This document summarizes the Water Authority's efforts to increase the reliability of the San Diego region's water supply through diversification. It shows that the region relies heavily on imported water supplies, which face uncertainties. To address this, the Authority has pursued a variety of local supply projects including seawater desalination, water transfers, groundwater, and recycled water. Charts depict the region's historical and planned water supply portfolio mix out to 2035 as it diversifies its supplies. The document also discusses drought planning, noting California's variable precipitation and the Authority's approach to coordinating a regional response.

1. May 23, 2017
Robert Yamada, Director of Water Resources
Dana Friehauf, Water Resources Manager
1

2. 2
2

3. 2016
1991
Total = 455 TAF
187 TAF
41%
18 TAF
4%
21 TAF
5%
23 TAF
5%
79 TAF
17%100 TAF
22%
550 TAF
95%
28 TAF 5%
2020*
Total = 588 TAF
126 TAF
21%
52 TAF
9%
33 TAF
6%
43 TAF
7%
80 TAF
14%
190 TAF
32%
56 TAF
10%
Total = 578 TAF 2035*
Total = 694 TAF
88 TAF
13%
51 TAF
7%
36 TAF
5%
57 TAF
8%
80 TAF
12%
200
TAF
29%
72 TAF
10%
110 TAF
16%
8 TAF
1%
3
Increasing San Diego County’s Water Supply
Reliability through Diversification
Imperial Irrigation
District Transfer
Metropolitan Water
District
All American & Coachella
Canal Lining
Local Surface
Water
GroundwaterRecycled
Water
Seawater
Desalination
Potable Reuse
* Includes verifiable and additional planned local supply projects from 2015 UWMP
TAF=Thousand Acre-Feet
27 TAF
6%

4. 4
• Uncertainty in MWD’s
ability to provide a reliable
supply at reasonable price
• Water Authority must be
prepared to either secure
another imported source,
intensive local resources
development, or do both
1995 Board Strategic Plan
Conclusions

5. 1. Growth and
Economy
2. Limited Local
Resources
(Naturally
occurring)
3. MWD Imported
Supply Reliability
4. Drought and
Climate Change
5. Cost of MWD
Supplies
6. Regulatory &
Permitting Issues
5
Identifying a Reliable Supply Mix
Planning Factors to Consider

6. SANDAG
Forecasts 2/3
growth from in-
region births
over deaths
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1980 1990 2000 2015 2020 2030 2040
Population
Historic
Projecte
d
Millio
n
3.
2
3.8
2.6
1. Growth and Economy
(Water Authority Service Area)

7. 10
21
12
48
1.6
5.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
San Diego San Francisco Tucson Sydney
AustraliaNormal Water Year 2016-2017 To-Date
Inches
Source: National Weather Service and Australian Bureau of
2. Limited Local Resources
(Semi-Arid Mediterranean Climate – Annual Rainfall
Comparison)

8. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6 Jan
Feb
March
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
San Diego
Sydney
Inches
Source: National Weather Service and
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
2. Limited Local Resources
(Semi-Arid Mediterranean Climate – Monthly Distribution of
Rainfall)

9. 9
2. Limited Local Resources
(Surface Water)
• San Diego County
total reservoir
capacity ~743,000
acre-feet
• Increase in reservoir
storage Water Year
2017 ~118,000 acre-
feet

10. • Mostly shallow
alluvial, brackish
groundwater basins
o 650,000 AF
capacity
• In comparison,
Orange, Riverside
and Los Angeles
County groundwater
basins are extremely
large
o 70 Million AF plus
capacity
2. Limited Local Resources
(Groundwater)

11. 17% State Water Project
(MWD supplies)
15% Local Supplies
Colorado River Aqueduct
68% Colorado River
(Long-term Transfers
and MWD supplies)
11
*Sources of San Diego County’s Water Supply (2012-2016 five-year
average)
Sources of San Diego County’s
Current Water Supply

12. 12
San Francisco Bay
3. MWD Imported Water Supply Uncertainties
State Water Project

13. 13
FONTENELLE
RESERVOIR
FLAMING
GORGE
RESERVOIR
NAVAJO RESERVOIR
BLUE MESA, MORROW
POINT, CRYSTAL
RESERVOIRS

14. 14
Colorado River Entitlements (MAF)
3. MWD Imported Supply Uncertainties
Colorado River Aqueduct

15. Source: National Climate Data Center, NOAA 15
4. Drought and Climate Change

16. 300
500
700
900
1100 2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
2…
2004 MWD High Rate
Forecast
2004 MWD Low Rate
Forecast
16
$/A
F
5. Cost of MWD Supplies

