OCWD Forebay Recharge Basins in Anaheim, CA

2007 - 2008 Engineer’s Reporton the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District

Orange County Water District

P.O. Box 8300 | Fountain Valley, CA 92728 -8300

(714) 378-3200 | (714) 378-3373 fax

www.ocwd.com

2007-2008 EN

GIN

EE

R’S

RE

PO

RT

OR

AN

GE

CO

UN

TY

WA

TE

R D

IST

RIC

T

2007-2008

ENGINEER’S REPORT ON

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS,

WATER SUPPLY AND BASIN UTILIZATION

IN THE

ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

FEBRUARY 2009

ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Claudia C. Alvarez, Esq. Philip L. Anthony Don Bankhead Wes Bannister Kathryn L. Barr

Denis R. Bilodeau, P.E. Jan Debay Irv Pickler

Stephen R. Sheldon Roger C. Yoh, P.E.

Michael R. Markus, P.E. General Manager

LETTER

PO Box 8300Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300

18700 Ward StreetFountain Valley, CA 92708

(714) 378-3200(714) 378-3373 fax

www.ocwd.com

February 18, 2009

Mr. Michael R. MarkusGeneral ManagerOrange County Water DistrictPost Office Box 8300Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300

Dear Mr. Markus:

In accordance with Section 26 of the District Act, the 2007-2008 Engineer's Report is hereby submitted.

Precipitation for the water year July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 within OCWD boundaries averaged 10.64 inches, which was approximately 79% of the normal 13.4 inches per year. Santa Ana River flow past Prado Dam for the water year totaled 204,860 acre-feet, which was 16 percent below the 30-year average flow. Flow past the District’s spreading grounds (including any flow from Santiago Creek) that was lost to the Pacific Ocean totaled 27,430 acre-feet.

Total water demand within the District for the 2007-08 water year was 479,308 acre-feet (excludes water used for groundwater replenishment and barrier maintenance). Supplemental water used for the year for groundwater replenishment and barrier maintenance totaled 10,236 acre-feet (excludes In-Lieu Program water). Groundwater production within the basin totaled 366,185 acre-feet (includes In-Lieu Program water) for the water year, which was a 5% increase from the prior year.

Accumulated basin overdraft increased from 198,000 acre-feet on June 30, 2007 to 306,000 acre-feet on June 30, 2008 using the three-layer approach and new baseline full condition for the basin. Under the provisions of Section 27 of the District Act, a portion of the 2009-10 Replenishment Assessment could be equal to an amount necessary to purchase up to 102,000 acre-feet of replenishment water.

Very truly yours,

DIRECTORS

CLAUDIA C. ALVAREZ, ESQ.PHILIP L. ANTHONYWES BANNISTERKATHRYN L. BARRDENIS R. BILODEAU, P.E.JAN DEBAYSHAWN NELSON, ESQ.IRV PICKLERSTEPHEN R. SHELDONROGER C. YOH, P.E.

OFFICERS

PresidentSTEPHEN R. SHELDON

First Vice PresidentWES BANNISTER

Second Vice PresidentDENIS R. BILODEAU, P.E.

General Manager MICHAEL R. MARKUS, P.E.

PO Box 8300Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300

18700 Ward StreetFountain Valley, CA 92708

(714) 378-3200(714) 378-3373 fax

www.ocwd.com

February 18, 2009

Mr. Michael R. MarkusGeneral ManagerOrange County Water DistrictPost Office Box 8300Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300

Dear Mr. Markus:

In accordance with Section 26 of the District Act, the 2007-2008 Engineer's Report is hereby submitted.

Precipitation for the water year July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 within OCWD boundaries averaged 10.64 inches, which was approximately 79% of the normal 13.4 inches per year. Santa Ana River flow past Prado Dam for the water year totaled 204,860 acre-feet, which was 16 percent below the 30-year average flow. Flow past the District’s spreading grounds (including any flow from Santiago Creek) that was lost to the Pacific Ocean totaled 27,430 acre-feet.

Total water demand within the District for the 2007-08 water year was 479,308 acre-feet (excludes water used for groundwater replenishment and barrier maintenance). Supplemental water used for the year for groundwater replenishment and barrier maintenance totaled 10,236 acre-feet (excludes In-Lieu Program water). Groundwater production within the basin totaled 366,185 acre-feet (includes In-Lieu Program water) for the water year, which was a 5% increase from the prior year.

