description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system for the past five years from any groundwater basin which the proposed project will be supplied. Analysis should be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.

d. Description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater projected to be pumped by the public water system from any groundwater basin by which the proposed project will be supplied. Analysis should be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.

e. Analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin(s) from which the proposed project will be supplied.

The water supply assessment shall be included in any environmental document prepared for the project. The assessment may include an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document. A determination shall be made whether the projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. Additionally, SB 610 requires new information to be included as part of an UWMP if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. Information must include a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water use. SB 610 prohibits eligibility for funds from specified bond acts until the plan is submitted to the State.

2-2 September 2009

3.0 THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE

3.1 Proposed Project Description

The Proposed Project area is located at the confluence of the I-5 and SR-57 Freeways, and encompasses 820 gross acres within the City. Figure 3.1 shows the Proposed Project’s regional location. The Proposed Project would increase the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in The Platinum Triangle to that shown in Table 3.1. The Proposed Project would reduce the amount of office and commercial square footage and increase the amount of residential units being requested as compared to the previous Platinum Triangle Expansion Project analyzed in Final EIR No. 334. These modifications were made in an effort to improve the overall jobs/housing balance in The Platinum Triangle at buildout, encourage a full range of transit oriented development opportunities for ARTIC, reduce traffic impacts to the City of Orange, and address some of the concerns of the previous project opponents.

Table 3.1 Proposed Project Development Intensities Land Use Adopted Proposed Increase

Residential Units 10,266 18,909 8,643 Commercial Square Feet 2,264,400 4,909,682 2,645,282 Office Square Feet 5,055,550 14,340,522 9,284,972 Institutional Square Feet 0 1,500,000 1,500,000

The Proposed Project would (i) expand the General Plan Mixed Use land use designation within The Platinum Triangle, shown in Figure 3.2, and (ii) create two new mixed use districts and expand two existing mixed use districts within Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone as shown in Figure 3.3. District development intensity maps that further break down the allocated development in The Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Districts by sub-areas have also been developed and are included in the Current EIR. These existing and proposed districts are shown in Figure 3.4. Proposed development intensities shown in Table 3.1 were used to determine impacts on water supply from the Proposed Project in this WSA. Table 3.2 lists the development intensities by district. Both of these tables include the adopted intensities as well as the proposed intensification for the Proposed Project.

3-1 September 2009

Figure 3.1 Regional Location of Proposed Project

3-2 September 2009

3-3 September 2009

Figure 3.2 Existing General Plan Land Uses for The Platinum Triangle

3-4 September 2009

Figure 3.3 Proposed General Plan Land Uses for The Platinum Triangle

Figure 3.4 Existing and Proposed Mixed Use Districts for The Platinum Triangle

3-5 September 2009

Table 3.2 Proposed PTMU Overlay Zone Development Intensities

Acres Residential Units Office

Square Feet1 Commercial Square Feet

Platinum Triangle District

Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed

Arena 41 41 425 425 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ARTIC2 0 17 0 520 0 2,202,803 0 358,000

Gateway 53 50 2,142 2,949 530,000 562,250 50,000 64,000 Gene Autry 33 33 1,699 2,362 100,000 338,200 174,100 304,700

Katella 99 141 4,250 5,707 775,000 2,131,058 630,300 832,614 Orangewood 4 35 0 1,771 590,000 1,402,855 10,000 130,000

Stadium3 153 153 1,750 5,175 1,760,000 3,125,000 1,300,000 3,120,368 Total

Mixed Use 383 470 10,266 18,909 3,855,000 9,862,166 2,264,400 4,909,682 Office 0 121 0 0 0 4,478,356 0 0 Total

PTMU Overlay 383 591 10,266 18,909 3,855,000 14,340,522 2,264,400 4,909,682 1 The adopted General Plan allows an additional 1,200,550 square feet of office development within The Platinum Triangle on properties outside of the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Proposed Project expands the PTMU Overlay Zone to encompass these properties. 2 The proposed development intensity includes 1,500,000 square feet of institutional uses in addition to the residential, office and commercial uses. 3 The adopted and proposed development intensities for the Stadium District include 119,543 seats for existing (49,043 seats) and potential (70,500 seats) stadiums.

3-6 September 2009

3-7 September 2009

3.2 Proposed Project Water Demands

The Proposed Project consists of a mix of new residential, commercial, office, and institutional land uses (mixed use) within The Platinum Triangle. The Proposed Project includes a maximum of 18,909 residential units; 4,909,682 square feet (sf) of retail/commercial use; 14,340,522 sf of office use; 1,500,000 sf of institutional use; and an estimated 9.07 acres of park1. The Proposed Project’s water demand increase is estimated in Table 3.3. The February 2005 WSA for The Platinum Triangle analyzed the intensification of land uses in the Proposed Project area, which estimated an additional water demand of 2,656 acre-feet per year (AFY). This additional water demand did not include existing demands totaling 789 AFY from within The Platinum Triangle consisting of the existing landscape irrigation demands and existing demands from the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim, as these were included in the existing citywide demands and were not the subject of any land use intensification. This additional demand of 2,656 AFY was then included in the subsequent 2005 UWMP adopted by the City in December 2005. The current EIR includes proposed land use intensity increases over and above those included in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP. The total water demand projection for the increase in land use intensification that was not included in the 2005 UWMP is 1,804 AFY. The total water demand projection for the Proposed Project and the demand increase that was not included in the 2005 UWMP is detailed in Table 3.3. As indicated in this table, the total estimated water demand for the Proposed Project is 5,249 AFY, which includes (i) the existing demands from the Arena, Stadium, and landscape irrigation of 789 AFY that have been a part of, and included in, the exiting citywide demand; (ii) the 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA, which was included in the 2005 UWMP; and (iii) the 1,804 AFY of additional demand addressed in this WSA. The water demand factors by land use category are described following Table 3.3.

1 Park acreage is estimated based on a requirement for developers of parcels eight acres or larger to provide and construct an on-site public park, at a minimum size of forty-four square feet per residential dwelling unit (A.M.C. Section 18.20.110). The February 2005 WSA did not include an estimate for park acreage.

Table 3.3 Proposed Project Water Demand Increase Demand

Land Use Total Project Demand Factor gpd AFY Residential 18,909 units 105 gpd/unit 1,985,445 2,224Commercial 4,909,682 sf 195 gpd/ksf 957,388 1,072Office 14,340,522 sf 60 gpd/ksf 860,431 964Institutional 1,500,000 sf 60 gpd/ksf 90,000 101Parks 9.07 acre 3,500 gpd/acre 31,745 36 Subtotal 3,925,009 4,397

Less Existing Industrial1 -2,272,155 sf -89,473 -100 Total 3,835,536 4,2973.8% Losses 163

Existing Landscape Irrigation2 164 acre 3,000 gpd/acre 492,000 551

Existing Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim3 238Total Proposed Project Water Demand4 5,249Less Existing Landscape Irrigation -551Less Existing Arena and Stadium -238Less February 2005 WSA Additional Demand (included in 2005 UWMP) -2,656Water Demand Increase 1,8041) These industrial demands were derived from average of past three years of water meter readings from the subject industrial parcels. 2) Existing Landscape Irrigation demand calculated based on 20% of gross acreage of The Platinum Triangle (820 acres) being landscaped and irrigated. Demand factor based on typical application rate for median, parkway and on-site landscaping typical to the existing land uses. Since this demand is included in existing water usage figures in February 2005 WSA and 2005 UWMP (and not anticipated to change due to future land use intensification), it was not included in determining Water Demand Increase. 3) Existing Honda Center Arena and Angel Stadium demands are not included in above projections but are included in the currently approved Platinum Triangle plan. Since this demand is included in existing water usage figures in the February 2005 WSA and 2005 UWMP (and not anticipated to change due to future land use intensification), it was not included in determining Water Demand Increase. 4) Total water demand for the Proposed Project includes 2,656 AFY from existing and/or previously approved development included for the densities anticipated by the previous version of The Platinum Triangle plan, which was included in the 2005 UWMP, the existing landscape irrigation demand described in footnote 2, the existing Arena and Stadium demand described in footnote 3, and 1,804 AFY additional demands shown here and addressed in this WSA. Thus this WSA analyzes the full 5,249 AFY water demand projected for the current Platinum Triangle proposed development intensities.

3-8 September 2009

3-9 September 2009

1. Outside water usage (irrigation), estimated at 551 AFY, would remain unchanged

due to the intensification as it has been included with the acreage already accounted for in the water demand factors for the original Platinum Triangle area. In other words, the land uses within the same area are just becoming more intensified and no additional significant landscape irrigation demand is projected beyond that projected in the 2005 UWMP based on the 2004 General Plan Update land use plan, with the exception of the additional park acreage listed in the tables above. This is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that The Platinum Triangle is intended to be an urban environment with attached residential products coupled with commercial and institutional development. Extensive lawnscapes are not anticipated to be utilized in these types of development projects.

2. Existing water demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim estimated at 238 AFY will remain unchanged and are accounted for in the existing citywide demand.

3. Inside water usage is increased based on the additional residential dwelling units and additional office, commercial and institutional building square footages.

4. Inside residential water usage is estimated based on the number of dwelling units times an estimated 1.5 people per dwelling unit and 70 gallons per capita per day. The people per dwelling unit is based on an estimate provided in the 2004 General Plan Update process and is consistent with City of Anaheim forecasts based on current residential projects located within The Platinum Triangle and other similar parts of the City. The 70 gallons per capita is based on statistics compiled by the American Water Works Association from the website www.drinktap.org (included in 12/9/08 Tech Memo in Appendix A).

5. Inside water use for office uses is estimated based on 60 gallons per day (gpd) per thousand square feet (/ksf). The sources for this duty factor are from actual inside water meter readings compiled by Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) in 2004 for 13 office buildings totaling over 2.5 million square feet in the City of Irvine that averaged 66 gpd/ksf. Based on these studies and other information, IRWD2 used 56 gpd/ksf to project inside water demand for office uses in their Water Resources Master Plan dated July 2003 (included in Appendix A). City of Anaheim staff also compiled water meter readings for 7 office buildings from 2005 to 2007 totaling over 900,000 sf. The weighted average usage of these readings was 61 gpd/ksf. Some of these uses also included at least a minimal amount of irrigation demand as there were not separate irrigation meters for each property (spreadsheet summaries included in Appendix A). The use of these more current meter readings based on newer buildings is appropriate because of

2 IRWD information is used within this WSA because the City of Irvine is a municipality that contains a significant portion of new office construction and IRWD maintains records via sophisticated monitoring equipment which analyzes the amount of water used by various developments. Thus, IRWD data contains accurate data on the amount of water used by new office buildings. Because The Platinum Triangle will consist of new office development, the use of IRWD data is appropriate here.

http://www.drinktap.org/

the greater water efficiencies that are borne out of, and required of, new development. The Uniform Building Code includes new regulations which result in more efficient water use, and new appliances (e.g., tankless water heaters, high-efficiency clothes washing machines, waterless urinals, etc.) will be utilized in future projects as required by the UBC and Title 24 requirements. In addition, as the cost of water continues to rise, development projects naturally design projects that are more water efficient. Thus, newer development using less water than older development is a result of regulatory and market forces. This is evidenced by the fact that the City’s water demand was forecast to be approximately 79,000 AFY for 2007/08 in the City’s 2005 UWMP, but in fact was only 74,000 during this period. This demonstrates that the utilization of conservation programs through pricing incentives coupled with increased building and appliance efficiencies have resulted in lower water use per capita and per square foot.

6. Inside water use for commercial uses is estimated based on 195 gpd/ksf, which is an average of the regional and community commercial land use water demand factors used by IRWD in their Water Resources Master Plan of 180 gpd/ksf and 209 gpd/ksf, respectively (included in Appendix A).

7. Existing demands were assumed to drop by 89,473 gpd or 100.2 AFY based on demolishing 2,272,155 square feet of industrial building area (as of July 1, 2008) to make way for the re-development. This water usage is from an average of the past three years of meter read records for the building addresses that fall within the current industrial areas within The Platinum Triangle based on the City’s GIS maps as researched by City Water Utilities staff.

8. Lastly, a 3.8% allowance was added to the net new demand to account for losses in the water system. This is based on the average system losses experienced by the City over the past six-year period.

The Combined WSA for The Platinum Triangle and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center dated May 2007 included an analysis of additional land use intensification in The Platinum Triangle but these additional demands were not included in the adopted 2005 UWMP, and the land use statistics are being revised in concert with the preparation of the current EIR. Therefore, the demand projections developed in the May 2007 WSA for The Platinum Triangle will not be considered separately in this analysis as they are included in overall build-out projections above. Project phasing for The Platinum Triangle has always been based on a 20-year build-out and this analysis will be in accordance with that planning time horizon. Assuming that Year 0 commences in fiscal year 2008/09 (FY 2009), and assuming that occupancy and water demands will not occur until the following year, the additional demands associated with the Proposed Project will commence in FY 2010 (Year 1) and reach build-out in FY 2029 (Year 20), with 5 percent of the total demand added each year. The 20-year planning period from the time of this WSA, as required by SB 610, projects a total Proposed Project water demand of over 200 acre-feet added each year through 2028/29.

3-10 September 2009

However, as described above, a large portion of the total Proposed Project demand is already included in the City’s adopted 2005 UWMP. Thus, the demand not included in the UWMP, which will be added annually to those figures, is only approximately 90 AFY (1,804 AFY/20 years). Thus, this WSA analyzes the availability of the total water demand of the Proposed Project which is anticipated to be 5,249 AFY.

3-11 September 2009

4-1 September 2009

4.0 CITY OF ANAHEIM WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLIES

4.1 Overview of Supply and Demand

The City currently obtains water from the following primary water sources: (1) naturally and artificially recharged local groundwater, and (2) imported water. In addition, the City of Anaheim Water Department maintains 17 interconnections with adjacent water purveyors that are temporarily utilized from time to time, on an as-needed or emergency basis. In 2007/08, the City received approximately 79 percent of its water supply from its groundwater wells that access the Orange County Groundwater Basin and 21 percent from imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The Orange County Groundwater Basin is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). Current and planned improvements, as discussed in Section 4.4 of the City’s 2005 UWMP, will increase the efficient and reliable use of both water sources. Each of the sources of water for the City are briefly discussed in this section and more fully discussed in the subsequent sections. Population, Housing and Water Demand Growth According to the State of California, Department of Finance, Anaheim is the 10th most populated city in California. The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD) currently serves water to an area of approximately 48.2 square miles and to approximately 353,000 people.3 The population in Anaheim was approximately 1,500 in 1900, and grew to approximately 14,500 by 1950. In 1955 and 1966, Disneyland and Anaheim Stadium were opened, respectively. These facilities, along with others, prompted a population increase to approximately 166,000 by 1970. Based on the City’s 2005 UWMP, Anaheim’s water service area population was projected to increase to approximately 401,000 by the year 2030. As described below, current projections have increased this 2030 population projection to over 426,000. Much of the growth will likely be attributed to higher population densities throughout Anaheim, including The Platinum Triangle and the proposed Mountain Park single and multi-family residential development in Anaheim Hills. Some population growth will also occur in the redevelopment areas. Since the 2005 UWMP, the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton has prepared the 2006 Orange County Projections (OCP - 2006) published in December of 2008. These projections include population and housing unit projections for all of the cities in Orange County. The approved housing units within The Platinum Triangle of 10,266 were included in the OCP – 2006. However, the additional housing units in the Proposed Project were not included in the OCP projections. When 3 Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton.

those units are included, the new total projected housing units within The Platinum Triangle is 18,909. There are also approximately 9,000 additional people who currently reside outside Anaheim’s City limits, but are served by APUD. This figure is anticipated to increase to 10,000 people by 2035. Table 4.1, below, shows the most recent data from OCP – 2006 in the first three rows, with the fourth, fifth and sixth rows of the table reflecting the additional population outside the City but within the APUD water service area. In order to generate a baseline citywide housing unit growth rate, the housing units within The Platinum Triangle are subtracted out since the increase in water demand for these units is being accounted for separately. The water service area housing units, excluding The Platinum Triangle, are then calculated by subtracting the approved Platinum Triangle housing units from the total service area housing units. A baseline citywide housing unit growth rate (excluding The Platinum Triangle) is then calculated using 2005 as a base year. For example, housing units within the APUD service area (excluding The Platinum Triangle) are anticipated to increase by 9.7% in 2020 over 2005 and by 13.7% in 2030.

4-2 September 2009

4-3 September 2009

Table 4.1 Water Service Area Population – Past, Current and Projected

Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

City of Anaheim Housing Units1 100,672 105,920 111,060 115,861 120,705 123,219 126,692 Persons per Housing Unit1 3.38 3.46 3.49 3.47 3.44 3.46 3.47 City of Anaheim Population 340,284 366,351 387,951 402,301 415,496 426,162 439,635

Population Outside City but within Water Service Area2 9,000 9,167 9,333 9,500 9,667 9,833 10,000

Housing Units Outside City2 2,663 2,650 2,672 2,736 2,808 2,843 2,882 Total Service Area Housing Units 103,335 108,570 113,732 118,597 123,513 126,062 129,574

Platinum Triangle Absorption (HU)3 - 1,820 3,509 5,198 6,888 8,577 10,266 Service Area Housing Units (excl. TPT) 103,335 106,750 110,223 113,399 116,626 117,485 119,308 % Growth in Housing Units (excl. TPT)

Base Year 3.3% 6.7% 9.7% 12.9% 13.7% 15.5%

Water Demand Growth (0.75 x HU %)4,5 2.5% 5.0% 7.3% 9.6% 10.3% 11.6% 1) Population and Housing Unit projections were based on the Orange County Projection - 2006 (OCP - 2006), prepared by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton and approved in November 2006. Population and Housing Unit projections include the Mountain Park development and the previously approved Platinum Triangle project. 2) Population outside City limits but within the Water Service Area provided by the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Housing Units Outside City calculated by dividing population by persons per housing unit shown on second row of table. 3) The Platinum Triangle (TPT) Housing Unit (HU) absorption, or phasing, assumes The Platinum Triangle approved dwelling units were included in the OCP - 2006 with a buildout by 2035. The 2010 dwelling units of 1,820 is based on the Existing Land Use statistics provided by the City of Anaheim Planning Department as of July 2008 plus the assumption that all units under construction as of that date will be occupied by 2010. Dwelling unit absorption is pro-rated equally between 2010 and 2035. 4) Water Demand Growth is estimated to be 75% of housing unit growth due to the fact that new units will use less water inside the home as they will be equipped with modern water conserving fixtures and also use less water outside the home because they will tend to have less landscaping due to higher densification as well as having more drought tolerant landscaping and more efficient irrigation systems. 5) Water Demand Growth also includes non-residential water demand growth since existing demand is increased by this percentage to obtain demand projection for each 5-year period and existing demand includes non-residential water use as well as residential water use.

Water Demand The growth rate in housing units developed in Table 4.1 above was used to project growth in citywide water demand at a somewhat lower rate than housing unit growth. A growth rate in water demand equal to 75% of the growth rate in housing units, exclusive of The Platinum Triangle, was used to project citywide water demand increases. This is based on the fact that new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developments will have newer, water conserving fixtures inside, more efficient irrigation systems outside, and less landscaping due to increased densities. What landscape there is will also tend to be more drought-tolerant with lower water use than existing developments. The water demand growth rates generated in Table 4.1, while tied to residential housing unit growth, also include other non-residential water demand increases such as commercial, industrial and institutional as these demands are assumed to increase proportional to the ratio of the existing residential and non-residential demands. Table 4.2 shows the historical water sales by customer class and Table 4.3 shows historic water production by source for the past six years. This demand is satisfied from groundwater and imported water. Table 4.3 also shows the City’s annual water demand, that is, the total volume of water entering the City’s system (Total Water Into System). Water into the system is determined based on the water supply quantities (Total Water Supply) and adjusted for changes in system storage and water transfers.