17. 17
6. Regulatory & Permitting
Issues

18. 1995 Urban Water
Management Plan
• Recycled Water
• Groundwater
recovery
• Seawater
desalination
18
Prudent Supply Planning
Identifying Reliable Supplies

19. 1997 Water
Resources Plan
• Voluntary
transfer of
conserved
agricultural
water (Colorado
River water)
19
Prudent Supply Planning
Identifying Reliable Supplies

20. 2003 Water
Facilities Master
Plan
• 100,000AF of
carryover
storage
• 56,000AF/YR of
seawater
desalination at
Encina Power 20
Prudent Supply Planning
Identifying Reliable Supplies

21. 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan
• 56,000 AF/YR of
seawater
desalination at
Carlsbad
(Public/Private
Partnership with
Poseidon Water)
21
Prudent Supply Planning
Identifying Reliable Supplies

22. Seawater
Desalination (2015)
Colorado River Water
Transfers (2003)
Member Agency Water
Recycling (ongoing)
San Vicente Dam
Raise (2015)
Executing the Plans

23. Current Water Authority
Resources Planning Documents

24. Cities/County General Plans
SANDAG’s Regional Growth Forecast
Projected Water Demands
Urban Water Management Plan
SANDAG Regional Plan
Water Assessment (SB
610) Written Verification
(SB 221)
Cities/County
Plans & Policies
Land-Use and Water Supply
Coordination in the San Diego Region

25. Residential
65%
Commercial
& Industrial
14%
Agriculture
9%
Public &
Other
12%
25
Source: 2015 Annual Report
San Diego County
2015 Water Use by Sector

26. Landscape
53%
Toilets
10%
Bathing
10%
Faucets
9%
Clothes
Washing
8%
Leaks
8%
Other
2%
26
Source: California Urban Water Conservation
Council
San Diego County
Residential Water Use

27. 27
• Use an econometric model called CWA-Main
• Water Authority forecast = sum of member
agency demand projections
• Forecast generated by major sector
o Single-family
o Multi-family
o Non-residential (commercial, industrial, etc.)
o Agriculture
Forecasting Water Demands

28. 300
400
500
600
700
800
19…
19…
19…
20…
20…
20…
20…
20…
20…
20…
20…
20…
TotalWaterDemand(TAF)
Norma
l
TAF= Thousand
Projected DemandHistoric Demand
726 TAF 719 TAF
533 TAF
Includes Long-Term Water Use
Total Water Demands Within
Water Authority Service Area

29. 74
89
103
115
128
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Additional Water Use Savings
29
TAF • Long-term,
permanent water
use efficiency
savings
• Differs from short-
term extraordinary
savings achieved
during emergencies
Water Use Efficiency Savings
Critical to Future Reliability

30. 276 TAF
280 TAF
50 TAF
88 TAF
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Supplies(TAF)
Metropolitan Water
District of
Southern California
Water Authority
Carlsbad
Desalination
Supplies
Water Authority
Colorado River
Transfer Supplies
Projected Demand w/ Efficiency
694 TAF
2035
TAF= Thousand Acre-Feet
Identifying the Regional Water Resources
Mix to Meet Demands – Year 2035

31. 31
Member Agency 2035 Estimated Yield (AF/YR)
City of San Diego 93,000
Padre Dam MWD 11,500
City of Oceanside 3,000
Santa Fe Irrigation
District
1,000
Next Increment of Supply Potable Reuse
Sampling of Proposed Projects

32. 2016
1991
Total = 455 TAF
187 TAF
41%
18 TAF
4%
21 TAF
5%
23 TAF
5%
79 TAF
17%100 TAF
22%
550 TAF
95%
28 TAF 5%
2020*
Total = 588 TAF
126 TAF
21%
52 TAF
9%
33 TAF
6%
43 TAF
7%
80 TAF
14%
190 TAF
32%
56 TAF
10%
Total = 578 TAF 2035*
Total = 694 TAF
88 TAF
13%
51 TAF
7%
36 TAF
5%
57 TAF
8%
80 TAF
12%
200 TAF
29%
72 TAF
10%
110 TAF
16%
8 TAF
1%
32
Increasing San Diego County’s Water Supply
Reliability through Diversification
Imperial Irrigation
District Transfer
Metropolitan Water
District
All American & Coachella
Canal Lining
Local Surface
Water
GroundwaterRecycled
Water
Seawater
Desalination
Potable Reuse
(Includes conceptual
and planned projects)
* Includes verifiable and additional planned local supply projects from 2015 UWMP
TAF=Thousand Acre-Feet
27 TAF
6%

33. 33

34. 34

35. • Precipitation in California is highly variable
year-to-year and dry-years are common
• How do you define drought?
• Water agencies must plan and be ready to
respond to shortages
• Avoid or reduce negative impacts on residents and
businesses
• Important to continuing monitor conditions
locally and statewide
Drought Response Planning

36. Coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by
the average) of total precipitation (Dettinger et. Al.,
2011)
California has Largest Year-to-Year
Variability in Precipitation

37. CriticalDryAbove
Normal
Wet Below Normal
Sacramento River Runoff is the sum of Sacramento River flow at Bend Bridge, Feather River
inflow to Lake Oroville, Yuba River flow at Smartville, and American River inflow to Folsom.
Water Year 2016 is estimated by DWR.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
UnimpairedRunoff
(MAF)
Source: California Data Exchange Center (CDEC)
Sacramento River Unimpaired Runoff & Water Year
Type
1906-2017*
*2017 based on Feb. 1, 2017 projection.

38. United States Geological Survey:
“The word “drought” has various meanings, depending
on a person’s perspective…To a water manager, a
drought is a deficiency in water supply that affects
water availability and water quality”
USGS (https://water.usgs.gov/edu/qadroughts.html)
California Department of Water Resources:
“Defining when drought occurs is a function of drought
impacts to water users. Drought can best be thought
of as a condition of water shortage for a particular
user in a particular location”
DWR (http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/background.cfm)
Defining Drought

39. 39

40. © National Drought Mitigation Cen
Breaking the Hydro-Illogical Cycle
Through Drought Response Planning

41. • Evaluation criteria to
determine shortage level
• Shortage response
actions to mitigate
shortage
• Supply augmentation
• Demand reduction
• Communication strategy
• Monitoring and reporting
procedures
Basic Elements of Drought Response
Planning
Supply Augmentation:
Carryover Storage Supplies
Demand Reduction:
Customer Water Use Restrictions

42. • 2006 Water Shortage and Drought
Response Plan
o Regional actions taken to lessen severity of
shortage conditions in San Diego region
o Includes methodology to allocate supplies
to member agencies
• 2008 Model Drought Response Ordinanceo Levels with corresponding water-
use restrictions
o Consistent region-wide response
Water Authority Drought Response
Orderly and Coordinated Approach to Managing
Droughts

43. Counties under
Drought Emergency
Counties under
Flood Emergency
“It was the best of hydrologic times…
it was the worst of hydrologic times”
A Tale of Two Emergencies

44. 44

45. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep
WY 1983 (wettest) WY 2016 WY 2017
AccumulatedPrecipitation(in)
Normal
213% of Normal
(March 8, 2017)
Source: Department of Water Resources45
Northern Sierra Precipitation
8-Station Index

46. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep
Normal WY 2016 WY 2017
WaterContent(in)
159% of Normal
(March 8, 2017)
Source: Department of Water Resources
Northern Sierra
Precipitation

47. 47
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
173%
53%
60% 65%
91%
146%
62%
59%
35% 40%
95%
170%
Source: California Department of Water Resources
*
* Based on February 2017 projection
Statewide Water Year Runoff
Percent of Average (Water Year: Oct 1 – Sept 30

48. Source: Department of Water Resources
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
WY 2016 WY 2017
MillionAcre-Feet
83% of Capacity
116% of Average
(March 7, 2017)
Capacity
Historical Average
48
Lake Oroville Storage Volume
Major Reservoir State Water Project System

49. Lake Oroville
Operational
Spillway
February 13, 2017

50. Lake Oroville Spillway
Damage

51. • Water Authority and its member agencies can provide
uninterrupted service if deliveries from Oroville are impacted
due to repairs
– Low water demands
– Significant water reserves in Southern California
– Local investments in water supply reliability
– In 2016 only 3 percent of San Diego region’s supply was from
State Water Project
• 5-year average about 17%
Lake Oroville Spillway
Erosion

52. Source: Department of Water Resources
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
WY 2016 WY 2017
MillionAcre-Feet
Capacity
99% of Capacity
115% of Average
(March 7, 2017)
San Luis
Reservoir
CY 2017 current
SWP Allocation: 60%
Historical Average
52
San Luis Reservoir Storage Volume
Major Reservoir State Water Project System

53. • Precipitation 127 % of
normal as of March 6,
2017
• Snow water equivalent
148% normal
53
Upper Colorado River Basin

54. 54
Water Year 2017 Precipitation
March 2017
Since October 1, 2016
(through March 7)
Station Actual % Normal Actual % Normal
Lindbergh
Field
0.01 in. 2% 11.63 in. 148%
Ramona
Airport
0.07 in. 6% 21.56 in. 183%
Local Precipitation

55.  Greatly improved statewide supply situation
 Investments in drought resilient supplies have
increased reliability
 Adequate supplies to meet demands (no shortages)
Seawater Desalination
Carryover and
Emergency
Storage Water Recycling
San Diego Region Is Not Experiencing
Drought Conditions