Accumulated basin overdraft increased from 198,000 acre-feet on June 30, 2007 to 306,000 acre-feet on June 30, 2008 using the three-layer approach and new baseline full condition for the basin. Under the provisions of Section 27 of the District Act, a portion of the 2009-10 Replenishment Assessment could be equal to an amount necessary to purchase up to 102,000 acre-feet of replenishment water.

Very truly yours,

DIRECTORS

CLAUDIA C. ALVAREZ, ESQ.PHILIP L. ANTHONYWES BANNISTERKATHRYN L. BARRDENIS R. BILODEAU, P.E.JAN DEBAYSHAWN NELSON, ESQ.IRV PICKLERSTEPHEN R. SHELDONROGER C. YOH, P.E.

OFFICERS

PresidentSTEPHEN R. SHELDON

First Vice PresidentWES BANNISTER

Second Vice PresidentDENIS R. BILODEAU, P.E.

General Manager MICHAEL R. MARKUS, P.E.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................2

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS .....................................................................................................3

PART I: GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ..............................................................................4

2007-08 Summary of Findings.........................................................................................4

Basin Hydrology ...............................................................................................................5

Groundwater Production.................................................................................................5

Basin Production Percentage...........................................................................................7

Groundwater Levels .........................................................................................................7

Coastal Groundwater Conditions.................................................................................10

Annual Groundwater Basin Overdraft........................................................................10

Groundwater Basin Accumulated Overdraft .............................................................11

Replenishment Recommendation.................................................................................14

Recommended Basin Production Percentage .............................................................15

Notice of Pubic Hearing.................................................................................................17

PART II: WATER SUPPLY AND BASIN UTILIZATION.....................................................18

2007-08 Summary of Findings.......................................................................................18

Supplemental Water .......................................................................................................19

Availability of Supplemental Replenishment Water .................................................22

Water Demands...............................................................................................................22

Water Demand Forecast.................................................................................................23

Advanced Wastewater Reclamation ............................................................................24

Water Quality ..................................................................................................................25

Water Resources Data ....................................................................................................27

PART III: WATER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR ENSUING YEAR (2009-10) ...................28

Summary of Findings .....................................................................................................28

Groundwater Production Costs for Non-Irrigation Use ...........................................29

Cost of Supplemental Water..........................................................................................30

LIST OF TABLES No. Page

1 Historical Groundwater Production Within Orange County Water District...........6

2 2009-10 Budget for Water Purchases............................................................................15

3 2007-08 Supplemental Water Usage.............................................................................20

4 2007-08 Recycled Water Usage......................................................................................22

5 Water Demands Within OCWD ...................................................................................23

6 2007-08 Water Quality Summary..................................................................................26

7 Estimated 2009-10 Groundwater Production Costs...................................................29

8 Estimated 2009-10 Supplemental Water Costs ...........................................................30

9 Estimated 2009-10 Water Production Cost Comparison...........................................32

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Page

1 Groundwater Production.................................................................................................6

2 Groundwater Basin Production Percentage..................................................................7

3 Accumulated Basin Overdraft ......................................................................................12

4 Historical Supplemental Water Usage.........................................................................21

5 Water Demand Projections............................................................................................24

6 Adopted and Projected Water Rates for Non-Irrigation Use ...................................31

LIST OF PLATES

No. Page

1 Groundwater Contour Map, June 2008 .......................................................................33

2 Change in Water Level Between June 2007 and 2008 ................................................34

3 Monitoring Well Hydrograph Trends .........................................................................35

APPENDICES

No. Page

1 Water Production Data 2007-08 ....................................................................................36 2 2007-08 Groundwater Production—Non-Irrigation Use Production Over 25 Acre-feet ............................................................................................................37 3 2007-08 Groundwater Production—Irrigation Use Production Over 25 Acre-feet ............................................................................................................38 4 Typical Groundwater Extraction Facility Characteristics .........................................39 5 2007-08 Water Resources Summary .............................................................................40 6 Non-Local Water Purchased by OCWD for Water Years 1990-91 through 2007-08...............................................................................................................41 7 Values Used in Figure 6 for Water Rates for Non-Irrigation Use............................42