Table 4.2 City of Anaheim Historical

Water Sales by Customer Class (AF)

Customer Class 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08Single Family 27,197 27,987 26,201 26,785 28,775 27,674 Multi-Family 15,473 15,652 14,837 14,620 14,646 14,197 Commercial and Industrial 28,766 29,637 28,240 28,838 30,450 29,174

Total Water Sales 71,436 73,276 69,277 70,243 73,871 71,046

4-4 September 2009

4-5 September 2009

Table 4.3 City of Anaheim Historical Production by Source (AF)

Source 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Groundwater 50,852 51,831 43,642 41,858 51,637 58,172Imported Water 23,943 25,066 28,030 31,256 24,696 15,272Total Water Supply 74,795 76,897 71,672 73,114 76,333 73,445Total Water Into System (Water Demand) (1) 74,541 76,900 71,108 72,798 76,687 74,212

(1) Equal to water supply adjusted for changes in storage and water transfers. The variance between the Water Into the System and Water Sales by Customer Class is the result of system losses or unaccounted-for-water. The City has an unaccounted-for-water loss of about 3.8 percent based on the average system losses experienced by the City over the past six-year period. Demand and Supply Comparison Table 4.4 shows the projected water demand and supply for the City of Anaheim, including additional demand the Proposed Project will require through Fiscal Year 2029/30. To determine the total City demand without the Proposed Project (first line under Demand in Table 4.4) for 2009/10, the existing adjusted demand for 2008 of 76,687 AFY (described in more detail in Section 5) is reduced by the existing plus projected demand for The Platinum Triangle by 2010 (1,260 AFY). This demand is then increased to account for two years of the 2.5 percent growth projected between 2005 and 2010 from Table 4.1, which adjusts the 2008 demand upward by 0.984 percent to 76,170 AFY. Each subsequent five-year period is then calculated similarly taking the percent increase for that specific five-year period from the last row in Table 4.1. Demand and supply projections consider land use in addition to water development programs and projects. The demand projections for a previously approved WSA since the 2005 UWMP (Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, dated May 2007) and a concurrent WSA (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion (ARSP)) are also included in the demand projections and listed separately in Table 4.4. A supply surplus is indicated in each of the five-year periods, demonstrating a sufficient water supply for the City and the proposed projects through the 20-year planning period.

Table 4.4 Projected Water Demand and Supply

City of Anaheim, including the Proposed Project (AFY – rounded to nearest 10 AFY)

Water Sources 2009/10 2014/15 2019/20 2024/25 2029/2030

SUPPLY CAPACITY Imported1 29,090 30,430 29,560 29,640 29,640

Groundwater – City2 52,110 54,500 56,460 58,360 59,310 Total Potable Supply 81,200 84,930 86,020 88,000 88,950

DEMAND Total City Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP3 76,170 78,040 79,760 81,500 81,960 Existing plus Approved Platinum Triangle Demand4 1,440 1,940 2,450 2,950 3,450

Additional Proposed Project Demand (i.e., the additional demand necessitated by the revised project

description). 5 90 540 990 1,440 1,800 Additional Kaiser Medical Center Demand6 40 210 330 330 330

Additional ARSP Demand7 30 610 740 880 980 Total Demand 77,770 81,340 84,270 87,100 88,520

SUPPLY SURPLUS 3,430 3,590 1,750 900 430 Supply Assumptions:

1. Imported: Imported water supply is the result of the “MWD Average Year Supply” times the Level 10, (1.18%) allocation percentage for the City of Anaheim from MWD’s 2009 Water Supply Allocation Model (5/6/09 email from MWD included in Appendix D).

The “MWD Average Year Supply” that was taken from the MWD 2006 IRP Implementation Report includes a 22% reduction in SWP supply based on 2007 MWD IRP Implementation Report, October 2007 (p. 1-8). This 22% reduction in SWP supply is the amount of SWP water MWD has forecast would be reduced for delivery to MWD and its customers due to pumping restrictions that may be imposed to protect the Delta smelt and due to potential future impacts from climate change. Thus, the imported supply numbers included in this water supply assessment include the potential for a reduction in total SWP deliveries to MWD as a result of judicial and regulatory actions designed to protect Delta smelt as well as account for future climate change impacts.

4-6 September 2009

5. The Additional Proposed Project Demand: Proposed Project demand assumptions are discussed in Section 3.2. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes existing landscape irrigation demand of 551 AFY, existing Arena and Stadium demand of 238 AFY, 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus 1,804 AFY from the current WSA.

4. Existing plus Approved Platinum Triangle: This demand includes the additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand (551 AFY) and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim (238 AFY) that were not specifically addressed in the February 2005 WSA, except within the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification.

4-7 September 2009

The Level 10 allocation percentage for the City of Anaheim was obtained from MWD (5/6/09 email from MWD included in Appendix D). This allocation percentage, which is based on MWD’s Water Supply Allocation Model, corresponds to a 50% reduction in regional supply. This is conservative in that the proposed allocation for Year 2009/10, which is the first year MWD has enforced an allocation program, is set at Level 2, corresponding to a 10% reduction in regional supply. MWD’s Allocation Plan is discussed in more detail in Section 5 of this WSA.

3. Total City Demand (without Proposed Project, KPMC, and ARSP): Demand projections are consistent with the OCP - 2006 housing and population projections released in December 2008, adjusted to reflect current (2006-2008) water demand data provided by the City with all Platinum Triangle demand excluded. The demand includes unaccounted for water.

6. Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (KPMC) Demand: Project demand assumptions and phasing are from May 2007 WSA. 7. ARSP: Additional project demand assumptions are discussed in concurrent ARSP WSA.

2. Groundwater – City: Groundwater supply is estimated to equal 67% of total demand.

Demand Assumptions:

4-8 September 2009

4.2 Groundwater

Groundwater The information in this section is intended to furnish the information required by Water Code section 10910(f). The primary source of water for the City is the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). The Basin underlies the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. A description of the Coastal Plain of the Basin or DWR’s Groundwater Basin Number 8-1, dated September 2001, states that the Basin underlies a coastal alluvial plain in the northwestern portion of Orange County. The Basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and terminates at the Orange County line to the northwest, where its aquifer systems continue into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County.4 The Basin is dominated by a deep structural depression containing a thick accumulation of fresh water-bearing imbedded marine and continental sand, silt and clay deposits. The sediments containing easily recoverable fresh water extend to approximately 2,000 feet in depth. Although water bearing aquifers exist below that level, reduced water quality and pumping make these materials economically unviable at present. Upper, middle and lower aquifer systems are recognized in the Basin with well production yields ranging from 500 to 4,500 gallons per minute, but are generally 2,000 to 3,000 gallons per minute.5 The aquifers comprising the Basin form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. The Basin holds millions of acre feet of water, of which about 1.25 to 1.5 million AF is available for use.6 To ensure that the Basin is not overdrawn, OCWD recharges the Basin with local and imported water. Groundwater conditions in the Basin are influenced by the natural hydrologic conditions. The Basin is recharged primarily by four sources: (1) local rainfall, which varies due to the extent of the annual seasonal precipitation; (2) storm and base flows from the Santa Ana River, which includes recycled wastewater from treatment plants in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties; (3) imported water; and (4) highly treated recycled wastewater. The Basin generally operates as a reservoir in which the net amount of water stored is increased in wet years to allow for manageable overdrafts in dry years. According to OCWD’s Engineer’s Report for fiscal year 2006-2007, total groundwater production from the Basin in 4 DWR’s Bulletin 118-1 Basin Description for Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin Number 8-1. September 5, 2001. 5 DWR’s Bulletin 118-1 Basin Description for Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin Number 8-1. September 5, 2001. 6 Orange County Water District 2020 Master Plan Report. Chapter 3, Orange County Groundwater Basin Hydrology. 2000.

4-9 September 2009

OCWD's jurisdiction was 349,858 AF. The production capability of the Basin has increased as a result of increased wastewater reclamation and the blending of waters of different qualities to produce high-quality potable water for public distribution.7 The most recent example of a highly successful OCWD wastewater reclamation project is the construction and operation of OCWD’s new $500 million water-purification plant, which is designed to turn wastewater into drinking water. This new Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project, dubbed “toilet to tap” in the media, has been lauded by the environmental community because of the fact that these types of projects reduce the amount of energy needed to transport water from the northern part of the state to the southern part of the state, thereby also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. OCWD’s GWRS program is being emulated throughout the State and in other parts of the country. This OCWD GWRS currently treats and recharges up to 70 million gallons per day of wastewater back into the Basin for future potable use. This equates to the recycling of over 72,000 AFY of wastewater back into the Basin for future extraction and potable use. An already CEQA-approved treatment plant expansion of 30 million gallons per day is currently in the design process by OCWD that will increase the recharge capacity of the GWRS to 90,000 AFY, and the treatment system is being laid out so that it could eventually be expanded to 130 million gallons per day. As stated, the OCWD groundwater basin is managed by the OCWD, a special district created by the State Legislature in 1933 pursuant to the OCWD Act, an un-codified statutory scheme set forth in the State’s Water Code. The Basin is unadjudicated. All pumpers within the basin are permitted to pump from the Basin, but OCWD is charged with managing the groundwater basin. OCWD manages the Basin largely through the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) that it establishes each water year. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, ideal precipitation, Santa Ana River runoff, and basin management objectives. In essence, the BPP represents a set percentage identifying the amount of groundwater all pumpers in the basin can pump without paying a high “pumping tax” or Basin Equity Assessment to OCWD (described below). Thus, for example, if OCWD establishes a BPP of 65%, all pumpers within the Basin, including the City, can supply 65% of their water needs from groundwater supplies at a cost significantly less than the cost of imported water. The BPP is a major factor for the City in determining the cost of groundwater production. Groundwater production equal to or less than the BPP pays a replenishment assessment (RA). Funds collected by OCWD through RA payments made by all producers in the basin are used to fund groundwater replenishment and recharge programs aimed at ensuring the long-term viability and stability of the Basin. If groundwater production greater than the BPP occurs, a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) is assessed against the producer of that amount of groundwater produced in excess of the BPP. The BEA is an additional fee (i.e., a higher “pumping tax”) paid on each AF 7 MWDOC. Regional Water Management Plan Update. 2000

4-10 September 2009

of water pumped above the BPP, making the total cost of that water to Anaheim equal to the cost of Tier 2 imported water from Metropolitan.8 Thus, the BPP creates pricing incentives to ensure that groundwater producers pump within the framework established by the BPP. Like funds collected by OCWD through the RA, funds collected by OCWD through the BEA are also used to fund groundwater replenishment, and recharge and recycling programs aimed at ensuring the long-term viability and stability of the Basin. The programs funded by the RA and the BEA include all of the groundwater replenishment, recharge, and recycling programs discussed above. Basin recharge occurs largely in the following recharge basins: (i) Warner Basin, a 50-foot deep recharge basin located next to the Santa Ana River (SAR) at the intersection of the 55 and 91 freeways; (ii) Burris Pit, located between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road; (iii) Kraemer Basin, located adjacent to Burris Pit, and (iv) Santiago Creek. All of these recharge facilities are located in or adjacent to the City of Anaheim. A large portion of the recharge of the OCWD groundwater basin comes from water flowing in the Santa Ana River (SAR) south of the Prado Dam, which is located in San Bernardino County, just east of the Orange County jurisdictional boundary. With the exception of contractual rights conveyed to Bryant Ranch landowners in east Yorba Linda which have contractual rights to approximately 2,800 AFY of SAR water, OCWD has the legal rights to all of the SAR flow south of the Prado Dam. (See OCWD v. City of Chino, et al, (Civ. Case No. 117628), Judgment and Settlement Documents.) As set forth in DWR Bulletin 118 and in the 2006-2007 OCWD Engineer’s Report, the Orange County Groundwater Basin is a managed basin and not in a state of overdraft. The Orange County Groundwater Basin is one of the richest and most plentiful sources of groundwater in the entire State, containing approximately 1.25 to 1.5 million AF of water available for use at the present time, and millions of acre-feet that could possibly be produced in the future.9 As part of its Basin management function, OCWD operates an extensive groundwater monitoring program whereby OCWD routinely tests all groundwater production wells located within the Basin in compliance with Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. OCWD maintains a multi-million dollar laboratory whereby chemists test the well water for traces of pollution, hydrocarbons, pesticides, and other chemical components. OCWD’s laboratories process tens of thousands of samples a year, and perform hundreds of thousands of analyses a year. As part of its monitoring and management duties, OCWD has developed and adopted a Groundwater Management Plan which is a program to increase water supplies and increase monitoring and groundwater contamination clean up.

8 Metropolitan charges a Tier 1 water rate to recover the cost of maintaining a reliable amount of supply and a Tier 2 rate to include the cost of developing additional supply to encourage efficient use of local resources. As an example, Metropolitan’s Tier 1 rate for treated water as of January 1, 2009 is $579 per acre-foot and the Tier 2 rate for treated water is $695 per acre-foot. 9 Orange County Water District 2020 Master Plan Report. Chapter 3, Orange County Groundwater Basin Hydrology. 2000.

4-11 September 2009

In 2007/2008, the City of Anaheim produced groundwater for potable use from 20 existing wells located throughout the City as set forth in Section 5 (Figure 5.1). Groundwater extracted by the City at these pumping locations is generally extracted from depths of approximately 100 feet to 150 feet below ground level, based on June 2008 static water levels10. Groundwater produced at these wells is easily accessible to City water distribution and storage facilities. Because of the location of many of the City’s wells adjacent to the SAR and in the northeast part of the groundwater basin, especially the six wells near Anaheim Lake, City wells are ideally located within the Groundwater Basin. From a hydro-geological standpoint, the City’s wells pump from geological structures which are relatively high up and geologically differentiated from other parts of the OCWD groundwater basin. In addition, because the City’s wells are located relatively near to the Prado Dam outlet to the SAR, particularly as compared to the well locations of other producers in the Basin, the City’s well fields draw water from easily accessible groundwater tables that are recharged on a naturally-occurring priority basis due to (i) the location of OCWD recharge basins in or adjacent to the City, and (ii) the City’s wells’ location in or near the upper reaches of the SAR. In essence, SAR water has the natural effect of recharging the portion of the OCWD Basin that provides groundwater to City wells prior to such SAR water reaching the lower portions of the SAR. Thus, City wells are ideally located within the OCWD Groundwater Basin. In addition, because the City’s well produce groundwater from areas within the groundwater basin as described above, the groundwater production in Anaheim does not generally affect the production of groundwater production wells operated by other producers located in other portions of the Basin. Table 4.5, below, sets forth all of the water (defined in AFY) produced by the City during the past five years from each of the City’s wells. For the location of each of these wells, refer to Section 5, Figure 5.1.

10 Water Facilities Data Sheet, City of Anaheim, Fiscal Year 2007 - 2008

Table 4.5 Groundwater Pumping by Well (AF)

Well No. 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08

12 36.7 - - - 14 628.5 502.4 477.4 539.8 509.1 18 362.9 376.7 92.0 - - 19 65.0 - - - - 20 802.1 665.0 409.0 - - 22 2,005.6 551.1 - - -

*24A* 332.0 231.6 214.7 251.6 296.9 25 591.6 408.2 505.5 484.8 544.9 26 1,233.9 347.6 - - - 27 997.6 803.4 984.0 1,383.4 234.6 28 1,027.3 818.6 780.2 988.8 580.9 29 573.8 226.4 394.2 - - 34 1,091.4 1,272.8 743.1 409.5 - 36 2,254.4 1,829.1 1,358.3 1,077.2 934.3 39 831.8 959.4 1,019.3 1,722.4 615.3 40 1,513.2 2,156.1 2,155.1 2,396.7 1,849.9 41 5,884.4 4,951.2 5,048.7 5,957.0 5,612.7 42 4,453.5 3,738.5 3,658.3 4,302.4 4,267.6 43 4,650.0 4,521.6 4,373.1 4,520.8 4,402.8 44 4,309.3 3,887.3 3,541.8 4,346.2 4,034.0 45 3,643.7 2,840.2 2,299.8 4,077.2 5,319.3 46 4,486.1 2,609.3 2,090.6 2,869.9 3,354.1 47 2,012.2 2,045.6 3,327.8 4,022.0 5,195.5 49 2,920.4 3,009.8 2,664.5 3,396.0 6,174.4 51 2,477.8 1,759.4 1,626.6 1,595.6 2,571.3 55 2,237.5 2,322.6 1,272.1 2,581.9 4,865.4 48 - - - - 1,080.0 52 - - - - 2,130.1 105 0.0 0.0 - - - 112 408.7 314.1 - - - 53 - 493.9 2,821.1 4,965.0 3,896.2

Total 51,831.4 43,641.9 41,857.2 51,888.2 58,469.3

PotableTotal1 51,499.4 43,410.3 41,642.5 51,636.6 58,172.4

1) Potable Total excludes pumping from Well No. 24A, which is an irrigation well serving Dad Miller Golf Course.

4-12 September 2009

Based on past trends and based on the anticipated BPP, Table 4.6, below, sets forth the amount of groundwater, in acre-feet, the City anticipates producing from each of its wells through 2015 during a normal water year, assuming Well Nos. 25 and 39 are taken out of operation.

Table 4.6 Estimated Pumping by Well to 2015 (AF)

Well No. 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 12 14 466 470 475 479 483 48818 19 20 22

*24A* 272 275 277 280 282 28525 0 0 0 0 0 026 27 215 217 219 221 223 22528 532 537 542 546 551 55629 34 36 855 863 870 878 886 89439 0 0 0 0 0 040 1,691 1,707 1,722 1,738 1,753 1,76941 5,129 5,176 5,223 5,270 5,317 5,36542 3,900 3,936 3,972 4,008 4,043 4,07943 4,024 4,061 4,098 4,135 4,171 4,20844 3,687 3,721 3,755 3,788 3,822 3,85645 4,861 4,906 4,950 4,995 5,040 5,08446 3,066 3,094 3,122 3,150 3,178 3,20647 4,748 4,792 4,835 4,879 4,922 4,96649 5,642 5,694 5,746 5,798 5,849 5,90151 2,350 2,372 2,394 2,415 2,437 2,45855 4,447 4,487 4,528 4,569 4,610 4,65048 988 997 1,006 1,015 1,024 1,03352 1,947 1,965 1,983 2,001 2,019 2,037105 112 53 3,561 3,594 3,626 3,659 3,691 3,724

Total 52,382 52,863 53,343 53,824 54,304 54,785Potable Total1 52,110 52,588 53,066 53,544 54,022 54,500

1) Potable Total excludes pumping from Well No. 24A, which is an irrigation well serving Dad Miller Golf Course.

4-13 September 2009

4-14 September 2009

Section 5 of this WSA sets forth various groundwater production scenarios as required by the Water Code (Single Dry Year, Multiple Dry Years, and reduced allocation due to Delta Smelt issues), and these latter tables and accompanying text should be reviewed for an understanding of how groundwater production by the City may be affected by hypothetical future conditions. This additional information set forth in Section 5 will furnish some of the additional information pertaining to the sufficiency of the groundwater basin in various pumping scenarios as required by Water Code section 10910(f)(5).