56. • Provides more resiliency in times of shortages
• Protects economy and quality of life in San Diego
County
Sustainable SuppliesWater Use
Efficiency
56
A Balanced Approach is Required to
Manage Supply Shortages

57. 57

58. 58
November 2016 Draft Framework Proposal
Making Conservation A Way of Life
 Response to Governor
Brown’s Executive Order B-
37-16
 Focus on two areas for
urban water agencies:
 New water use targets
 Water shortage
contingency planning

59. 59
Draft Framework Proposal
New Water Use Target
 Indoor residential
 Initially set at 55 gpcd
 Outdoor Irrigation
 Set at current Model Water Efficiency
Landscape Ordinance requirements
 System water lost through leaks
 Current 2020 water use targets established in 2009 under
SBX7-7
 Four options to calculate target (e.g., 20% reduction by 2020)
 Proposed new water use target is single agency-wide gpcd
target based on efficiency standards for:

60. 60
Draft Framework Proposal
Proposed Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
Performance Measures
 No volumetric standard, but requires water suppliers to
implement three performance measures:
1. Install separate irrigation meters for existing CII landscapes
over a specified size
2. Classify all CII account and where feasible, develop
benchmarks in order to identify water use efficiency
improvements
3. Conduct audits or require water management plans for CII
accounts over a specified size, volume, or percentage
threshold

61. 61
New Water Use Targets
Water Authority Main Comments
1. Balance demand management and supply development to
ensure reliability
 Efficiency alone will not create a resilient water supply that
alleviates severe shortages
2. CII performance measures cannot negatively impact
economy
 Support not having volumetric standards for CII
 Measures should be developed by workgroup of experts

62. 62
New Water Use Targets
Water Authority Main Comments
3. Provide alternative target setting approaches
 Allow choices to address difference between communities
 Agencies able to select most cost-effective, yet equally effective
option
4. Revisions to target calculations beyond 2025 must be
through stakeholder process with legislative approval
 Legislature maintains role in setting statewide water policy
5. Address unintended consequences of imposing new water
use targets (e.g., impact to wastewater systems)
 Costs to mitigate will likely increase customers’ water rates

63. 63
Governor Water Conservation Framework
Next Steps
 Comments on proposed
Framework submitted in
December 2016
 Governor scheduled to release
Framework March 2017
 Implementation will be
through legislation and
regulatory rulemaking

64. 64
Water Authority Board Approved Sponsorship of
Long-Term Water Use Target Legislation
 Workgroup would consider following factors:
 Recommendations from Governor’s Framework
 Existing provisions in state water code pertaining to target setting
methods (SBX7-7)
 Unintended consequences that could negatively impact economy,
wastewater infrastructure, or investments in drought-resiliency
 AB 1323 introduced by Assemblymember
Weber
 Uncertainties regarding implementation of final
Framework and stakeholder consensus
 AB 1323 requires state to convene stakeholder
workgroup to finalize target methods to be
incorporated into legislation
Assemblymember
Shirley Weber

65. 65

66. • Ten water agencies
• Ten water bottles = water supply for the year
• Each agency selects spokesperson
• Give up one water bottle – 10% allocation
• Must reserve two bottles for health & safety
• Two scenarios will be presented
Water Allocation
Exercise

67. Scenario 1
• Major expansion of water park in
Carlsbad Municipal Water
District’s service area
• Park is model of water efficiency
and sustainability in recreation
• Will draw residents from six
surrounding communities
• Recycled water will be used on
landscaping
• Will increase tax revenue,
generate fees, and pay for I-5 off-
ramp improvements
Should the board increase Carlsbad’s allocation?

68. SURPRISE!
Additional Allocation
• Increased shortage allocation is announced by Water Authority’s imported
water supplier, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
• All groups must give up an additional bottle of water as a result of lower
than anticipated snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and, as a
result, a lower allocation (less water) from the State Water Project is
anticipated.

69. Scenario 2
• Major new regional hospital &
surrounding medical office park
• Will create high-quality medical care to
North County residents, create
hundreds of jobs, and increase tax
revenue
• Ambulance response times in inland
North County are slower than rest of
county
• A retirement community would be served by the new hospital and they have
sent letters and rallied support
• Development will increase potable water use for city of Escondido
• The hospital and surrounding park will be opened during the water shortage.
Should Escondido’s shortage allocation be revised to
add include more potable water demands annually for
this new need?

70. ???
???

71. Session 3 Saturday, June 3
7:30 a.m. - 2 p.m.
San Diego County Water Authority Escondido Office
610 West 5th Ave., Escondido, CA 92025