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Total water demand within Orange County Water District (OCWD) was 479,308 acre-feet (AF) for the 2007-08 water year (beginning July 1, 2007 and ending June 30, 2008). Groundwater production for the water year totaled 366,185 AF. For this water year, a total of 10,236 AF of supplemental water was used for the purpose of groundwater replenishment and barrier maintenance. For the water year, which ended June 30, 2008, the “annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water” (i.e., also referred to as “annual overdraft”) was 136,000 AF. The accumulated overdraft on June 30, 2008 water year was 306,000 AF. Precipitation within the basin was 79% of normal during the water year, totaling 10.64 inches. Based on the groundwater basin conditions for the water year ending June 30, 2008, OCWD may purchase up to 102,000 AF of water for groundwater replenishment during the ensuing water year, beginning July 1, 2009, pursuant to the District Act.

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of public and private entities contributed data used in this report including:

City of Anaheim City of Buena Park East Orange County Water District City of Fountain Valley City of Fullerton City of Garden Grove Golden State Water Company City of Huntington Beach Irvine Ranch Water District City of La Palma Mesa Consolidated Water District Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Municipal Water District of Orange County City of Newport Beach City of Orange County of Orange, Public Works Department Orange County Sanitation District Orange Park Acres Mutual Water Company San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District City of Santa Ana Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority City of Seal Beach Serrano Water District City of Tustin United States Geological Survey Western Municipal Water District City of Westminster Yorba Linda Water District

The cooperation received from all agencies is gratefully acknowledged. This report is based on the 2007-08 Basic Data Report, which is placed on file at the Fountain Valley office of OCWD.

3

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AF Acre-feet AWPF Advanced Water Purification Facility BEA Basin Equity Assessment BPP Basin Production Percentage CPTP Coastal Pumping Transfer Program CR Capacity Reservation CUP Conjunctive Use Program DRWF Dyer Road Well Field EVMWD Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District GAP Green Acres Project GWR System Groundwater Replenishment System IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District MCWD Mesa Consolidated Water District MF Microfiltration mg/L Milligrams per Liter MGD Million Gallons per Day MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County O&M Operation and Maintenance OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District RA Replenishment Assessment RO Reverse Osmosis RTS Readiness-to-Serve SAR Santa Ana River SBVMWD San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District SWP State Water Project TDS Total Dissolved Solids UV Ultraviolet WMWD Western Municipal Water District WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WSM Basin Water Supply Management Program

4

PART I: GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Section 25 of the OCWD District Act requires that OCWD order an annual investigation to report on the groundwater conditions within the District’s boundaries. A summary of the groundwater conditions for the water year of July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 is as follows.

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 2007-08 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1. Groundwater production (excluding Talbert Barrier) totaled 366,185 acre-feet (AF) for

the 2007-08 water year. 2. Groundwater stored in the basin decreased by 108,000 AF for the 2007-08 water

year. 3. Accumulated overdraft1 on June 30 of the 2007-08 water year was 306,000 AF.2 4. “Annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water”3 was

136,000 for the 2007-08 water year. 5. Average annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water

for the immediate past five water years (2003-04 to 2007-08) was 71,600 AF. 6. Projected annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water

for the current 2008-09 water year is 95,000 AF. 7. Projected annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water

for the ensuing 2009-10 water year is 71,000 AF. 8. Projected accumulated overdraft on June 30 of the current 2008-09 water year is

333,000 AF assuming average hydrological conditions. 9. Under the provisions of Section 27 of the District Act, a portion of the 2009-10

Replenishment Assessment (RA) could be equal to an amount necessary to purchase up to 102,000 AF of replenishment water.4

1 Accumulated overdraft was calculated using the OCWD-adopted (February 2007) three-layer storage change methodology and associated new benchmark for full-basin condition. Water year 2005-06 is the first year this methodology has been used. Refer to other portions within this section for additional explanation.

2 Water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Long-Term Groundwater Storage Program was

included as part of the total stored water in determining the basin’s accumulated overdraft. 3 “Annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water” is referred to as “annual overdraft” in the District Act. 4 The limit is determined by adding the five-year annual average basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water (71,600 AF) to one-tenth of the dewatered basin storage (306,000 AF), which results in the following: 71,600 AF + [(306,000 AF) x 0.10] =102,200 AF (or 102,000 AF when rounded).