4.3 Imported Water (Surface Water)

The information in this section is intended to furnish the information required by Water Code section 10910(d). Metropolitan provides imported water supplies to the City. Metropolitan is the wholesale water agency that serves supplemental imported water from northern California through the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River to 26 member agencies located in portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties. The construction of the SWP was authorized by the State Legislature in 1951. Eight years later, the Legislature passed the Burns-Porter Act, which provided a mechanism for bonds to be issued to pay for the construction of certain portions of the SWP facilities. The DWR has entered into contracts with water districts and regional agencies (SWP Contractors) specifying the amount of SWP water to be delivered to each SWP Contractor. Each SWP Contractor was provided with a contract amount (Table A Amount) and capacity rights to the SWP aqueduct and storage system in return for payments intended to cover operation and maintenance, bondholder obligations, and repayment of moneys loaned from the California Water Fund. DWR water supply contracts contemplate that the SWP would deliver 4.2 million AFY to 29 SWP Contractors. Although the SWP is not fully constructed and cannot yet deliver the full 4.2 million AFY in all years, since the end of the six-year drought in 1992, the SWP has fully met SWP Contractors’ water needs twelve out of the next 16 years, except the dry years of 1994, 2001, 2007 and 2008. Of SWP water deliveries, about 70 percent is delivered to SWP urban contractors and about 30 percent is delivered to SWP agricultural contractors. Kern County Water Agency and Metropolitan are the largest Contractors with DWR for SWP water.11 From a statewide perspective, the maximum capacity of the overall SWP transportation system is generally limited by the capacity of the system pumps. The capacity of the California Aqueduct is 10,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) at its northern end, and 4,480 cfs below the Edmonston pumping plant (1,000 cfs equates to approximately 82.6 acre-feet per hour, 1,980 acre-feet per day and 725,000 AFY). If these transportation rates

11 See, generally Bulletin No. 132-06 and latter supplements to Bulletin No. 132.

4-15 September 2009

were maintained for a full year, they would result in the transport of approximately 7.2 million acre-feet near the Delta and 3.2 million acre-feet to users in Southern California.12 Demand can have a significant effect upon the reliability of a water system. For example, if the demand occurs only three months in the summer, a water system with a sufficient annual supply but insufficient water storage may not be able to reliably meet the demand. If, however, the same amount of demand is distributed over the year, the system could more easily meet the demand because the need for water storage is reduced. Because the City of Anaheim overlies the Orange County Groundwater Basin and can utilize the Basin to smooth out seasonal peaks, its imported water reliability is enhanced.

The City of Anaheim is one of only three retail member agencies of Metropolitan in Orange County. As a member agency, pursuant to the Metropolitan Act, the City has preferential rights to a certain percentage of water delivered to Metropolitan each year primarily from the State Water Project and/or the Colorado River Aqueduct as well as other Metropolitan storage programs. Being a member agency of Metropolitan puts the City in a better position relative to receiving water directly from Metropolitan, as opposed to other agencies in Orange County which obtain their imported Metropolitan water through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). Metropolitan’s SWP imported water is stored at Castaic Lake on the western side of their service area and at Silverwood Lake near San Bernardino. Metropolitan water imported from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) is stored at Diamond Valley Lake and Lake Mathews in Riverside County. Through the 1996 Integrated Resources Plan and subsequent updates, Metropolitan has worked toward identifying and developing water supplies to provide 100 percent reliability. Due to competing needs and uses for all of the water sources and regional water operation issues, Metropolitan undertook a number of planning processes: the Integrated Resources Planning (IRP) Process, the Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan, the Strategic Planning Process, the Regional Urban Water Management Plan, and most recently, the Report on Metropolitan Water Supplies: A Blueprint for Water Reliability. Combined, these documents provide a framework and guidelines for optimum water planning into the future. Reliability of Metropolitan’s supply is further discussed in Section 5.0, Reliability of Water Supplies. Metropolitan member agencies receive imported water at various delivery points along their system, and pay for it at tiered and/or uniform rates established by the Board depending on the class of service. Recently, Metropolitan has increased its ability to supply water, particularly in dry years, through implementation of storage and transfer programs. Metropolitan supplies approximately 50 percent of all water demands in its service area 100 percent of the time.13

12 DWR, Bulletin No. 132-05, December 2006. 13 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2005.

4-16 September 2009

Historical water demands in the Metropolitan service area increased from 3.1 million acre feet (MAF) in 1980 to 3.9 MAF in 1990. Total water use is projected to grow from 3.98 MAF in 2000 to a projected 4.6 MAF in 2020.14 For the Orange County service area, according to Metropolitan, demands are projected to increase approximately 6 percent between 2000 and 2020.15 Table 4.7 shows the historic and projected total retail water demands for Metropolitan’s Orange County service area. The water demand forecasts account for water savings resulting from plumbing codes, price effects, and actual and projected implementation of water conservation Best Management Practices.16

Table 4.7 Total Retail Water Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area for Orange County - Includes

Municipal and Industrial, and Agriculture (AF)

Reported Projected County 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Orange 651,500 587,900 694,500 672,700 713,900 721,900 735,400 748,600 761,000

Source: The Regional Urban Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Appendix A.1 Demand Forecast. November 2005.

The City purchases both treated potable and untreated non-potable water from Metropolitan. The treated water is delivered through five major feeders, East Orange County Feeder No. 2, Orange County Feeder, Second Lower Feeder, West Orange County Feeder, and Allen-McColloch Pipeline, through MWD connections A-01 through A-07. All of these infrastructure programs are in place, and no further regulatory permits are required to permit Metropolitan to convey imported water to these facilities for use by the City. Untreated Metropolitan water is delivered to the City's Walnut Canyon Reservoir (WCR), through MWD Connection A-08, via the Santiago Lateral of the Lower Feeder System. WCR has a total capacity of 2,823 AF (920 MG). This water is treated by the City's August F. Lenain Water Treatment Plant (Lenain). Lenain utilizes a conventional treatment process that includes coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation, deep bed monomedia (anthracite coal) filtration, and ozone disinfection. The facility also includes a water system operation center and fully equipped water quality laboratory. Together, the WCR and Lenain form a receiving, storage, and treatment facility. All of these infrastructure programs are in place, and no further regulatory permits are required to permit Metropolitan to convey imported water to these facilities for use by the City.

14 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2005. 15 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2005. 16 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2005.

4-17 September 2009

A description of the amount of Metropolitan water delivered to the City in the past and anticipated to be delivered to the City in the future under a variety of scenarios is set forth in Section 5 and 6 of this WSA.

4.4 Recycled Water

The City does not currently utilize recycled water. However, the City produced about 79 percent of its water supply from the Orange County Groundwater Basin in 2007/08 and production averaged about 66 percent of its water supply from the Orange County Groundwater Basin over that past five years. OCWD utilizes recycled water generated from the Orange County Sanitation District’s (OCSD) treatment facilities for regional recycled water projects, and groundwater recharge, which is the most immediate potential use for recycled water. In 1991, the City conducted a Water Reclamation Feasibility Study. A Water Reclamation Steering Committee was formed to interview and collect information on developing and implementing water reclamation systems, and the potential use of recycled water in Anaheim, including alternate routings and cost analysis of distribution systems. The committee concluded that a recycled water treatment and distribution system in Anaheim was not economically feasible at that time. The committee did recommend continued work with OCWD and OCSD in regional recycled water projects, including groundwater recharge. Although a formal Recycled Water Optimization Plan has not been completed for the City, the Department requires separate irrigation services for any new landscaped area larger than 2,500 square feet in the City including the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, which will enable easy conversion to recycled water if and when it becomes available. Mitigation monitoring requirements include installation of separate irrigation meters and systems in the current Platinum Triangle Specific Plan and these requirements will be made a part of the proposed Platinum Triangle project as well. Without separating the irrigation services from the domestic, conversion to recycled water becomes overly expensive, making it problematic to convert in the future. Thus, projects located within The Platinum Triangle will be required to construct separate systems to accommodate water supply in the future.

5.0 RELIABILITY OF WATER SUPPLIES This section provides a description of Metropolitan’s, OCWD’s, and City of Anaheim’s efforts in securing adequate water supply as well as reliability of the region and City’s normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year supplies. Section 6 describes a possible water supply shortage scenario resulting from a higher reduction in SWP deliveries The Southern California region faces a challenge in satisfying its water requirements and securing its firm water supplies. Increased environmental regulations and the competition for water from outside the region have resulted in reduced supplies of imported water. Continued population and economic growth correspond to increased water demands within the region, putting an even larger burden on local supplies. Reliability is a measure of a water system's expected success in managing water shortages. Reliability planning requires information about the following: (1) expected frequency and severity of shortages; (2) how additional water management measures are likely to affect the frequency and severity of shortages; and (3) how available contingency measures can reduce the impact of shortages when they occur. The reliability of the City’s water supply is currently dependent on the reliability of both groundwater and imported water supplies, which are managed and delivered by OCWD and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), respectively. Despite the ongoing water supply challenges within the region, the goal and statutory mission of these agencies are to identify and develop projects to meet the water demands in the region. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 discuss these agencies, their roles in water supply reliability, and the near and long-term efforts they are involved with to ensure future reliability of water supplies to the City and the region as a whole. State funding has been made available, through California voters’ approval, to increase reliability of state water supplies. In March 2000, California voters approved Proposition 13, which authorized the State to issue $1.97 billion of its general obligation bonds for water projects. Additionally, California voters approved Proposition 50 in November 2002 and Proposition 84 in November 2006, which authorized the issuance by the State of $3.4 billion and $5.4 billion, respectively, of its general obligation bonds for water projects. Types of water projects eligible for funding under Propositions 13, 50, and 84 include water conservation, groundwater storage, water treatment, water quality, water security and Colorado River water management projects, many of which are within the scope of the California Plan.

5.1 Metropolitan Water District

Metropolitan was formed in the late 1920's. Collectively, charter members recognized the limited water supplies available within the region, and realized that continued prosperity and economic development of Southern California depended upon the acquisition and careful management of an adequate supplemental water supply. This foresight made the continued development of Southern California possible.

5-1 September 2009

5-2 September 2009

Metropolitan acquires water from Northern California via the State Water Project (SWP) and from the Colorado River to supply water to most of Southern California. As a wholesaler, Metropolitan has no retail customers, and distributes treated and untreated water directly to its 26 member agencies. One such member agency is the City of Anaheim. Through the 1996 Integrated Resources Plan and subsequent updates, Metropolitan has worked toward identifying and developing water supplies to provide 100 percent reliability. Due to competing needs and uses for all of the water sources and regional water operational issues, Metropolitan undertook a number of planning processes: the Integrated Resources Planning (IRP) Process, the Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan, the Strategic Planning Process, the Regional Urban Water Management Plan, and most recently, the Report on Metropolitan Water Supplies: A Blueprint for Water Reliability. Combined, these documents provide a framework and guidelines for optimum water planning into the future. The reliability and operational issues related to Metropolitan’s various sources of supply are discussed in detail by major source in the subsequent sections. It should be noted that some of the recent issues surrounding operational limitations in supply related to species protection and Delta issues are considered by Metropolitan to be somewhat short-term in nature and are not affecting the overall 20-year planning period that is being considered in this WSA document.

5.1.1 State Water Project

The SWP is owned and operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The reliability of the SWP impacts Metropolitan’s member agencies’ ability to plan for future growth and supply. On an annual basis, each of the 29 SWP contractors, including Metropolitan, request an amount of SWP water based on their anticipated yearly demand. In most cases, Metropolitan’s requested supply is equivalent to its full Table A Amount,17 currently at 1,911,500 AFY. The full Table A amount is defined as the maximum amount of imported water to be delivered and is specified in the contract between the DWR and the contractor. After receiving the requests, DWR assesses the amount of water supply available based on precipitation, snow pack on northern California watersheds, volume of water in storage, projected carry over storage, and Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta regulatory requirements. Due to the uncertainty in water supply, contractors are not typically guaranteed their full Table A Amount, but instead a percentage of that amount based on the available supply. Table 5-1 lists the

17 Two types of deliveries are assumed for the SWP contractors: Table A and Article 21. Table A Amount is the contractual amount of allocated SWP supply, set by percentage amount annually by DWR; it is scheduled and uninterruptible. Article 21 water refers to the SWP contract provision defining this supply as water that may be made available by DWR when excess flows area available in the Delta (i.e., Delta outflow requirements have been met, SWP storage south of the Delta is full, and conveyance capacity is available beyond that being used for SWP operations and delivery of allocated and scheduled Table A supplies). Article 21 water is made available on an unscheduled and interruptible basis and is typically available only in average to wet years, generally only for a limited time in the later winter.

historical SWP deliveries to Metropolitan and the delivery’s percentage compared to the full Table A amount. Once the percentage is set early in the water year, the agency can count on that amount of supply or more in the coming year. The percentage is typically set conservative and then held or adjusted upwards later in the year based on a reassessment of precipitation, snow pack, etc.

5-3 September 2009

Table 5.1 SWP Deliveries to Metropolitan

(AF)

Year SWP Delivery % of Full Table A Amount

1981 826,951 43% 1982 856,996 45% 1983 385,308 20% 1984 501,682 26% 1985 740,410 39% 1986 756,142 40% 1987 769,603 40% 1988 957,276 50% 1989 1,215,139 64% 1990 1,457,676 76% 1991 624,861 33% 1992 746,991 39% 1993 663,390 35% 1994 845,305 44% 1995 451,305 24% 1996 642,871 34% 1997 724,393 38% 1998 521,255 27% 1999 790,538 41% 2000 1,442,615 75% 2001 1,119,408 59% 2002 1,413,745 74% 2003 1,560,569 82% 2004 1,792,246 94% 2005 1,720,350 90% 2006 1,911,500 100% 2007 1,146,900 60% 2008 669,025 35% 2009 764,600 40%

Source: Metropolitan’s November 2005 Regional UWMP and DWR Website. 2009 data represents the initial allocation of 15% plus the March notice to SWP

Contractors increasing the allocation to 20%, an April 16, 2009 press release increasing it to 30%, and a May 20, 2009 notification increasing it to 40%. Metropolitan’s full Table A amount is 1,911,500 AFY.

5-4 September 2009

Litigation filed by several environmental interest groups (NRDC v. Kempthorne (Case No. 05CV01207-OWW-GSA); Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez (Case No. 06CV00245-OWW)) has alleged that certain biological opinions and incidental take permits issued by state and federal agencies inadequately analyzed impacts on species listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2007, Federal District Judge Wanger issued a decision, finding the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion for Delta smelt to be invalid. Judge Wanger issued an Interim Remedial Order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law requiring that the SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) operate according to certain specified criteria until a new biological opinion for the Delta smelt was issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Recently DWR conducted simulations to evaluate current (2007) SWP delivery reliability in light of possible long term cut backs due to Delta smelt protective orders and possible impacts from climate change and reduced snow pack. To this end, these SWP delivery reliability simulations incorporated actions to protect Delta smelt defined by the 2007 Interim Remedial Order (NRDC v. Kempthorne) and a range of possible climate change impacts to hydrology in the Central Valley (DWR, 2007). These protective actions and the simulations resulted in reduced SWP water deliveries. In December 2007, the DWR submitted a Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2007. The report estimates future deliveries to decrease in 93 percent of future years in comparison to their 2005 SWP Delivery Reliability Report. A number of significant areas affecting the uncertainty for delivery reliability are discussed below. Major sources of uncertainty include Delta pumping restrictions, organism decline, climate change and sea level rise, and levee vulnerability associated with floods and earthquakes. The estimated current SWP delivery reliability assumed that the SWP and CVP operate to meet Old and Middle River flow targets specified in the 2007 federal court ruling on interim measures to protect Delta smelt. The DWR has altered the operations of the SWP to accommodate species of fish listed under the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts (ESAs). These changes in project operations have influenced the manner in which water is diverted from the Bay-Delta and SWP deliveries to the southern part of the State. Restrictions on Bay-Delta pumping beginning in 2008 under the Interim Remedial Order in NRDC v. Kempthorne have resulted in reduced deliveries of SWP water to Metropolitan. Based on initial estimates supplied by the DWR and considering the Interim Remedial Order, Metropolitan staff was estimating that it could lose up to 30 percent of its SWP supplies in 2008. The DWR considered these estimated losses in setting Metropolitan’s and every other agency’s 2008 SWP allocation. Actual curtailments of SWP water to Metropolitan in 2008 were based on fish abundance, weather, flow conditions in the Bay-Delta, numbers of fish salvaged at the project pumps, and how curtailments were to be divided between the SWP and CVP. Metropolitan’s current measures to address potential water supply shortages and interruptions include calling for extraordinary conservation, cutting groundwater replenishment and agricultural water deliveries, maximizing groundwater production, acquiring additional supplies, and drawing from dry-year storage programs. Based on these issues, MWD’s 2007 IRP (which was adopted in 2008) includes a

5-5 September 2009

5-6 September 2009

forecast 22 percent reduction in SWP deliveries. (Section 6 of this WSA sets forth additional analyses, which evaluate a reduction in SWP deliveries of 35 and 40 percent.) Based on DWR estimates of SWP deliveries under the Interim Remedial Order, and assuming an equal division of curtailments between the SWP and CVP,18 Metropolitan planned to meet firm demands in calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010. However, Metropolitan has been withdrawing supplies from surface and groundwater storage to meet current demands. Anticipating that storage could be significantly reduced by the end of 2010, Metropolitan and its member agencies are calling for voluntary water conservation to lower demands and reduce drawdowns from water storage. In fact on April 14, 2009, Metropolitan adopted a Level 2 Allocation, which equates to a 10 percent reduction in regional water supplies. If necessary, mandatory water allocations could be imposed in the future to cause further reductions in water use and reduce drawdowns from water storage reserves. Metropolitan’s member agencies and retail water suppliers in Metropolitan’s service area also have the ability to implement water conservation and allocation programs, and some of the retail suppliers in Metropolitan’s service area have initiated conservation measures. The City of Anaheim has had a successful track record in implementing water conservation programs. For example, in 1991 the City adopted Municipal Code section 10.18, the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance. In response to this ordinance, which resulted in over 13 percent reduction in water use in 1991 as compared to the previous year (see discussion later in this report and documentation in Appendix C). Additionally, a new Water Conservation Ordinance to address the current water supply situation was adopted by the City Council on April 14, 2009, a copy of which is attached as Appendix D. These water conservation ordinances are recommended by MWD and serve as an effective tool to deal with future water reliability issues. The City’s Water Conservation Ordinance provides the City with the tools to reduce City water demands if the needs arise in the future. For example, section 10.18.080 of the ordinance authorizes the City Council to prohibit specified water uses in the event of a Catastrophic Water Reduction Condition. Because of uncertainties related to SWP deliveries to Metropolitan based on Delta smelt and other issues, Section 6 of this WSA analyzes an additional 13 to 18 percent loss of SWP supply above and beyond the 22 percent MWD has already factored into MWD supply calculations (for a total of a 35 and 40 percent reduction in SWP deliveries). Thus, Section 6 of this WSA analyzes these potential SWP reliability issues on City water supply now and out into the future. In order to create a systemic solution to the issue facing the Delta (which have existed since the 1970’s), Governor Schwarzenegger created the Delta Vision process, which is aimed at identifying long-term solutions to the conflicts in the Bay-Delta, including

18 Assuming an equal division of curtailments between the SWP and the CVP is conservative and may have the effect of overstating the amount of SWP curtailment. As an example, in January the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the CVP, provided notice to agricultural customers that it intended to not provide any water deliveries to agricultural customers in 2009. Thus, in the short term it appears as though agricultural users which receive water through the CVP may suffer deeper water cuts as compared to water purveyors which receive water from the SWP.

5-7 September 2009

natural resource, infrastructure, land use and governance issues. The Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force presented findings and recommendations for a sustainable Delta as a healthy ecosystem and water supply source on January 17, 2008. In addition, state and federal resource agencies and various environmental and water user entities are currently engaged in the development of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, which is aimed at addressing ecosystem needs and securing long-term operating permits for the SWP. The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process is scheduled for completion during the third quarter of 2009, with acquisition of appropriate permits and completion of the associated environmental impact statement/impact report. Recently, statewide officials have expressed support for the construction of the peripheral canal, which would alleviate some of the delta species considerations by transferring river water south before it reaches the Bay Delta. The issues, such as the recent decline of some fish species in the Delta and surrounding regions and certain operational actions in the Delta, may impact Metropolitan’s water supply from the Delta. SWP operational requirements may be further modified through the consultation process for new biological opinions for listed species under the Federal ESA or from the California Department of Fish and Game’s actions regarding the California ESA. Decisions in current or future litigation, listings of additional species (such as the longfin smelt), or new regulatory requirements could adversely affect SWP operations in the future by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage, or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. However, based on information provided by DWR and Metropolitan, a 22 to 30 percent cutback in SWP deliveries to the south could be foreseeable in the future years until statewide systemic solutions are provided.19 The inclusion of 35 and 40 percent cut back scenarios in this WSA over a long term time horizon therefore analyzes a true worst case scenario that will likely not materialize, at least in the timeframe out to 2030.

5.1.2 Colorado River Aqueduct

The Colorado River was Metropolitan’s original source of water after Metropolitan’s establishment in 1928. Metropolitan has a legal entitlement to receive water from the Colorado River under a permanent service contract with the Secretary of the Interior. Water from the Colorado River or its tributaries is also available to other users in California, as well as to users in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (the “Colorado River Basin States”), resulting in both competition and the need for cooperation among these holders of Colorado River entitlements. In addition, under a 1944 treaty, Mexico has an allotment of 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually, except in the event of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the delivery system in the United States, when the water allotted to Mexico would be curtailed. Mexico also can schedule delivery of an additional 200,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year if water is available in excess of the requirements in the United States and the 1.5 million acre-feet allotted to Mexico.

19 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2007 IRP, October 2007, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Appendix A, Water Revenue Refunding Bonds 2008, Series C, July 10, 2008.

The Colorado River Aqueduct, which is owned and operated by Metropolitan, transports water from the Colorado River approximately 242 miles to its terminus at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. After deducting for conveyance losses and considering maintenance requirements, up to 1.2 million acre-feet of water a year may be conveyed through the Colorado River Aqueduct to Metropolitan’s member agencies, subject to availability of Colorado River water for delivery to Metropolitan as described below. California is apportioned the use of 4.4 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River each year plus one-half of any surplus that may be available for use collectively in Arizona, California and Nevada. In addition, California has historically been allowed to use Colorado River water apportioned to, but not used by, Arizona and Nevada when such supplies have been requested for use in California. Under the 1931 priority system that has formed the basis for the distribution of Colorado River water made available to California, Metropolitan holds the fourth priority right to 550,000 acre-feet per year. This is the last priority within California’s basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet. In addition, Metropolitan holds the fifth priority right to 662,000 acre-feet of water, which is in excess of California’s basic apportionment. Until 2002, Metropolitan had been able to take full advantage of its fifth priority right as a result of the availability of surplus water and apportioned but unused water. However, Arizona and Nevada increased their use of water from the Colorado River, leaving no unused apportionment available for California since the late 1990s. In addition, a severe drought in the Colorado River Basin has reduced storage in system reservoirs, resulting in no surplus water being available since 2002. Prior to 2002, Metropolitan could divert over 1.2 million acre-feet in any year, but since that time, Metropolitan’s deliveries of Colorado River water varied from a low of 633,000 acre-feet in 2006 to a high of 897,000 acre-feet in 2005. In 2007, Metropolitan received approximately 713,500 acre-feet of Colorado River water. Metropolitan has taken steps to augment its share of Colorado River water through agreements with other agencies that have rights to use such water. Under a 1988 water conservation agreement (the “1988 Conservation Agreement”) between Metropolitan and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), IID has constructed and is operating a number of conservation projects that are currently conserving 105,000 acre-feet of water per year. In 2007, the conserved water augmented the amount of water available to Metropolitan by 85,000 acre-feet and, by prior agreement, to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) by 20,000 acre-feet. In 1992, Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) to demonstrate the feasibility of CAWCD storing Colorado River water in central Arizona for the benefit of an entity outside of the State of Arizona. Pursuant to this agreement, CAWCD created 80,909 acre-feet of long-term storage credits that may be recovered by CAWCD for Metropolitan. Metropolitan, the Arizona Water Banking Authority, and CAWCD executed an amended agreement for recovery of these storage credits in December 2007. In 2007, 16,804 acre-feet were recovered. Metropolitan has requested that 25,000 acre-feet be recovered in 2008, and

5-8 September 2009

expects to request the balance of the storage credits over the next several years. Water recovered by CAWCD under the terms of the 1992 agreement allows CAWCD to reduce its use of Colorado River water, resulting in Arizona having an unused apportionment. The Secretary of the Interior is making this unused apportionment available to Metropolitan under its Colorado River water delivery contract In April 2008, Metropolitan’s Board authorized the expenditure of $28.7 million to join the CAWCD and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) in funding the construction of a new 8,000 acre-foot off-stream regulating reservoir near Drop 2 of the All-American Canal in Imperial County. The reservoir will be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation and is anticipated to be completed in late 2010. The Drop 2 Reservoir is expected to save up to 70,000 acre-feet of water per year by capturing and storing water that would otherwise be lost. In return for its funding, Metropolitan received 100,000 acre-feet of water that is stored in Lake Mead until recovered, with annual delivery of up to 34,000 acre-feet of water through 2010 and up to 25,000 acre-feet between 2011 and 2036. Besides the additional water supply, the new reservoir will add to the flexibility of Colorado River operations. Metropolitan and the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) signed the program agreement for a Land Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program in August 2004. This program provides up to 118,000 acre-feet of water available to Metropolitan in certain years. The term of the program is 35 years. Fallowing of approximately 20,000 acres of land began on January 1, 2005. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, approximately 108,700 acre-feet, 105,500, and 72,300 acre-feet, respectively, of water were saved. Metropolitan’s fallowing call is estimated to save 82,000 acre-feet in 2008. With Arizona’s and Nevada’s increasing use of their respective apportionments and the uncertainty of continued Colorado River surpluses, in 1997 the Colorado River Board of California, in consultation with Metropolitan, IID, PVID, CVWD, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), embarked on the development of a plan for reducing California’s use of Colorado River water to its basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet when use of that basic allotment is necessary (California Plan). In 1999, IID, CVWD, Metropolitan and the State of California agreed to a set of Key Terms aimed at managing California’s Colorado River supply. These Key Terms were incorporated into the Colorado River Board’s May 2000 California Plan that proposed to optimize the use of the available Colorado River supply through water conservation, transfers from higher priority agricultural users to Metropolitan’s service area and storage programs. To implement these plans, a number of agreements have been executed. One such agreement, the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), is a landmark agreement signed by the four California Colorado River water use agencies and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, which will guide reasonable and fair use of the Colorado River by California through the year 2037. The QSA was authorized in October 2003 and defined Colorado River water deliveries to the four California agencies as well as facilitated transfers from agricultural agencies to urban users. The QSA is a critical component of the California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan.

5-9 September 2009

5.1.3 Water Transfer and Exchange Programs

California’s agricultural activities consume approximately 34 million acre-feet of water annually, which is 80 percent of the total water used for agricultural and urban uses and 40 percent of the water used for all consumptive uses. Voluntary water transfers and exchanges can make a portion of this agricultural water supply available to support the State’s urban areas. Such existing and potential water transfers and exchanges are an important element for improving the water supply reliability within Metropolitan’s service area and accomplishing the reliability goal set by Metropolitan’s Board of Directors. Metropolitan is currently pursuing voluntary water transfer and exchange programs with state, federal, public and private water districts and individuals. The following are summary descriptions of some of these programs. Arvin-Edison/Metropolitan Water Management Program. In December 1997, Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (Arvin-Edison), an irrigation agency located southeast of Bakersfield, California. Under the program, Arvin-Edison stores water on behalf of Metropolitan. Up to 350,000 acre-feet of Metropolitan’s water may be stored and Arvin-Edison is obligated to return up to 70,000 acre-feet of stored water in any year to Metropolitan, upon request. The agreement will terminate in 2035 unless extended. Semitropic/Metropolitan Groundwater Storage and Exchange Program. In 1994 Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the Semitropic Water Storage District (Semitropic), located adjacent to the California Aqueduct north of Bakersfield, to store water in the groundwater basin underlying land within Semitropic. The minimum annual yield available to Metropolitan from the program is 31,500 acre-feet of water and the maximum annual yield is 223,000 acre-feet of water depending on the available unused capacity and the SWP allocation. California Aqueduct Dry-Year Transfer Program. Metropolitan has entered into agreements with the Kern Delta Water District, the Mojave Water Agency (Demonstration Water Exchange Program) and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to ensure against regulatory and operational uncertainties in the SWP system that could impact the reliability of existing supplies. The total potential yield for the three agreements is approximately 115,000 acre-feet of water per year. Other Water Purchase, Storage and Exchange Programs in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. Metropolitan has been negotiating water purchase, storage and exchange programs with other agencies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. These programs will involve the storage of both SWP supplies and water purchased from other sources to enhance Metropolitan’s dry-year supplies and the exchange of normal year supplies to enhance Metropolitan’s water reliability and water quality, in view of dry conditions and potential impacts from the ESA cases discussed above. Metropolitan has entered into agreements to purchase water transfer supplies for 2008 totaling 41,743 acre-feet from Western Canal Water District, Richvale Irrigation District, South Feather Water and Power Agency and South Sutter Water District. In addition, Metropolitan is pursuing water quality exchange partnerships with San Joaquin Valley agricultural districts,

5-10 September 2009

5-11 September 2009

including the Friant Water Users Authority. The purpose of these partnerships is to improve the quality of water that Metropolitan receives via the California Aqueduct. Yuba River Accord. Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the Department of Water Resources in December 2007 to purchase a portion of the water released by the Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA). YCWA was involved in a SWRCB proceeding in which it was required to increase Yuba River fishery flows. Metropolitan and other SWP contractors entered into agreements with the Department of Water Resources for purchase of portions of the water made available. Metropolitan’s agreement allows Metropolitan to purchase 13,750 acre-feet to 35,000 acre-feet per year of water supplies in dry years through 2025. Metropolitan/Coachella/Desert Water Agency Exchange and Advance Delivery Agreement. Metropolitan has agreements with the CVWD and the Desert Water Agency (Desert) that require Metropolitan to exchange its Colorado River water for those agencies’ SWP entitlement water on an annual basis. Because Desert and Coachella do not have a physical connection to the SWP, Metropolitan takes delivery of Desert’s and CVWD’s SWP supplies and delivers a like amount of Colorado River water to the agencies. In accordance with an advance delivery agreement executed by Metropolitan, CVWD and Desert, Metropolitan delivers Colorado River water in advance to these agencies for storage in the Upper Coachella Valley groundwater basin. In years when supplies are needed to meet local demands, Metropolitan has the option to receive the water supply and must pay the associated SWP transportation costs and CVWD and Desert may use the stored water. Historical imported water use by the City delivered by Metropolitan over the past five years is shown on Table 5.2, below.

Table 5.2 Historical Imported Water Use (AFY)

2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 25,066.1 28,029.6 31,255.8 24,696.0 15,272.1

5.1.4 Supply Management Strategies

On the regional level, Metropolitan has taken a number of actions to secure a reliable water source for its member agencies. Metropolitan recently adopted a water supply allocation plan for dealing with potential shortages that takes into consideration the impact on retail customers and the economy, changes and losses in local supplies, the investment in and development of local resources, and conservation achievements.20 Additional actions taken by Metropolitan during the first half of 2008 include the

20 Metropolitan Water District Press Release dated February 12, 2008.

5-12 September 2009

adoption of a $1.9 billion spending plan, increased rates and charges,21 and the funding of a new reservoir to benefit Colorado River supply capabilities.22 The $1.9 billion spending plan for 2008-09 includes spending for the improvement of water conveyance facilities, water transfers, and providing financial assistance to member agency’s local conservation, recycling, and groundwater clean-up efforts.

5.2 Orange County Water District

As has been discussed previously throughout this WSA, the primary source of water for the City is the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). OCWD is responsible for the protection of water rights to the Santa Ana River in Orange County as well as the management and replenishment of the Basin.23 OCWD replenishes and maintains the Basin at safe levels while significantly increasing the Basin’s annual yield by utilization of the best available technology. Other than recycled water, OCWD primarily recharges the Basin with water from the Santa Ana River and to a lesser extent with imported raw water purchased from Metropolitan. According to the OCWD’s Draft Groundwater Management Plan Update 2009 dated May 8, 2009, natural recharge accounted for 69,000 acre-feet and artificial recycled water injection and recharge accounted for 272,000 acre-feet in 2008. As of January 2008, OCWD began recharging recycled water from the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). The GWRS, the largest water purification project of its kind in the world, can currently produce up to 72,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water, and has increased Orange County’s water independence by providing a locally controlled, drought-proof supply of safe, high-quality water. The EIR has been completed for a GWRS Expansion Project to increase production to over 90,000 acre-feet per year. Other processes such as recycling of wastewater, conservation and water use efficiency programs, and creative water purchases have aided in replenishing the basin to desired levels to meet required demands. As discussed previously, OCWD establishes the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) each water year. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, ideal precipitation, Santa Ana River runoff, and basin management objectives. The BPP was initially established in 1969 and has generally ranged from 60 to 80 percent. The average BPP for the past twenty years is 72.9 percent. Based on discussions with OCWD and background analysis provided for the January 7, 2009 OCWD Board of Directors meeting on annual water budget and water replenishment, an average projected BPP between 65 and 69 percent was documented. This projected BPP would increase by approximately 4 percent as a result of the GWRS Expansion Project discussed above.

21 Metropolitan Water District Board Meeting, March 11, 2008, and Press Release of same date, regarding spending plan and adoption of rates and charges. 22 Metropolitan Water District Board Meeting, April 8, 2008, and Press Release of same date, regarding new reservoir. 23 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, 2004.

5-13 September 2009

As discussed previously, the BPP is a major factor for the City in determining the cost of groundwater production. For groundwater production equal to or less than the BPP, groundwater producers including Anaheim pay a replenishment assessment. If groundwater production greater than the BPP occurs, a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) will be assessed. The BEA is an additional fee paid on each acre foot (AF) of water pumped above the BPP, making the total cost of that water to Anaheim equal to the cost of Tier 2 imported water from Metropolitan. Total water demand within Orange County Water District (OCWD) was 502,746 AF for the 2006-07 water year (beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007). In the same period, groundwater production (including In-lieu Program water, but excluding groundwater production used to supply the Talbert Barrier) for the water year totaled 349,858 AF. For the water year, a total of 52,219 AF of supplemental water was used for the purpose of groundwater replenishment and barrier maintenance to prevent seawater intrusion from occurring in areas of the groundwater basin adjacent to the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Fountain Valley. For the water year, which ended June 30, 2007, the annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water was 166,000 AF. Precipitation within the basin was 20 percent of normal during the water year, totaling 2.75 inches. Based on the groundwater basin conditions for the water year ending June 30, 2007, OCWD may purchase up to 84,000 AF for groundwater basin replenishment during the ensuing water year, beginning July 1, 2008, pursuant to the District Act. Since the formation of OCWD in 1933, OCWD has made substantial investment in facilities, basin management and water rights protection, resulting in the elimination and prevention of adverse long-term “mining” overdraft conditions. OCWD continues to develop new replenishment supplies, recharge capacity and basin protection measures to meet projected production from the basin during average/normal rainfall and drought periods.24 OCWD has invested in seawater intrusion control (injection barriers), recharge facilities, laboratories and basin monitoring to effectively manage the basin. Some of these programs include: Recharge Facilities - OCWD currently owns and operates approximately 1,000 acres of recharge spreading facilities located in cities of Anaheim and Orange adjacent to the SAR and Santiago Creek. OCWD has built a recharge system that provides the majority of water supplied by the District. The 17 major facilities in the Anaheim/Orange area are grouped into four major components: the Main River System, the Off-River System, the Deep Basin System, and the Burris Pit/Santiago System. Each system has a series of percolation spreading basins, either shallow or deep, whose sidewalls and bottoms allow for percolation into the underlying aquifer. Seawater Intrusion Barriers - OCWD’s Talbert Barrier is composed of a series of injection wells that span the 2.5-mile-wide Talbert Gap between the Newport and

24 Orange County Water District, 2006-2007 Engineer’s Report on Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District, February 2008.

Huntington mesas. The Talbert Barrier wells can inject approximately 42 mgd of water into four aquifer zones. Injecting water through the wells forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater that would otherwise migrate inland toward areas of groundwater production. The Alamitos seawater intrusion barrier is composed of a series of injection wells that span the Los Angeles/Orange County line in the Seal Beach-Long Beach area. It is operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) in cooperation with OCWD and the Water Replenishment District (WRD). The source of this water is a blend of purified wastewater from WRD and potable supplies from Metropolitan. Also, the Alamitos Barrier System includes four extraction wells located seaward of the injection barrier to create a pumping trough to remove the degraded brackish groundwater. Groundwater Monitoring – OCWD has one of the most sophisticated groundwater monitoring programs in the country. The District runs more than 350,000 analyses of water from more than 650 wells every year. OCWD performs nearly 50 percent more water quality tests than it is required to do in order to ensure the highest water quality possible. In 2004, OCWD completed a 10-year, $10 million Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Effects Study, which demonstrated the safety of SAR water as a source for recharging the groundwater basin. A panel of nationally recognized experts provided an independent review of the study and validated its positive results.

5.2.1 OCWD Long Term Facilities Plan (LTFP)

OCWD has prepared a draft LTFP to evaluate potential basin and water quality enhancement projects that may be implemented in the 20-year planning period. The LTFP is proposed to do the following:

• Evaluate projects to cost effectively increase the amount of sustainable basin production and protect water quality

• Develop an implementation program for the recommended projects • Establish the basin’s future maximum (target) annual production amount and

correspondingly how much new recharge capacity would be required • Estimate impacts to potential future RA rates and long-term BPPs • Evaluate potential annexations

The draft LTFP and subsequent EIR were stalled due to difficulties related to the annexation of new lands. As a result, annexation has been removed from the document, and the revised LTFP will examine a five year window for new projects. The LTFP has been adopted by the OCWD Board as a planning document. The LTFP utilizes information recently developed in OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan and Recharge Development Study. The LTFP includes a master list of developed and proposed projects. The various projects are grouped into five categories: (1) recharge facilities, (2) water source facilities, (3) basin management facilities, (4)

5-14 September 2009

5-15 September 2009

water quality management facilities, and (5) operational improvements facilities. Each project is evaluated using criteria such as technical feasibility, cost, institutional support, functional feasibility, and environmental compliance. The LTFP will include an implementation plan for the 28 recommended projects over the 20 year planning period.

5.2.2 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan (GMP)

OCWD finalized its GMP in March 2004. The latest GMP updated earlier versions prepared in 1989 and 1990. The GMP complies with SB 1938, passed in 2002, which includes a list of items to be included in a GMP. The GMP’s objectives include (1) protecting and enhancing groundwater quality, and (2) cost-effectively protecting and increasing the basin’s sustainable yield.25 Various programs, policies, goals, and projects are defined in the GMP to assist OCWD staff meet these objectives. The potential projects described in the GMP are discussed in further detail in the LTFP. The GMP describes the following:

• the background and purpose of the GMP • the hydrogeology of the basin • the range of activities and management programs, including groundwater

monitoring, groundwater quality management, production management, recharge water supply, and improvement projects

• the historical and future water demands and integrated demand/supply management strategies

• the financial management programs • the recommendations for continued proactive basin management

5.2.3 OCWD 2020 Water Master Plan Report (Water MPR)

OCWD’s 2020 Water Master Plan Report (MPR) describes local water supplies and estimates their availability extending to the year 2020. Specifically, OCWD states in their 2020 Water MPR that significant water supply sources will be available in the future for potable, non-potable, and recharge purposes. The 2020 Water MPR discusses source waters such as imported water from Metropolitan, base flows from the Santa Ana River, treated wastewater through the OCWD/OCSD GWRS program, and possibly desalinated ocean water. The local supplies’ availability and projections from the 2020 Water MPR have been revised and are being pursued with the LTFP.

25 Orange County Water District, Groundwater Management Plan, 2004.

5-16 September 2009

5.3 Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD or Department)

5.3.1 Water System

The City's Water Service Area consists of virtually the entire area within the limits of the City; however, the Service Area excludes areas inside City limits serviced by other water purveyors and includes areas outside of City limits serviced by the Department. Figure 5.1 shows the Anaheim Water Service Area including these described areas. The City’s basic water services include single family residential, multi-family residential and general services (i.e., commercial, industrial, municipal, and institutional consumers).

As the City has developed, the Department has increased its number of connections to imported water supplies, increased the number and quality of wells, built a series of reservoirs, and greatly expanded the transmission and distribution system in order to meet the water service requirements of a growing number of customers. The Department's Water Service Area population as of 2008 was approximately 353,000 and is expected to increase to approximately 436,000 by the year 2030.26

The current major water system facilities consist of 8 purchased water connections to Metropolitan (one untreated and seven treated water connections), 18 active wells, one 920 MG reservoir for untreated water, one 15 MGD water treatment plant, 12 treated water reservoirs with 28.75 MG of total storage capacity, permanent chlorination facilities at various sites, and 9 booster pump stations.

Figure 5.1 depicts the location of the City’s major water supply, treatment and storage facilities mentioned above.

The water system service area has elevations ranging from less than 60 feet to over 1,200 feet above sea level. In order to provide appropriate operation pressures for such a wide range of elevations, the water system is divided into 19 pressure zones. The lowest pressure zone operates at a static hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevation of 220 feet above sea level and the highest pressure zone having a static HGL elevation of 1,320 feet above sea level. The Department's water distribution system is generally divided into two main geographic areas: the "Flatland Area" (i.e. 555 HGL elevation and below) and the "Hill and Canyon Area" (i.e. the 585 HGL elevation and above). The Flatland Area is approximately 21,000 acres, situated generally north and west of the Santa Ana River (SAR), and is almost entirely served by groundwater (with Metropolitan imported water supplemented, as necessary). The Hill and Canyon Area is approximately 11,000 acres, situated generally south and east of the SAR, and served primarily by imported water from Metropolitan. 27

26 OCP – 2006 Population and Housing Projections prepared by California State University, Fullerton published December 2008 and information provided by Anaheim Planning Dept., April 2009. 27 City of Anaheim Urban Water Management Plan. December 2005.

September 2009 5-17

N

Figure 5.1 Anaheim Public Utilities Major Facilities & Service Area

5.3.2 Past and Current Efforts

Reliability is a measure of a water system's expected success in managing water shortages. The City has strategies to manage water demand with respect to frequency and magnitude of supply deficiencies. On February 16, 1991, the City adopted Ordinance No. 5204 (which is now codified as Anaheim Municipal Code section 10.18.010 et seq.,), relating to water shortages. This Ordinance consists of three Water Shortage Plans that can be implemented during declared water shortages. This Ordinance was a result of the severe drought the City experienced initiating in 1987. In response, on March 19, 1991, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 91R-65, in which the City Council determined that a Water Shortage existed and ordered implementation of Water Shortage Plan II, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5204. Effective April 1, 1992, City Council adopted Resolution No. 92R-65, and discontinued Water Shortage Plan II and ordered Water Shortage Plan I and reduced Anaheim’s target of water conservation from 15 percent to 10 percent. On September 16, 2008, the City Council approved guidelines asking residents and businesses for voluntary reduction in water use and stretch water supplies. Plumbing repairs, sprinkler system adjustments, reduced landscape watering, runoff and evaporation management are some of the smart practices the City urges its customer to adopt. On April 14, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6138 (included as Appendix D) in response to Metropolitan’s request to its member agencies to adopt more stringent conservation ordinances that would put into effect different levels of conservation related to Metropolitan’s Water Supply Allocation Plan levels. Another method of water reliability is Metropolitan's Long-Term In Lieu Groundwater Storage Program, which the City has consistently participated in when this water has been made available by Metropolitan. The major goals of this program include the following: (1) achievement of greater water supply reliability through increased conjunctive use of imported and local water supplies; and (2) reduction of member agencies' dependence on deliveries from Metropolitan during times of shortage. The Long-Term Storage credits apply to water that is imported in lieu of groundwater pumping. For each acre-foot of Long-Term Storage water claimed, the Department is provided discounts from Metropolitan and OCWD, resulting in a unit cost of Long-Term Storage water approximately equivalent to the unit cost. But, this provides significant benefits to the Orange County Groundwater Basin as overall water levels are increased, thus enhancing regional water supply reliability. The Department has the ability to certify for Groundwater Seasonal Shift Storage (SSS), Direct Reservoir Seasonal Storage Service (for Walnut Canyon Reservoir), and Groundwater Long-Term Storage credits. The following describes the SSS programs the Department participates in:

• Groundwater Seasonal Shift Storage credits are received when the Department pumps additional groundwater during the summer months (May through

5-18 September 2009

September) and, correspondingly, imports from Metropolitan an identical quantity during the winter months (October through April), within a 12-month period. Metropolitan charges the Department a discounted unit cost for the "shifted" imported quantity.

• Direct Reservoir Seasonal Storage Service credits for the Department are calculated as the net gain in Walnut Canyon Reservoir during a period that such service is available (typically during October through April). Metropolitan charges the Department a discounted unit cost for this "net gain."

• The Long-Term Storage credit applies to water that is imported in lieu of groundwater pumping. For each acre-foot of Long-Term Storage water claimed, the Department is provided discounts from Metropolitan and OCWD, resulting in a unit cost of Long-Term Storage water approximately equivalent to the unit cost of pumped groundwater. Although the Long-Term Storage Program is essentially cost-neutral for the Department, it provides the following benefits: (1) water is imported when Metropolitan has an abundant supply; and (2) groundwater resources are conserved (i.e. the long-term import quantity would have been pumped from the groundwater if the Department did not participate).

As previously stated, groundwater is currently the most reliable and least expensive water resource for the City. The Department has scheduled the drilling of one new well every three years. The new wells replace existing shallow and deteriorated wells and provide additional production capacity. Additional groundwater pumping capacity will add to the reliability of the system by: (1) meeting peak demands during the summer months; (2) providing a contingency for wells that are temporarily out of service; and (3) providing availability for any additional pumping requests from OCWD. Due to the geographic location of the City, groundwater production wells are scattered throughout the water distribution system in the Flatland Area. Typically, well capacity exceeds demand in the Flatland Area. In order to maximize the use of groundwater, the Department continues to investigate the feasibility of increasing booster station capacities. These booster stations would move additional groundwater from the Flatland Area (555 pressure zone and below) to the Hill and Canyon Area (585 pressure zone and above). The ability to supply the Hill and Canyon Area with additional groundwater above and beyond what the Hill and Canyon Area already receives will help ensure the Department's ability to minimize water supply peaking charges and increase water supply reliability. Additionally, in order to enhance reliability of the water system and minimize the risk of losing wells to contamination, the Department operates its own water quality laboratory to test wells the City operates, in addition to the tests conducted by OCWD’s laboratories. The water quality laboratory conducts more than 30,000 tests annually and routinely files results with DPH. Metropolitan and OCWD also monitor the Department’s imported and groundwater supplies, respectively. The Department consistently delivers high quality water that meets or surpasses all federal and state drinking water regulations.

5-19 September 2009

The City's long-term plans to assure a reliable water supply include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Reduction of water demand through aggressive water use efficiency programs, with a goal to reduce demand by 15% by 2020, compared to 1993.

• Groundwater production capacity and distribution ability to meet 100 percent of the water service area demands.

• Cooperation with OCWD to maximize conservation activities throughout Orange County and increase groundwater recharge capabilities.

As discussed earlier, the reliability of the City's water supply is currently dependent on the reliability of both groundwater and, to a lesser extent, imported water supplies, which are managed and delivered by OCWD and Metropolitan, respectively.

5.3.3 Huntington Beach Sea Water Desalination Facility

As technology progresses, additional water supplies and facilities are being brought on line to further assure water supply reliability well into the future. One recent example is the proposal by Poseidon Resources, Inc. to build a 50-million-gallon-per-day (50 MGD) (56,000 AFY) seawater desalination project in Huntington Beach called the Huntington Beach Sea Water Desalination Facility. Poseidon Resources Corporation is working with local and state agencies to obtain the required permits to ensure proper safeguards to the community and environment. The Environmental Impact Report was certified in September 2005 by the Huntington Beach City Council. The City Council also approved the Coastal Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Owner’s Participation Agreement for the facility in February 2006. Construction could begin in 2009 and the facility could be operational in 2011. The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department has signed a letter of intent regarding a potential water purchase agreement with Poseidon Resources. The letter sets forth certain non-binding understandings between the City and Poseidon relating to an interest in discussing the potential purchase of desalinated water from the seawater desalination plant to be built by Poseidon at its site in Huntington Beach. Anaheim and Poseidon intend to begin good faith negotiations of a definitive water purchase agreement. Again, this is just one example of a new project and new technology ensuring water reliability into the future. Another example includes OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System discussed above.

5-20 September 2009

5-21 September 2009

5.4 Dry Year Reliability Comparison

Metropolitan Supplies and Demands As previously noted, the Anaheim Public Utilities Department is a direct member agency of Metropolitan. In its 2005 Regional UWMP (RUWMP) and more recently its 2006 Integrated Water Resources Plan Implementation Report (IRP Implementation Report),28 Metropolitan chose the year 1977 as the single driest year since 1922 and the years 1990-1992 as the multiple driest years over that same period. These years were selected because they represent the timing of the least amount of available water resources from the SWP, a major source of Metropolitan’s supply. Metropolitan’s 2006 IRP Implementation Report provided an update to the water supply projections presented in the Metropolitan’s 2005 RUWMP. Subsequently, MWD developed its 2007 IRP Implementation Report dated October 2007. In reliance on data received from DWR staff, the 2007 IRP Implementation Report states that “[b]ased on initial estimates, Metropolitan could see as much as up to 22 percent reduction, on average, of its SWP supplies in 2008 and beyond.” However, Metropolitan’s 2007 IRP Implementation Report did not include revised water supply projections as did the previous versions. Importantly, it should be noted that the 2007 SWP Delivery Reliability Report (which was adopted by DWR in August 2008) does not reflect reductions in SWP deliveries to MWD as high as 22 percent. Nevertheless, this WSA utilizes the 22 percent reduction of SWP supplies set forth in the 2007 MWD IRP Implementation Report. Additionally, in Section 6, this WSA includes analyes of 35 and 40 percent reduction in SWP deliveries to MWD. Thus, this WSA takes a very conservative approach and utilizes a truly worst case scenario (in Section 6) that may not materialize. Thus, this WSA directly addresses the assertion made by CREED and OCCORD in the previous 2008 lawsuit that the previous WSA did not analyze new information in the form of Delta smelt and other issues in the WSA’s analysis of future water reliability. Based on the 2006 IRP Implementation Report, over the 20-year period beginning in 2010 and ending in 2030, Metropolitan projects a 2.0 percent increase in overall available supply during an average year, a 4.9 percent increase during a single dry year, and a 1.9 percent increase during the third year of the multiple dry year period. The increased available supplies during drought year scenarios are primarily due to increased contract allotments of in-basin storage as well as a number of supplies under development. For example, in a single dry year or multiple dry year period, Metropolitan anticipates accessing water stored in a variety of the storage programs discussed above. In its 2005 RUWMP, Metropolitan projects an increase in member agency demands. Specifically, they project a 10 percent increase over the same 20-year period in the

28 Metropolitan develops Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs), which lay out how Metropolitan will secure and provide water to its customer base. These IRPs utilize hydrological and other data provided by DWR and are updated periodically through IRP Implementation Reports to reflect changing conditions.

average demand, a 6.9 percent increase during the single dry year scenario, and a 7.8 percent increase during the multiple dry year scenario. However, in all cases, the projected regional increase in demands by member agencies are offset by available surpluses in the Metropolitan supply. Table 5.3 summarizes Metropolitan’s current imported supply availability projections for average year, single dry year, and multiple dry years over the 20-year period beginning in 2010 and ending in 2030. These supply projections are based on the most recent data available from their 2006 IRP Implementation Report with an additional 22 percent reduction in SWP supplies based on Metropolitan’s 2007 IRP Implementation Report, as discussed above. Appendix B includes the water supply tables from Metropolitan’s 2006 IRP Implementation Report and the calculated Metropolitan supply with a 22 percent reduction in SWP supply. Based on these projections, Metropolitan will be able to meet all of its projected average year, single dry year, and multiple dry year service area demands through the year 2030. Metropolitan regional water demand data is based on its 2005 RUWMP. MWD has had a long and successful track record in implementing resource management actions and measures to allow for consistency in available water supply in dry years. Some of these programs, segregated by category, have included the following: 1. Conservation

• Incentives to facilitate the installation of water conserving devices. • Water savings through legislative measures. • Pursuing specific implementation strategies outlined in Metropolitan’s

Conservation Strategy Plan, jointly developed with its member agencies. • Total incentive payments for FY 2006/07 were $15.4 million, which created

112,000 AF of conserved water savings. 2. Local Resources (LRP)

• Incentives of up to $250 per acre-foot to expand water recycling and groundwater recovery programs.

• Eighty-six participating water recycling and groundwater recovery projects are expected to collectively produce about 363,000 AF per year once fully implemented.

• Since inception of the LRP in 1982, Metropolitan has provided more than $244 million for the production of about 1.3 MAF of recycled water and recovered groundwater.

3. In-Basin Groundwater Storage

• Metropolitan’s dry-year conjunctive use programs with member and retail agencies provide more than 415,000 AF of additional storage within the service area with a contractual yield of more than 115,000 AF during dry conditions. Metropolitan has allocated $52.4 million to these programs to date.

• Metropolitan has about 63,000 AF in supplemental storage locally through agreements with several member agencies.

5-22 September 2009

4. In-Basin Surface Water Storage

Metropolitan Reservoirs – Diamond Valley Lake, Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner Flexible Storage in DWR reservoirs – Castaic Lake, and Lake Perris

5. Colorado River Aqueduct • Metropolitan has implemented water management and transfer programs:

o Quantification Settlement Agreement – agreement allowing for agricultural conservation, water transfers, and potential surplus water availability (60,000 AF in FY 2006/07)

o Imperial Irrigation District/Metropolitan Conservation Program (83,000 AF in FY 2006/07.

o Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management Program (86,000 AF in FY 2006/07)

6. State Water Project

• In June 2007 Metropolitan adopted the Delta Action Plan that sets a direction for Metropolitan to respond to the ongoing problems of the Bay-Delta ecosystem in a systematic approach to restore reliability to the SWP.

• Metropolitan manages five existing SWP storage programs located outside of its

service area: o Semitropic/Metropolitan Water Banking and Exchange Program (yield

between 31,500 and 223,000 AFY) o Arvin-Edison Water Management Program (yield up to 75,00 AFY) o San Bernardino/Metropolitan Coordinated Operating Agreement (annual

purchase of up to 20,000 AF and carryover storage of 50,000 AF) o Kern Delta/Metropolitan Water Management Program (storage up to

250,000 AF and return up to 50,000 AFY) o Mojave/Metropolitan Demonstration Water Exchange Program

In its 2007 IRP, MWD has identified and stated that it intends to continue implementing many of these same programs and has also identified additional resource management actions. Some of these programs include the following: 1. Conservation

• Program refinements: more options, streamlined administrative processes, upgraded and new incentives and more standardization across programs to increase program participation.

• Expanded incentives: new incentives added to facilitate installation of water conserving devices, grants and like funding from other agencies help expand incentives programs.

• New Programs: novel programs similar to Public Sector Water Efficiency Partnership Demonstration Program.

5-23 September 2009

2. Local Resources (LRP) • Metropolitan’s pursuit of the development of seawater desalination through

regional facilitation and funding. • Updated policies allowing an open process to accept and review project

applications on a continuous basis, with a goal of development of an additional 174,000 acre-feet per year of local water resources.

3. In-Basin Groundwater Storage

• Completion of the Groundwater Basin Assessment Study provides new information and a baseline for discussions focusing on how to move forward to meet goals for dry-year groundwater yield. Key findings indicate that as much as 3.2 million acre-feet of storage may be available in groundwater basins within the Metropolitan service area; however, much of this space is not currently utilized due to a number of factors including institutional disagreements and uncertainties, need for significant capital investments in conveyance, recharge, and/or extraction facilities, water quality considerations, etc.

4. Colorado River Aqueduct

• Metropolitan has begun negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation for a long-term Intentionally Created Surplus program that will allow Metropolitan to store water in Lake Mead for delivery via the Aqueduct in dry years.

5. State Water Project

• Metropolitan is actively engaged in all proceedings regarding Delta operations to evaluate options to address Delta smelt impacts and other environmental concerns, the Delta Vision process and the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process.

5-24 September 2009

Table 5.3 Metropolitan’s Regional Imported

Water Supply Reliability Projections

Region Wide Projections 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Information Projected Supply During an Average Year[1] 2,465,140 2,579,140 2,505,040 2,512,040 2,512,040Projected Supply During a Single Dry Year[1] 3,253,640 3,438,180 3,486,560 3,439,560 3,390,560Projected Supply During Year 3 of Multiple Dry Year Period[1] 2,599,760 2,653,060 2,685,580 2,677,580 2,660,580Demand Information Projected Demand During an Average Year[2] 2,063,000 1,985,000 2,029,000 2,141,000 2,269,000Projected Demand During a Single Dry Year[2] 2,348,000 2,234,000 2,275,000 2,388,000 2,511,000Projected Demand During Year 3 of Multiple Dry Year Period[2] 2,420,000 2,341,000 2,355,000 2,479,000 2,609,000Surplus Information Projected Surplus During an Average Year 402,140 594,140 476,040 371,040 243,040 Projected Surplus During a Single Dry Year 905,640 1,204,180 1,211,560 1,051,560 879,560 Projected Surplus During Year 3 of Multiple Dry Year Period 179,760 312,060 330,580 198,580 51,580

[1] Projected supplies include current supplies and supplies under development. This data was obtained from Metropolitan’s 2006 IRP Implementation Report supply projections and includes a 22% reduction in SWP deliveries based on Metropolitan’s 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8).

[2] Demand data obtained from Metropolitan’s 2005 RUWMP demand projections.

5-25 September 2009

Anaheim Public Utilities Department The City’s water demand in fiscal year 2007/08 was 74,242 AF including unaccounted-for-water. By the year 2029/30, the City’s projected water demand is 88,520 AFY, including approximately 5,249 AFY for the total Proposed Project, of which 1,804 AFY of demand is associated with increased intensification in The Platinum Triangle (see Table 3.3) over and above that which was included in the City’s adopted 2005 UWMP. More current information than what was included in the City’s 2005 UWMP, in terms of existing City-wide water use and future growth projections, was utilized to project future demands. The City’s 2005 UWMP used a 2000/2004 average APUD demand of 73,209 AF (based on customer sales, not production) to estimate water demand for the year 2005. For purposes of developing an updated existing water usage, the 2005 water demand of 69,277 AF was excluded from the 2000/04 average due to the unusually heavy rainfall which occurred during 2005. However, the 2005/06 sales of 70,243 AF, which was not a wet year, indicates the 2005 UWMP projections were conservative, which may be due to water conservation causing a permanent reduction in City-wide demands. To reiterate, the water demand projections contained in the City’s UWMP appear to overstate future demand when one analyzes actual demand versus the demand that was predicted. This is likely due to the success of the City’s water conservation programs and is also a likely result of water customers utilizing less water in response to price increases. To reflect the reduced growth in water demand that has occurred since the UWMP, updated water sales for 2006/07 of 73,871 AF (excluding unaccounted for water) and a total water demand of 76,687 AF (including unaccounted for water) was used as an estimate of existing (2008) water demand. Water demand for 2006/07 was used to estimate current use because that year experienced the highest water sales volume over the past seven years and is considered the most conservative estimate (i.e., utilization of this year would overestimate the amount of water to be used). Projected water demands were calculated using the percentage growth rates developed in Table 4.1, using the updated 2008 estimated water demand as a starting point. As discussed in Section 4, this WSA uses a water demand growth rate equal to approximately 75 percent of the projected housing unit growth rate. Water demand is projected to increase at this slightly reduced rate versus housing unit growth rate because much of the new development growth is occurring from increased densities in redevelopment areas that have existing water demands. In addition, new growth will tend to have newer, water conserving fixtures such as high efficiency clothes washers as well as more drought tolerant landscaping and more efficient irrigation systems. It should also be noted that the growth projections, and hence the water demand increases, include the proposed Mountain Park development. Past hydrologic data and their effect on historic water demand were considered to determine factors for single-dry and multiple-dry years, which is consistent with the City’s 2005 UWMP. The single-dry year for the City is estimated to increase 5 percent from the normal water year, and multiple-dry year demands (three-year period) are

5-26 September 2009

5-27 September 2009

estimated to increase 6, 3, and 5 percent from the normal water year demand, respectively. The OCWD Basin Production Percentage (BPP) is calculated by dividing groundwater basin pumping by total water demands. For fiscal year 2008-09 the BPP was established at 69 percent. The average BPP for the past twenty years is 72.9 percent. Based on discussions with OCWD staff and background analysis provided for the January 7, 2009 OCWD Board of Directors meeting on annual water budget and water replenishment, an average projected BPP between 65 percent and 69 percent was documented. An average BPP of 67 percent is assumed to be a reasonable estimate for long-term planning purposes and is used in this WSA to project groundwater supply. OCWD staff have confirmed that the use of this BPP estimate is a reasonable assumption for this WSA. Importantly, and as has been stated above, the City or any producer can always produce groundwater above the BPP. If this occurs, the producer pays the BEA pump tax which is a higher payment as compared to the RA that is paid by a producer for groundwater produced within the BPP limits Imported water supply to the City as set forth in Tables 5-4 through 5-10 is calculated as 1.18 percent of Metropolitan’s available water supply (Table 5.3 above) based on Anaheim's share of allocation from MWD's 2009 Water Supply Allocation Plan. In February of 2008 Metropolitan’s Board adopted a Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) that sets out a formula for allocating water to its member agencies due to uncertain conditions related to Delta pumping operations, climate change and current dry conditions. Each year, Metropolitan updates their Water Supply Allocation Plan spreadsheet to reflect the current demand and supply situation and in April adopts an allocation level, if shortages in regional supply dictate. This Water Supply Allocation Plan analyzes available water supply resources.29 The City’s allocation of water from Metropolitan varies based on water supply availability. For example, on April 14, 2009, Metropolitan adopted a Level 2 Water Supply Allocation, which equates to a 10 percent loss of regional supply. This allocation will go into effect commencing on July 1, 2009. Using the latest information from Metropolitan (5/6/09 email included in Appendix D), Anaheim’s allocation percentage is 1.29 percent corresponding to a Level 2 Allocation (adopted for 2009) and 1.18 percent corresponding to a Level 10 Allocation. The percentage used (1.18 percent) to determine the City’s share of Metropolitan water in this WSA is the most conservative (lowest) allocation percentage provided by Metropolitan for the City. This percentage equates to a Level 10 Water Supply Allocation or a 50 percent loss of regional supply to Metropolitan and is the most severe allocation level Metropolitan has. All other scenarios call for a percentage higher than the 1.18 percent. Thus, this WSA is highly conservative insofar as it assumes possible extremely reduced supplies in the future year scenarios. Analysis shows that long-term groundwater and

29 MWD has a created a “Water Supply Allocation Plan”. This Water Supply Allocation Plan is essentially a water rationing plan. The Water Supply Allocation Plan contains Allocation Levels 1 through 10. Level 1 is the least severe Allocation Plan and Level 10 is the most severe Allocation Plan. Each Allocation Level represents a 5% reduction in water supplies otherwise made available to a jurisdiction in a non-allocation year (i.e., Level 1 Allocation = 5% reduction, Level 2 Allocation = 10% reduction, etc.). This WSA’s use of a Level 10 Allocation represents the truly worst case scenario that will likely not materialize

imported water in the above quantities are anticipated to remain stable to the City, based on studies and reports of OCWD and Metropolitan, respectively. Table 5.4 presents future normal year water demands based on growth factors developed in Section 4 of this WSA. Table 5.5 shows single dry water year supply and demand projections under normal groundwater supply conditions. Tables 5.6 through 5.10 show the multiple dry water years projected supply and demand projections. Demand values are adjusted to reflect additional water demands within the City resulting from proposed developments since the UWMP was adopted. These added demands include the Proposed Project, demands analyzed by the May 2007 WSA for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (KPMC), and demands associated with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion Project (ARSP) being concurrently analyzed in a separate WSA. The demand data includes unaccounted-for-water of 3.8 percent based on average water losses over the past six years as discussed in Section 4.1 of this WSA. The WSA completed by Psomas for the City of Anaheim in February 2005 included analysis of an additional intensification of land uses in The Platinum Triangle that generated an additional water demand of 2.371 mgd or 2,656 AFY. This additional demand was then included in the subsequent 2005 UWMP adopted by the City in December 2005. The projected additional water demands from the Proposed Project, as developed in Section 3 of this report, are added to the City’s projected demands in Tables 5.4 to 5.10. In light of MWD’s successful, decades long track record of providing reliable water supplies to MWD customers, the City’s imported water demands should continue to be met, as shown on the following tables. In addition, the following tables show that under reduced water supply conditions from Metropolitan, available supply continues to exceed demand in normal, single and multiple dry years. Finally, it should be noted that the supply conditions set forth in the following tables (i) utilize a Level 10 Water Supply Allocation Percentage which, as has been discussed above represents the lowest Allocation percentage of Metropolitan supplies that would be available to the City during an Allocation year and (ii) include a 22 percent reduction in SWP supplies to deal with potential SWP cutbacks due to Delta smelt and other concerns. Thus, the water supply tables set forth below are predicated on the assumption that Metropolitan supply will be constrained in the future. It is certainly possible in future years that a more favorable Water Supply Allocation will be applied to the City and it is also possible that SWP supplies will not be reduced by as much as 22 percent. In these circumstances, imported water supplies available to the City will be significantly higher than the supply projections shown in this WSA. This analysis was completed for the end of the 20-year planning period.

5-28 September 2009

Table 5.4 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand

Normal Year (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF)

Water Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Normal Water Years Imported[1] 29,090 30,430 29,560 29,640 29,640 Local (Groundwater)[2] 52,110 54,500 56,460 58,360 59,310

Total Supply 81,200 84,930 86,020 88,000 88,950 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 76,170 78,040 79,760 81,500 81,960 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,440 1,940 2,450 2,950 3,450 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 90 540 990 1,440 1,800 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 210 330 330 330 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 30 610 740 880 980

Total Demand 77,770 81,340 84,270 87,100 88,520 Supply/ Demand Difference 3,430 3,590 1,750 900 430

Difference as % of Supply 4.2 4.2 2.0 1.0 0.5 Difference as % of Demand 4.4 4.4 2.1 1.0 0.5

[1] This figure represents Average Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Average Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.

MWD Average Year Supply 2,465,140 2,579,140 2,505,040 2,512,040 2,512,040 [2] This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. [3] This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. [4] This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. [5] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes (1) 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus (2) existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and (3) 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. [6] Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. [7] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City.

5-29 September 2009

Table 5.5 City of Anaheim Projected Water Supply and Demand

Single Dry Year (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF)

Water Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply Single Dry Years Imported[1] 38,390 40,570 41,140 40,590 40,010 Local (Groundwater)[2] 54,970 57,500 59,560 61,570 62,570

Total Supply 93,360 98,070 100,700 102,160 102,580 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 80,360 82,340 84,140 85,980 86,470 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,520 2,050 2,580 3,110 3,640 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 90 570 1,040 1,520 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 40 220 350 350 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 30 640 780 930 1,030

% of Normal Year Demand 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 105.5 Total Single Dry Year Demand 82,040 85,820 88,890 91,890 93,390

Supply/ Demand Difference 11,320 12,250 11,810 10,270 9,190 Difference as % of Supply 12.1 12.5 11.7 10.1 9.0

Difference as % of Demand 13.8 14.3 13.3 11.2 9.8 [1] This figure represents Single Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Single Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.

MWD Single Dry Year Supply 3,253,640 3,438,180 3,486,560 3,439,560 3,390,560 [2] This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. [3] This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. [4] This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. [5] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes (1) 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus (2) existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and (3) 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. [6] Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. [7] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City.

5-30 September 2009

It should be noted that imported water supplies are increased in single and multiple dry years consistent with Metropolitan’s RUWMP and IRP Reports due to the fact that in dry years Metropolitan draws water from surface and groundwater storage programs. These withdrawals from storage are illustrated, numerically, in Appendix B, which are extracted from Metropolitan’s 2006 IRP.

5-31 September 2009

Table 5.6 City of Anaheim

Projected Water Supply and Demand Multiple Dry Water Years 2006-2010

(AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 29,090 29,090 30,680 30,680 30,680 Local (Groundwater)[2] 50,890 51,130 54,820 53,630 54,970

Total Supply 79,980 80,220 85,500 84,310 85,650 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 74,690 75,060 80,480 78,600 80,360 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 1,260 1,260 1,340 1,400 1,520 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 0 0 0 0 90 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 0 0 0 40 40 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 0 0 0 0 30

% of Normal Year Demand 100.0 100.0 106.7 103.7 105.5 Total Multiple Year Demand 75,950 76,320 81,820 80,040 82,040

Supply/Demand Difference 4,030 3,900 3,680 4,270 3,610 Difference as % of Supply 5.0 4.9 4.3 5.1 4.2

Difference as % of Demand 5.3 5.1 4.5 5.3 4.4 [1] This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report has been reduced by 22% pursuant to the 2007 IRP Implementation Report (page 1-8). See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.

MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,465,140 2,465,140 2,599,760 2,599,760 2,599,760 [2] This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. [3] This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. [4] This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. [5] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes (1) 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus (2) existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and (3) 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. [6] Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. [7] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. [8] Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP).

5-32 September 2009









MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,579,140 2,579,140 2,653,060 2,653,060 2,653,060 [2] This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. [3] This figure represents normal year demand based updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. [4] This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. [5] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes (1) 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus (2) existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and (3) 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. [6] Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. [7] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. [8] Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP).

5-33 September 2009



(AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF) Water Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 29,560 29,560 31,690 31,690 31,690 Local (Groundwater)[2] 53,510 53,810 57,750 56,450 57,830

Total Supply 83,070 83,370 89,440 88,140 89,520 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 78,390 78,730 84,370 82,350 84,140 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 2,050 2,150 2,400 2,430 2,580 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 630 720 870 940 1,050 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 210 210 220 220 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 640 660 740 740 780





5-34 September 2009





Total Supply 84,770 85,080 91,090 89,740 91,080 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 80,100 80,450 86,210 84,150 85,980 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 2,550 2,650 2,930 2,950 3,110 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 1,080 1,170 1,350 1,400 1,520 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 330 330 350 340 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 770 800 880 880 920





5-35 September 2009



(AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF)Water Sources 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030


Total Supply 86,150 86,300 91,990 90,440 91,520 Demand Total Demand without Proposed Project, KPMC and ARSP[3] 81,590 81,680 87,250 84,900 86,470 Existing + Approved Platinum Triangle Demand[4] 3,050 3,150 3,470 3,470 3,640 Additional Proposed Project Demand[5] 1,530 1,620 1,830 1,870 1,900 Additional KPMC Demand[6] 330 330 350 340 350 Additional ARSP Demand[7] 900 930 1,020 1,020 1,030





5-36 September 2009

6.0 POSSIBLE WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE As stated previously throughout this WSA, the past couple of years introduced a number of water supply challenges for Metropolitan and its service area. Critical dry conditions affected all of Metropolitan’s main supply sources. In addition, as discussed above, a ruling in the Federal Courts in August 2007 required protective measures for the Delta Smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta which raised uncertainty about future pumping operations from the SWP. This uncertainty, along with the impacts of recent dry conditions, raised the possibility that Metropolitan would not have access to the supplies necessary to meet total firm demands and would have to allocate shortages in supplies to its member agencies. Several relatively recent news articles based on Metropolitan press releases have estimated a 30 percent or perhaps greater reduction in water supply from the SWP for the coming year and possibly into the future dependent on weather conditions in the SWP tributary area. In fact on April 14, 2009, Metropolitan adopted a Level 2 Allocation, which equates to a 10 percent reduction in regional water supplies. As set forth above, this WSA has already included (i) the use of a Level 10 Allocation percentage for calculation Anaheim’s share of water supplies in future years (the lowest water allocation scenario possible) and (ii) a 22 percent reduction in SWP supplies to account for Delta smelt and other possible systemic supply limitations on the SWP. The utilization of these two factors in this WSA already accommodates possible future supply reductions due to Delta smelt and reduced snow pack possibilities. However, in order to ensure that this WSA also included a worse-case scenario, this Section 6 includes analyses based on the assumption that SWP deliveries will be reduced by both 35 and 40 percent. Thus, this Section 6 analyses includes assumed 35 and 40 percent reductions in SWP supplies under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios. Section 5.4 above addresses these same scenarios (Tables 5.4 through 5.10) based on supply conditions projected in Metropolitan’s 2006 and 2007 IRP Implementation Reports. The following analysis, while potentially beyond the scope and requirements of a SB 610 analysis addressing a three-year drought scenario, was deemed necessary in light of the recent drought and environmental issues in the Delta. In Tables 5.4 through 5.10 preceding, Metropolitan supplies were projected based on their 2006 IRP Implementation Report with SWP supplies reduced by 22 percent based on Metropolitan’s 2007 IRP Implementation Report (Appendix B). Tables 6.1 through 6.14 following present the same normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios with two additional reductions in SWP supplies, over and above the 22 percent reduction from Section 5. The first set of additional scenarios, presented in Tables 6.1 through 6.7, analyzes an additional 13 percent reduction in SWP supplies or a total reduction in SWP supplies of 35 percent and the second set, presented in Tables 6.8 through 6.14, analyzes an additional 18 percent or a total reduction in SWP supplies of 40 percent (see Appendix B for the calculation of these various Metropolitan SWP supply shortages).

6-1 September 2009

Under the 35 percent SWP shortage scenarios, supply deficiencies occur during the normal water year demand conditions (Table 6.1) in year 2020 and beyond, but by definition, these supply shortage conditions are not really “normal year” scenarios. Shortages are also shown during the multiple dry year scenarios for years 2016 to 2020 (only in one year and by only 50 AFY) (Table 6.5), 2021 to 2025 (Table 6.6), and years 2026 to 2030 (Table 6.7). The 40 percent reduction scenarios show shortages during normal water year demand conditions (Table 6.8) in year 2010 and beyond, but again these are really not “normal year” scenarios. Shortages are also shown during the multiple dry year scenarios for the same years as the 35 percent reduction scenarios, but slightly more exaggerated. From Tables 6.1 through 6.7 (35 percent SWP supply reduction), the most significant shortage of 2,660 acre-feet occurs during year 2030 under normal water year conditions (Table 6.1). The “normal year” supply and demand condition represents the worst case scenario because under normal conditions Metropolitan does not draw supply from storage as they typically would during times of shortage. In Table 6.1, it is assumed there is a 35 percent reduction in SWP supply with no supplemental water from Metropolitan’s storage programs. Even so, the 2,660 acre-feet shortage can be met by a 3.0 percent reduction in demand through conservation or alternatively by increased groundwater pumping. Similarly, from Tables 6.8 through 6.14 (40 percent SWP supply reduction), the most significant shortage is 3,850 acre-feet and corresponds to a 4.3 percent reduction in demand or increased groundwater pumping. Under temporary Metropolitan allocation shortages, the City would trigger its Conservation Ordinance and call for at least a 10% reduction in usage by all customer classes with rate penalties if users exceed 90 percent of their previous year’s water use. A 10 percent reduction in demand is included in the above tables as necessary (Tables 6.1, 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7) which would eliminate any supply deficiencies. This small level of conservation reduction in demand should be easily achievable as demonstrated during past severe drought conditions in Anaheim and throughout other areas in southern California. Based on historical consumption data provided by the City of Anaheim (Appendix C), during drought conditions in 1991, when the City last implemented its Conservation Ordinance, consumption was reduced by over 13 percent from the previous year. Based on consumption records from 1986 through 1996, an average increase in consumption of 2 percent per year is calculated excluding the year 1991 (Conservation Ordinance Year). It could be assumed that under normal conditions the consumption in 1991 would have increased by 2 percent to account for average growth, as well. The 13 percent actual reduction in water use in 1991 when combined with the typical 2 percent increase under normal conditions would equate to approximately a 15 percent reduction in water consumption for that year. In addition, the City could order a mandatory reduction or cut in landscaping irrigation through its Water Conservation Ordinance. If this were to occur, it is estimated that the City could easily achieve a water reduction of 20 percent, which would equate to between 15,000 and 20,000 AFY at current or 2030 timeframes, respectively.

6-2 September 2009

In addition to water conservation, any future water supply deficiencies during shortage conditions could alternatively be met by additional groundwater pumping in excess of OCWD’s assumed Basin Production Percentage of 67 percent. It should be noted that additional supplies would trigger higher rates via OCWD’s Basin Equity Assessment. Higher groundwater rates would likely be offset by penalties charged to the few customers that don’t achieve their individual conservation goal and exceed 90 percent of their previous year’s usage. The highest shortages experienced in these scenarios is 2,660 AF and 3,850 AF for the 35 and 40 percent reduction scenarios, respectively, in 2030 under a normal year condition and this is without any conservation. If necessary, this additional quantity of water could easily be produced from the City’s wells in the Anaheim Lake area (see Figure 5.1) without overtaxing any of these wells or adversely impacting the Basin or any other wells located within the Basin. Thus, extracting up to 3,850 AF from the groundwater basin from existing Anaheim wells would not cause any significant environmental effects. It should be noted that Metropolitan actually shows less supply being available during normal years than single and multiple dry years since they plan to pull water from their various storage programs during these dry periods as shown on the supply tables from their IRP in Appendix B. As set forth in this Section 6, even under the extreme assumption of a 35 percent SWP cutback and the use of a Level 10 Allocation percentage, it is anticipated that water supplies will remain stable in normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2030 with the exception of scenarios identified, where demand exceeds supply ranging from (1) a low of 1,350 AF in year 2020, to 2,660 AF in year 2030 for the 35 percent reduction scenarios and (2) a low of 740 AF in year 2010, to 3,850 AF in year 2030 for the 40 percent reduction scenarios. Again, it is unlikely that the severe assumptions contained in this Section 6 will materialize. In addition, as set forth above, it is anticipated that the utilization of the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance if needed, including the mandatory cuts authorized by section 10.18.070 of the Ordinance, could easily achieve water use savings in an amount sufficient to make up for the identified shortfalls set forth in the tables. Moreover, even assuming water conservation somehow does not achieve the necessary water use savings, the identified hypothetical shortfalls could easily be met through groundwater production from City wells. Extracting 2,660 to 3,850 AF from the groundwater basin from existing Anaheim wells would not cause any significant environmental effects. Thus, this WSA does not envision any significant impacts with respect to water resources resulting from approval of the Proposed Project. Nevertheless, in order to be conservative, recommended mitigation measures have been developed and are presented in Section 7, Conclusions. As set forth above, this WSA does not envision any significant impact resulting from approval of the Proposed Project; thus no significant impacts were identified that require mitigation. Nevertheless, because of the programmatic nature of the proposed project, these mitigation measures have been recommended in order to ensure that future water supplies are in fact available to serve future specific proposed projects.

6-3 September 2009

Table 6.1 Anaheim

Projected Water Supply and Demand Under Temporary 35% Metropolitan SWP Water Supply Shortage




Total Demand 77,770 81,340 84,270 87,100 88,520 Supply/Demand Difference 420 580 -1,350 -2,190 -2,660

Percent Conservation Required - - 1.6% 2.5% 3.0%

[1] This figure represents Average Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Average Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.


6-4 September 2009

Table 6.2 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference 9,580 10,440 9,810 8,270 7,190 [1] This figure represents Single Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Single Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.

MWD Single Dry Year Supply 3,105,700 3,284,650 3,317,300 3,270,300 3,221,300 [2] This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. [3] This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. [4] This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. [5] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes (1) 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus (2) existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and (3) 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. [6] Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. [7] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City.

6-5 September 2009

Table 6.3 Anaheim


Multiple Dry Years 2006-2010 (AFY – All projections rounded to nearest 10 AF)

Water Sources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Supply Normal Years Dry Years[8] Imported[1] 26,080 26,080 28,770 28,770 28,770 Local (Groundwater)[2] 50,890 51,130 54,820 53,630 54,970



Supply/Demand Difference 1,020 890 1,770 2,360 1,700 [1] This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.


6-6 September 2009

Table 6.4 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference 2,070 1,910 2,130 2,570 1,940 [1] This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.


6-7 September 2009

Table 6.5 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference 100 -50 1,380 2,030 1,340

Percent Conservation Required - 0.1% - - - [1] This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.


6-8 September 2009

Table 6.6 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference -600 -760 440 1,110 450

Percent Conservation Required 0.7% 0.9% - - - [1] This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.


6-9 September 2009

Table 6.7 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference -1,290 -1,350 -310 460 -80

Percent Conservation Required 1.5% 1.6% 0.3% - 0.1% [1] This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 35% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.


6-10 September 2009

Table 6.8 Anaheim





Total Demand 77,770 81,340 84,270 87,100 88,520 Supply/Demand Difference -740 -580 -2,540 -3,380 -3,850

Percent Conservation Required 1.0% 0.7% 3.0% 3.9% 4.3%

[1] This figure represents Average Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Average Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.


6-11 September 2009

Table 6.9 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference 8,910 9,740 9,050 7,500 6,420 [1] This figure represents Single Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Single Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.

MWD Single Dry Year Supply 3,048,800 3,225,600 3,252,200 3,205,200 3,156,200 [2] This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. [3] This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. [4] This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification. [5] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes (1) 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus (2) existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and (3) 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. [6] Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. [7] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City.

6-12 September 2009

Table 6.10 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference -140 -270 1,040 1,630 970

Percent Conservation Required 0.2% 0.4% - - - [1] This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.

MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,111,800 2,111,800 2,376,200 2,376,200 2,376,200 [2] This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. [3] This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. [4] This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification.

[5] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes (1) 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus (2) existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and (3) 1,804 AFY from the current WSA. [6] Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. [7] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. [8] Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP).

6-13 September 2009

Table 6.11 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference 910 750 1,460 1,900 1,270 [1] This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.

MWD Multi Dry Year Supply 2,225,800 2,225,800 2,450,200 2,450,200 2,450,200 [2] This figure represents 67% of total Anaheim Water Demand based on the anticipated BPP forecasts as discussed previously in this WSA. [3] This figure represents normal year demand updated to reflect recent (up to 2008) water use data, current growth projections, and excludes any of the Proposed Project Demand. [4] This figure includes additional demand for The Platinum Triangle addressed previously in the February 2005 WSA (2,656 AFY at buildout) as well as existing landscape irrigation demand and existing demands for the Arena (Honda Center) and Angel Stadium of Anaheim that were also included in the February 2005 WSA as part of the overall existing Citywide demands as they were to remain unchanged by any land use intensification.

[5] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification as a result of the revised project description that was not included in the 2005 UWMP. Total Project demand equals 5,249 AFY at buildout which includes (1) 2,656 AFY from the February 2005 WSA plus (2) existing demands of 551 AFY and 238 AFY for existing landscape irrigation and the Arena/Stadium, respectively, which were included as existing demands in the February 2005 WSA and the 2005 UWMP and (3) 1,804 AFY from the current WSA.

[6] Based on demands from May 2007 WSA. [7] This figure represents additional demand based on increase in land use intensification proposed in a WSA being processed concurrently by the City. [8] Multi dry year demand = (normal year demand) x (106.7%, 103.7%, and 105.5% for years 1, 2, and 3 multiple dry year demand factors developed by MWDOC in their 2005 UWMP).

6-14 September 2009

Table 6.12 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference -1,090 -1,240 670 1,320 630

Percent Conservation Required 1.4% 1.5% - - -

[1] This figure represents Multiple Dry Year Supply under extreme conditions consistent with the preceding Metropolitan WSAP discussion. MWD's Multiple Dry Year Supply set forth in MWD's 2006 IRP Implementation Report with 40% reduction in SWP supply. See Appendix B tables for calculation of reduction.


6-15 September 2009

Table 6.13 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference -1,790 -1,950 -280 390 -270

Percent Conservation Required 2.2% 2.4% 0.3% - 0.3%



6-16 September 2009

Table 6.14 Anaheim






Supply/Demand Difference -2,480 -2,540 -1,030 -260 -800

Percent Conservation Required 2.9% 3.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.9%



6-17 September 2009

September 2009 7-1

7.0 CONCLUSION Water Demand The City’s water demand during the 20-year planning period is projected to range from 77,770 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2009/10 to 88,520 AFY in 2029/30. This projection is consistent with the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) water demand increase projections to include overall City growth. The demand projections from the 2005 UWMP were adjusted to account for lower current water demand based on recent water purchases and sales data provided by the City. The 2005 UWMP projections for future demand were also adjusted upwards to reflect the recent OCP – 2006 Population Projections released in December of 2008. This demand projection also includes the added demands from The Proposed Project, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion Project. The City’s 2005 UWMP included water demand projections for The Platinum Triangle, as analyzed for FSEIR No. 332, from the previously adopted 2005 WSA. The build out demand included in the 2005 UWMP for The Platinum Triangle was 2,656 AFY. The Proposed Project would increase this demand by approximately 1,804 AFY. In order to be conservative and for purposes of this WSA, the build out of the Proposed Project is estimated to occur consistent within the 20-year time horizon typically associated with the General Plan; however total build out of the Proposed Project will likely extend beyond the 20-year period. While groundwater supply is expected to remain relatively stable throughout the forecast period, the development phasing plan also allows for the potential to have water demands met from sources that are currently being planned, developed and implemented within the region, including additional conservation programs, recycled water, and desalted water. Supply Projections Analysis of water supply projections for the City demonstrates that projected supplies will exceed demands through fiscal year 2029/30. These projections consider water development programs and projects as well as water conservation, as described in the City’s 2005 UWMP. The City’s groundwater and imported water supplies are anticipated to remain stable based on studies and reports from OCWD and Metropolitan, respectively. The City’s water supply projection is based on up to 67 percent groundwater, based on an expected average long-term Basin Production Percentage (BPP), and its share of imported water confirmed reliable by Metropolitan. Additionally, analysis of normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios also demonstrate the City’s ability to meet or exceed demand during the 20-year planning period, even under reduced imported water supply conditions.

7-2 September 2009

Additionally, if extraordinary circumstances require, the City can meet its water demand by (1) increasing production of groundwater beyond the BPP up to the basin safe yield, (2) increasing imported water purchases, and/or (3) decreasing demand through water conservation measures. The City’s 2005 UWMP used an existing demand for 2004/05 of 73,772 AFY, which was based on the average of the previous five years exclusive of the actual 2004/05 sales (thrown out because it was such a wet year). To illustrate the effectiveness of conservation, the actual 2007/08 sales were 71,046 AF and if the existing demand from the 2004/05 based demand utilized in the 2005 UWMP is projected out to 2007/08 using the incremental growth rate assumed in the 2005 UWMP (6.3 percent from 2005 to 2010) it would be approximately 76,520 AF. Therefore, the City is more than 5,000 AFY below the demands projected in the 2005 UWMP just three years ago. This is almost entirely due to conservation efforts of residents, businesses, and City staff. To reflect the reduced growth in water demand that has occurred since the UWMP, updated water sales for 2006/07 of 73,871 AF (excluding unaccounted for water) and a total water demand of 76,687 AF (including unaccounted for water) was used as an estimate of existing (2008) water demand. Water demand for 2006/07 was used to estimate current use because that year experienced the highest water sales volume over the past seven years and is considered the most conservative estimate. Projected water demands were calculated using the recently released OCP – 2006 Population and Housing Projections and a water demand increase of 75 percent of projected housing unit growth using the updated 2008 estimated water demand as a starting point. Reliability of future water supplies to the region will be ensured through continued implementation of the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, OCWD’s Long Term Facilities Plan, local agency programs, and the combined efforts and programs among member and cooperative agencies of Metropolitan. These agencies include all water wholesalers and retailers, the Orange County Sanitation District, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. These programs are described in the City’s 2005 UWMP and supplemented in Section 5 of this water supply assessment. Collectively, the information included in this water supply assessment identifies a sufficient and reliable water supply for the City, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for The Platinum Triangle as projected in the February 2005 Platinum Triangle WSA, plus the currently proposed intensification of land use within The Platinum Triangle. These supplies are also sufficient to provide (and account) for growth projected in the 2005 UWMP, the previously approved May 2007 WSA for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Convention Center Expansion project being processed concurrently with this WSA by the City.

As set forth in Section 6, even under the extreme assumption of a 35 percent SWP cutback and the use of a Level 10 Allocation percentage, it is anticipated that water supplies will remain stable in normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2030 with the exception of scenarios identified, where demand exceeds supply ranging from (1) a low of 1,350 AF in year 2020, to 2,660 AF in year 2030 for the 35 percent reduction scenarios and (2) a low of 740 AF in year 2010, to 3,850 AF in year 2030 for the 40 percent reduction scenarios. Again, it is unlikely that the severe assumptions contained in Section 6 will materialize. In addition, as set forth above, it is anticipated that the utilization of the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance if needed, including the mandatory cuts authorized by section 10.18.070 of the Ordinance, could easily achieve water use savings in an amount sufficient to make up for the identified shortfalls set forth in the Section 6 tables. Moreover, even assuming water conservation somehow does not achieve the necessary water use savings, the identified hypothetical shortfalls could easily be met through groundwater production from City wells. Extracting 2,660 to 3,850 AF from the groundwater basin from existing Anaheim wells would not cause any significant environmental effects. Thus, this WSA does not envision any significant impacts with respect to water resources resulting from approval of the proposed Platinum Triangle project. Nevertheless, in order to be conservative, the Mitigation Measures set forth below are recommended. It should be noted that impacts are less than significant even without the implementation of these mitigation measures. However, the implementation of these mitigation measures will assist the City in ensuring that water supplies remain reliable into the future. Mitigation Measure No. 1: City shall continue to collaborate with Metropolitan, its member agencies, and OCWD to ensure that available water supplies meet anticipated demand. If it is forecast that water demand exceeds available supplies, the City shall trigger application of its Water Conservation Ordinance, Municipal Code section 10.18, as prescribed, to require mandatory conservation measures as authorized by section 10.18.070 through 10.18090, as appropriate. Mitigation Measure No. 2: All residential, office and commercial landscaping for projects located within The Platinum Triangle shall utilize drought tolerant plant materials with a plant factor of 0.5 or less pursuant to the publication entitled “Water Use Classification of Landscape Species” by the U. C. Cooperative Extension, August 2000. Mitigation Measure No. 3: All new development within The Platinum Triangle shall include water efficient design features including, but not limited to (as applicable to the type of development at issue) waterless water heaters, waterless urinals, automatic on and off water facets, and water efficient appliances. Mitigation Measure No. 4: All new development within The Platinum Triangle shall construct separate irrigation lines for recycled water. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water. Mitigation Measure No. 5: In accordance with existing law, City shall require that all future projects exceeding the statutory thresholds set forth in SB 610 and SB 221

7-3 September 2009

demonstrate that adequate water supply exists to serve the proposed project prior to approval. If it cannot be demonstrated that adequate water exists to serve the specific project, the project shall not be approved.

7-4 September 2009

8.0 REFERENCES The following documents were used, in conjunction with discussions with the City of Anaheim, in preparing this water supply assessment:

American Water Works Association Website, Available: http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Home/WaterInformation/Conservation/WaterUseStatistics/tabid/85/Default.aspx. December 2008

Center for Demographic Research, Orange County Facts and Figures, Available:

http://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/countyfacts.pdf. City of Anaheim, Draft Amendment to The Platinum Triangle MLUP SEIR No. 334,

2008. City of Anaheim, Initial Study for The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and

Associated Actions, December 2004. City of Anaheim, Master Land Use Plan, The Platinum Triangle, October 25, 2005. City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department, The Platinum Triangle Water Supply

Assessment, February 2005. City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department, The Platinum Triangle Water Supply

Assessment Amendment, February 2007. City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department, The Platinum Triangle and Kaiser

Permanente Medical Center Water Supply Assessment, May 2007. City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department, Urban Water Management Plan,

December 2005. Department of Water Resources (DWR), Bulletin 118-1 Basin Description for Coastal

Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin Number 8-1, September 5, 2001. DWR, 2005 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report. DWR, 2007 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, August 2008. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), Water Revenue Refunding

Bonds, 2008 Series C, Appendix A, July 2008. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), The Regional Urban Water

Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, November 2005.

September 2009 8-1

http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Home/WaterInformation/Conservation/WaterUseStatistics/tabid/85/Default.aspx


http://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/countyfacts.pdf

8-2 September 2009

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), Integrated Water Resources Plan Update, July 2004. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2006 Integrated Water

Resources Plan Implementation Report, October 2006. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2007 Integrated Water

Resources Plan Implementation Report, October 2007. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2009 Water Supply

Allocation Plan – Allocation Model, 2009. Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), Regional Urban Water Management Plan, 2005. Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), South Orange County Water Reliability Study: Phase 2 System Reliability Plan, September 2004. Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) Website, Available:

http://www.mwdoc.com. 2002. Office of the Secretary of State. Annexation No. 10 to State of California, December 11, 1961. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Orange County Water District 2020 Master

Plan Report, 2000. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Engineer’s Report, 2006-2007. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Water Resource Report. Orange County Board

Meeting and Public Hearing, January 21, 2009. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Annual Water Budget and Water Replenishment

Fund Balance. Orange County Board Meeting and Public Hearing, January 7, 2009. Orange County Water District (OCWD), The OCWD Act. Orange County Water District (OCWD), OCWD v. City of Chino, et al, (Civ. Case No.

117628), Judgment and Settlement Documents. Orange County Water District (OCWD), Draft Groundwater Management Plan Update

2009, May 8, 2009. University of California Cooperative Extension, Water Use Classification of Landscape

Species, August 2000.

http://www.mwdoc.com/

APPENDIX A WATER DEMAND FACTOR SUPPORT DATA

AWWA Home Search Â

Water Information Conservation Conservation at Home Conservation Outside Straight Talk on Conservation Drought Fact Sheet Water Use Statistics People Behind the Water Your Water Utility

HomeÂ >Â Water InformationÂ >Â ConservationÂ >Â Water Use Statistics

Water Use Statistics

Daily indoor per capita water use in the typical single family home is 69.3 gallons. Here is how it breaks down:

Use Gallons per Capita Percentage of Total Daily Use

Showers 11.6 16.8%

Clothes Washers 15.0 21.7%

Dishwashers 1.0 1.4%

Toilets 18.5 26.7%

Baths 1.2 1.7%

Leaks 9.5 13.7%

Faucets 10.9 15.7%

Other Domestic Uses 1.6 2.2%

By installing more efficient water fixtures and regularly checking for leaks, households can reduce daily per capita water use by about 35% to about 45.2 gallons per day Here's how it breaks down for households using conservation measures:

Use Gallons per Capita Percentage of Total Daily Use

Showers 8.8 19.5%

Clothes Washers 10.0 22.1%

Toilets 8.2 18.0%

Dishwashers 0.7 1.5%

Baths 1.2 2.7%

Leaks 4.0 8.8%

Faucets 10.8 23.9%

Other Domestic Uses 1.6 3.4%

Source: Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Amy Vickers

http://www.awwa.org/

http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/LinkClick.aspx?link=57&tabid=85&mid=593














http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Home/tabid/53/Default.aspx

http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Home/WaterInformation/tabid/57/Default.aspx

http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Home/WaterInformation/Conservation/tabid/66/Default.aspx


http://www.awwa.org/Bookstore/productDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=4322

If all U.S. households installed water-saving features, water use would decrease by 30 percent, saving an estimated 5.4 billion gallons per day. This would result in dollar-volume savings of $11.3 million per day or more than $4 billion per year.

Water-conserving fixtures installed in U.S. households in 1998 alone save 44 million gallons of water every day, resulting in total dollar-value savings of more than $33.6 million per year.

Average household water use annually: 127,400 gallons Average daily household water use : 350 gallons

Â Residential End Uses of Water (Denver, Colo.: AWWARF, 1999).

Login Here Register 11/25/2008

http://www.awwa.org/Bookstore/productDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=4295

http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Home/WaterInformation/Conservation/WaterUseStatistics/tabid/85/ctl/Login/Default.aspx?returnurl=%2fconsumerdnn%2fHome%2fWaterInformation%2fConservation%2fWaterUseStatistics%2ftabid%2f85%2fDefault.aspx

http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Home/WaterInformation/Conservation/WaterUseStatistics/tabid/85/ctl/Register/Default.aspx

IRWD Annual Recycled Water and Domestic Water Use for Dual-Plumbed Buildings (Building Use Only)

Site Address Description No. of Floors

Approx. Building SF

Annual RW CCF

RW gpd per ksf

Annual Potable

CCFPotable gpd/ksf

Total Use gpd/ksf

Percent Savings

#3 Park Plaza Jamboree Center 19 400,000 10477 54 5118 26 80 67.2%#4 Park Plaza Jamboree Center 19 400,000 10913 56 5695 29 85 65.7%15600 Sand Canyon IRWD Headquarters 2 50,000 197 8 128 5 13 60.6%3512 Michelson IRWD Operations-Admin 2 50,000 342 14 0 14 100.0%2020 Main Street Sun Microsystems Bldg. 12 282,000 3040 22 370 3 25 89.1%1900 Main Street California Bank & Trust Bldg. 8 178,000 3246 37 1777 20 58 64.6%18191 Von Karman Northwestern Mutual Bldg. 5 128,000 2157 35 1198 19 54 64.3%18111 Von Karman Ernst & Young Bldg. 10 237,000 5093 44 1666 14 58 75.4%1901 Main Street Smith & Barney 8 178,000 6648 77 3295 38 114 66.9%7895 Gateway Ford Product Development Bldg. 2 77,000 5669 151 3446 92 243 62.2%7905 Gateway Ford Motor Co. Bldg. 5 176,000 6420 75 5237 61 136 55.1%2040 Main Street Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear Bldg. 14 300,000 8866 61 151 1 62 98.3%17872 Gillette Avenue Washington Mutual 4 87,000 2139 50 25 1 51 98.8%

Totals 2,543,000 65207 53 17165 14 66 79.2%

CITY OF ANAHEIM BUILDING WATER USE

OFFICE/COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Address# of

stories Total Area (sf)Average Water

Use (gpd)*Avg. Water Use per

1000 sf (gpd/ksf)CITY HALL EAST 200 S. Anaheim 6 130,350 9,327 72CITY HALL WEST 201 S. Anaheim 11 219,274 12,002 55RESOURCE ASSET MANAGMENT; CO LLC/Bank of America 200 Harbor 10 105,280 5,465 52ARDEN REALTY FINANCE PRTNRS LP/WellsFargo 222 Harbor 10 195,000 7,845 40TAORMINA, WILLIAM COSMO; TR 201 E. Center St. 6 28,103 2,112 75GRE STADIUM CENTRE LLC/BALLY TOTAL FITNESS #60418 2099 State College 6 128,130 11,069 862401 KATELLA LLC 2401 Katella 6 112,800 8,356 74

918,937 Average 65Weighted Avg. 61

APARTMENTS Address# of

unitsAverage Water

Use (gpd)*Use per Unit

(gpd/unit)ANAHEIM MEMORIAL MANOR 275 E. Center St. 75 9,044 121VILLAGE CENTER APARTMENTS 200 E. Lincoln 100 13,669 137

Average 129Weighted Avg. 129.79

*data collected from meter readings dated from 2005 to 2007

Water Resources Master Plan 3-57/16/03 C:\Arcdata\WRMP2002\Ch3\chapter3wsa0716.fm

Water Use Factors

Land Use Local Demands Irrigation Demands

Code Land Use description AgencyAverage Density

Local Interior

Local Exterior Total

% Irrigated

AreaIrrigation

Factor

1100 Residential DU/Ac Gal/DU/Day Gal/Ac/Day1111 Res - Rural Density Orange 0.30 300 750 1,050 5 2,800

1121 Res - Estate Density Orange 1.20 300 300 600 8 2,900

1131 Res - Low Density Orange 4.00 300 300 600 15 2,900

1141 Res - Low-Medium Density Orange 10.50 200 100 300 22 3,300

1161 Res - Medium Density Orange 19.50 225 185 410 17 3,100

1122 Res - Estate Density Irvine 0.50 300 600 900 7 2,800

1132 Res - Low Density Irvine 3.00 225 180 405 16 3,000

1162 Res - Medium Density Irvine 7.50 200 110 310 20 3,100

1172 Res - Medium-High Density Irvine 17.50 165 15 180 25 3,600

1182 Res - High Density Irvine 32.50 180 20 200 20 3,300

1192 Res - High-Rise Density Irvine 40 180 20 200 20 3,300

1133 Res - Low Density Newport Beach 1.00 250 190 440 17 3,100

1153 Res - Medium-Low Density Newport Beach 2.75 250 200 450 10 2,800

1163 Res - Medium Density Newport Beach 5.00 190 60 250 22 3,300

1183 Res - High Density Newport Beach 12.25 155 20 175 25 3,600

1134 Res - Low Density PC Tustin 4.50 225 185 410 17 3,100

1164 Res - Medium Density PC Tustin 11.80 155 15 170 25 3,600

1184 Res - High Density PC Tustin 17.40 135 15 150 15 3,700

1115 Res - Rural Density County 0.26 300 750 1,050 5 2,800

1135 Res - Suburban Density County 9.25 225 180 405 16 3,000

1175 Res - Urban Density County 29.00 165 15 180 25 3,600

1126 Res - Estate Density Lake Forest 0.50 300 600 900 7 2,800

1136 Res - Low Density Lake Forest 3.00 225 180 405 16 3,000

1166 Res - Medium Density Lake Forest 7.50 200 110 310 20 3,100

1176 Res - Medium-High Density Lake Forest 17.50 165 15 180 25 3,600

1186 Res - High Density Lake Forest 32.50 180 20 200 20 3,300

1200 Commercial KSF/Ac Gal/KSF/Day Gal/Ac/Day1210 Comm - General Office 25.00 56 4 60 30 4,000

1221 Comm - Community 9.09 209 11 220 30 3,500

1222 Comm - Regional 10.53 180.5 9.5 190 20 5,000

1230 Comm - Recreation 8.33 54 6 60 30 4,500

1240 Comm - Institutional 8.88 39.38 5.62 45 50 2,750

1244 Comm - Hospital 8.70 218.50 11.50 230 25 2,850

1260 Comm - School 13.33 14.25 0.75 15 50 2,500

1273 Comm - Military Air Field

1300 Industrial KSF/Ac Gal/KSF/Day Gal/Ac/Day1310 Industrial - Light 25.00 56 4 60 25 4,000

1320 Industrial - Heavy 25.00 4,500 500 5,000 25 4,000

Open Space & Other Gal/Ac/Day1820 Park - Community 90 3,400

1830 Park - Regional 85 2,100

2100 AG - Low-Irrigated 100 1,800

2110 AG - Low-Irrigated (TIC) 100 1,800

2200 AG - High-Irrigated 100 3,100

2210 AG - High-Irrigated (TIC) 100 3,100

Note: The database includes the following land use codes that do not use set factors or do not generate water demands:0 = area not served by IRWD; 1411 = Airports; 1413 = Freeway and Major Roads; 1850 = Park-Wildlife Preserve; 1880 = Park-Open Space (Rec); 1900 = Vacant; 4100 = Water Body; 9100-9199 = Mixed Use (uses a combination of factors)

Table 3-1 Land Use and Water Use Factors

APPENDIX B

METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY SUPPORT DATA

Multiple Dry Single Dry Average Hydrology Years Year Year

(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)

Current ProgramsMetropolitan Surface Storage 244,000 733,000 0(DVL, Mathews, Skinner) Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 73,000 219,000 0Groundwater Conjunctive-use Long Term Replenishment and Cyclic Storage 86,000 86,000 0 North Las Posas Storage 47,000 47,000 0 Proposition 13 Storage 65,000 65,000 0Subtotal of Current Programs 515,000 1,150,000 0

Programs Under DevelopmentGroundwater Conjunctive-use Raymond Basin 22,000 22,000 0 Prop 13 Storage Programs 4,000 4,000 0 Walnut Park CUP 500 500 0 Additional Programs1 55,000 55,000 0Subtotal of Proposed Programs 82,000 82,000 0

Maximum Supply Capability 597,000 1,232,000 0

1 Includes expansions of existing programs

In Basin Storage ActivitiesProgram Capabilities

Year 2010(acre-feet per year)


(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)








(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)








(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)








(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)








(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)

Current ProgramsSWP Deliveries 1,2 509,000 175,000 1,472,000San Luis Carryover 3 93,000 285,550 285,550SWP Call-back of DWCV Table A Transfer 26,000 5,000 0Central Valley Storage and Transfers Semitropic Program 107,000 107,000 0 Arvin Edison Program 90,000 90,000 0 San Bernardino Valley MWD Program 37,000 70,000 20,000 Kern Delta Program 50,000 50,000 0Subtotal of Current Programs 912,000 783,000 1,778,000

Programs Under DevelopmentDelta Improvements 4 55,000 55,000 185,000Market Transfer Options 150,000 200,000 0Central Valley Transfers/Purchases 125,000 100,000 0Mojave Program 0 0 0IRP SWP Target 5 0 0 0Subtotal of Proposed Programs 330,000 355,000 185,000

Maximum Supply Capability 1,242,000 1,138,000 1,963,000

2 Multiple and Single Dry year figures include DWCV Table A supplies3 Includes DWCV carryover4 Includes Phase 8 and increased pumping capacity5 Remaining supply needed to meet IRP target

1 Single Dry-year figure includes 76 TAF of additional SWP supplies in 1977 per DWR 2005 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, which assumes 150 TAF of SWP carryover in San Luis Reservoir in addition to contractors' carryover

California AqueductProgram Capabilities



(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)

Current ProgramsSWP Deliveries1,2 509,000 175,000 1,472,000San Luis Carryover3 93,000 285,550 285,550SWP Call-back of DWCV Table A Transfer 26,000 5,000 0Central Valley Storage and Transfers Semitropic Program 107,000 107,000 0 Arvin Edison Program 90,000 90,000 0 San Bernardino Valley MWD Program 37,000 70,000 20,000 Kern Delta Program 50,000 50,000 0Subtotal of Current Programs 912,000 783,000 1,778,000

Programs Under DevelopmentDelta Improvements4 55,000 55,000 185,000Market Transfer Options 0 200,000 0Central Valley Transfers/Purchases 125,000 100,000 0Mojave Program 35,000 35,000 0IRP SWP Target 0 8,450 0Subtotal of Proposed Programs 215,000 398,000 185,000


2 Multiple and Single Dry year figures include DWCV Table A supplies3 Includes DWCV carryover4 Includes Phase 8 and increased pumping capacity





(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)

Current ProgramsSWP Deliveries1,2 509,000 175,000 1,472,000San Luis Carryover3 93,000 285,550 285,550SWP Call-back of DWCV Table A Transfer 26,000 5,000Central Valley Storage and Transfers Semitropic Program 107,000 107,000 0 Arvin Edison Program 90,000 90,000 0 San Bernardino Valley MWD Program 37,000 70,000 20,000 Kern Delta Program 50,000 50,000 0Subtotal of Current Programs 912,000 783,000 1,778,000

Programs Under DevelopmentDelta Improvements4 110,000 110,000 240,000Market Transfer Options 0 200,000 0Central Valley Transfers/Purchases 125,000 100,000 0Mojave Program 35,000 35,000 0IRP SWP Target 29,000 74,450 0Subtotal of Proposed Programs 299,000 519,000 240,000







(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)









(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)




3 Includes DWCV carryover4 Includes Phase 8 and increased pumping capacity

1 Single Dry-year figure includes 76 TAF of additional SWP supplies in 1977 per DWR 2005 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, which assumes 150 TAF of SWP carryover in San Luis Reservoir in addition to contractors' carryover2 Multiple and Single Dry year figures include DWCV Table A supplies




(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)

Current ProgramsBase Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000IID/MWD Conservation Program 85,000 85,000 85,000Priority 5 Apportionment (Surplus) 0 0 0PVID Land Management Program 111,000 111,000 111,000

Less: Coachella SWP/QSA Transfer (35,000) (35,000) (35,000)

Forbearance for present perfected rights (36,000) (36,000) (36,000)

Subtotal of Current Programs 675,000 675,000 675,000

Programs Under DevelopmentLake Mead Storage Program 100,000 200,000 0Salton Sea Restoration Transfer 95,000 95,000 95,000Subtotal of Proposed Programs 195,000 295,000 95,000

Maximum Metropolitan Supply Capability 870,000 970,000 770,000

Additional Non-Metropolitan CRA SuppliesSDCWA/IID Transfer 70,000 70,000 70,000Coachella & All-American Canal Lining 94,000 94,000 94,000Maximum CRA Supply Capability 1 1,034,000 1,134,000 934,000

Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries 1,034,000 1,134,000 934,000

1 Colorado River Aqueduct deliveries limited to 1.250 MAF annually

Colorado River AqueductProgram Capabilities



(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)

Current ProgramsBase Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000IID/MWD Conservation Program 80,000 80,000 80,000Priority 5 Apportionment 0 0 0PVID Land Management Program 111,000 111,000 111,000




Programs Under DevelopmentLake Mead Storage Program 100,000 200,000 0Salton Sea Restoration Transfer 210,000 210,000 210,000Subtotal of Proposed Programs 310,000 410,000 210,000

Maximum Metropolitan Supply Capability 954,000 1,054,000 854,000

Additional Non-Metropolitan CRA SuppliesSDCWA/IID Transfer 100,000 100,000 100,000Coachella & All-American Canal Lining 94,000 94,000 94,000Maximum CRA Supply Capability 1 1,148,000 1,248,000 1,048,000

Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries 1,148,000 1,248,000 1,048,000





(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)





Programs Under DevelopmentLake Mead Storage Program 200,000 400,000 0Salton Sea Restoration Transfer 0 0 0Subtotal of Proposed Programs 200,000 400,000 0








(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)













(1990-92) (1977) (1922-2004)












Metropolitan's 2006 IRP Implementation Report

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Average Year

In-Basin Storage Activities 0 0 0 0 0

California Aqueduct (SWP) 1,963,000 1,963,000 2,018,000 2,018,000 2,018,000

Colorado River Aqueduct 934,000 1,048,000 931,000 938,000 938,000

Total Average Year 2,897,000 3,011,000 2,949,000 2,956,000 2,956,000

Single Dry Year

In-Basin Storage Activities 1,232,000 1,269,000 1,221,000 1,174,000 1,125,000


Colorado River Aqueduct 1,134,000 1,248,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000

Total Single Dry Year 3,504,000 3,698,000 3,773,000 3,726,000 3,677,000

Multiple Dry Years

In-Basin Storage Activities 597,000 626,000 610,000 595,000 578,000



Total Multiple Dry Years 2,873,000 2,901,000 2,952,000 2,944,000 2,927,000

22% Reduction in SWP Supplies

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Average Year





Single Dry Year


California Aqueduct (SWP) 887,640 921,180 1,015,560 1,015,560 1,015,560



Multiple Dry Years


California Aqueduct (SWP) 968,760 879,060 944,580 944,580 944,580




2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Average Year





Single Dry Year





Multiple Dry Years






2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Average Year





Single Dry Year





Multiple Dry Years





APPENDIX C ANAHEIM WATER CONSERVATION SUPPORT DATA

HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION (Sales) (HCF)

CALENDAR YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

January 2,012,095 1,989,264 1,758,337 1,933,232 2,074,204 2,125,754 1,793,151 1,660,208 2,031,044 2,012,339 1,364,684

February 1,635,977 1,884,612 1,750,481 1,660,246 1,941,303 1,998,315 1,757,654 1,549,265 1,694,351 1,574,466 1,659,047

March 1,684,289 1,888,108 2,183,680 2,009,293 2,001,856 1,629,555 1,720,599 1,710,285 2,278,878 1,703,315 1,819,261

April 2,047,240 2,208,571 2,398,406 2,167,820 2,189,766 1,793,758 1,795,128 2,028,608 1,686,304 1,716,979 1,969,854

May 2,123,561 2,336,319 2,186,507 2,344,395 2,254,893 2,059,189 1,925,149 2,965,975 2,011,218 2,251,388 2,472,034

June 2,889,981 2,977,345 3,059,665 2,991,763 2,705,559 2,310,628 2,619,005 1,831,399 2,370,859 2,681,214 3,010,301

July 2,846,155 2,923,400 3,084,881 2,744,188 2,861,876 2,211,973 2,356,509 2,699,159 2,935,878 2,695,705 3,814,356

August 3,387,792 3,034,186 3,424,907 3,447,633 3,392,390 2,808,794 3,358,935 3,058,840 3,061,952 2,849,822 3,105,719

September 2,740,845 2,756,403 2,709,382 2,674,639 2,415,629 2,154,980 2,740,442 2,996,497 3,224,357 3,222,442 2,718,948

October 2,914,551 3,251,635 2,789,725 3,204,562 3,338,208 2,753,114 3,081,756 2,471,236 2,551,591 2,811,880 3,440,028

November 1,836,233 1,745,874 1,926,692 1,895,616 2,360,007 1,659,256 1,799,529 2,094,737 2,451,512 2,420,035 1,813,334

December 2,383,194 2,160,572 2,294,229 2,657,420 2,378,347 2,396,544 2,410,024 2,391,226 2,021,652 2,982,883 2,484,741

TOTAL (HCF) 28,501,913 29,156,289 29,566,892 29,730,807 29,914,038 25,901,860 27,357,881 27,457,435 28,319,596 28,922,468 29,672,307

TOTAL (AF) 65,426 66,928 67,871 68,247 68,668 59,458 62,800 63,029 65,008 66,392 68,113

HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION GROWTH RATE

Annual % Inc. 2.30% 1.41% 0.55% 0.62% -13.41% 5.62% 0.36% 3.14% 2.13% 2.59%

Avg. excl. 1991 2.08%1991 at avg.

increase (af) 70,096

Adjusted % -15.49%

TOTAL HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION (AF/CALENDAR YEAR)

65,426

68,668

59,458

63,029

65,008

66,392

68,113

66,928

67,87168,247

62,800

54,000

56,000

58,000

60,000

62,000

64,000

66,000

68,000

70,000

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION GROWTH RATE

APPENDIX D METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATION PLAN

PERCENTAGES

APPENDIX D

From: Nevills,Jennifer C [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:37 PM To: Mike Swan Cc: Aladdin Shaikh Subject: FW: Allocation Model

Mike and Al, Here’s the full set of updated percentages. Not much change from the previous, +0.01% across the board.

WSAP Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Anaheim % of Total

1.29% 1.29% 1.27% 1.26% 1.27% 1.26% 1.25% 1.23% 1.21% 1.18%

‐Jennifer From: Nevills,Jennifer C Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:03 AM To: 'Aladdin Shaikh' Subject: RE: Allocation Model Hi Al, Here are the percentages of the total allocation that goes to Anaheim at the different WSAP levels. This is based on the assumption that there are no allocation year losses of local supplies for other agencies.

WSAP Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Anaheim % of Total

1.28% 1.28% 1.26% 1.25% 1.26% 1.25% 1.24% 1.22% 1.20% 1.17%

Hope this helps, Jennifer From: Aladdin Shaikh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:22 AM To: Nevills,Jennifer C Subject: RE: Allocation Model Jennifer, Could you please send me a copy of the Allocation Model that includes all member agencies. I need to figure out what percent of the total Allocation will go to Anaheim, and for that I need the total Allocation to all member agencies. Thank you, Al 714‐765‐5268