5

BASIN HYDROLOGY Groundwater conditions in the Orange County groundwater basin are influenced by the natural hydrologic conditions of rainfall, groundwater seepage and stream flow. The basin also is influenced by groundwater extraction and injection through wells, use of imported water for groundwater replenishment, wastewater reclamation and water conservation practices throughout OCWD. The water year beginning July 1, 2007, yielded an average of 10.64 inches of rainfall within OCWD’s boundaries, which is approximately 79% of normal (i.e., 13.4 inches). The previous year (2006-07) had rainfall equaling 2.75 inches, which was the lowest since the 1962-63 water year. Three of the four most recent water years have been below average rainfall. The average seasonal rainfall in the OCWD service area for the five-year period (from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008) was 12.2 inches, which is slightly less than the historical annual average of 13.4 inches. Stream flow in the Santa Ana River (SAR) for 2007-08 totaled 204,860 AF (as measured downstream of Prado Dam), which was approximately 16 percent below the 30-year flow average of 243,480 AF. GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION Groundwater production from wells within OCWD for the 2007-08 water year totaled 366,185 AF (excludes In-Lieu Program water): 364,192 AF for non-irrigation and 1,993 AF for irrigation uses. The term “irrigation” used in the District Act and herein refers to irrigation for agricultural, horticultural or floricultural crops and for pasture grown for commercial purposes. OCWD’s In-Lieu Program, which replaces groundwater supplies with imported water to reduce groundwater pumping, was in effect in 2007-08 but none was available for purchase from MWD. Groundwater production and In-Lieu quantities within OCWD for the period 1961-62 through 2007-08 are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1. For the 2007-08 water year, total groundwater production remained unchanged at 366,185 AF since no In-Lieu Program water was available for purchase. Groundwater production and In-Lieu Program quantities for 2007-08 for the major groundwater producers are presented in Appendix 1. The groundwater production for all producers exceeding 25 AF per year for non-irrigation and irrigation purposes are listed in Appendices 2 and 3, respectively.

FIGURE 1. Groundwater Production

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1962

-63

1967

-68

1972

-73

1977

-78

1982

-83

1987

-88

1992

-93

1997

-98

2002

-03

2007

-08

Water Year

In-LieuNon-IrrigationIrrigation

1Basin losses under MWD CUP are not taken into account (for information on losses, see page 13 in this report).

TABLE 1. Historical Groundwater ProductionWithin OCWD

Water Year Jul 1-Jun 30

Groundwater Production

(AF)

In-LieuProgram

(AF)

Water YearJul 1-Jun 30

Groundwater Production

(AF)

In-LieuProgram

(AF)1961-62 177,172 - 1985-86 270,932 -1962-63 186,093 - 1986-87 276,354 -1963-64 188,603 - 1987-88 265,226 18,8561964-65 179,798 - 1988-89 275,077 15,0221965-66 182,172 - 1989-90 261,190 38,9611966-67 169,375 - 1990-91 266,745 44,5881967-68 193,656 - 1991-92 271,224 39,7891968-69 178,798 - 1992-93 273,587 38,9001969-70 194,379 - 1993-94 264,159 48,1341970-71 203,923 - 1994-95 298,217 15,6221971-72 229,048 - 1995-96 324,111 5,5421972-73 214,983 - 1996-97 331,406 7,8831973-74 218,863 - 1997-98 313,805 15,0961974-75 225,597 - 1998-99 342,823 13,3521975-76 245,456 - 1999-00 345,362 38,0071976-77 243,511 - 2000-01 350,385 18,6401977-78 188,407 48,290 2001-02 352,113 19,4731978-79 213,290 23,792 2002-03 297,191 61,4631979-80 221,453 24,861 2003-04 284,621 52,1681980-81 228,943 36,373 2004-05 244,370 69,6171

1981-82 244,184 - 2005-06 228,159 89,2161

1982-83 249,548 - 2006-07 299,118 50,7401

1983-84 223,207 52,822 2007-08 366,185 -1

1984-85 252,070 25,198

Gro

undw

ater

Pro

duct

ion

(

acre

-fee

t)

6

7

BASIN PRODUCTION PERCENTAGE The Basin Production Percentage (BPP) is defined in the District Act as “…the ratio that all water to be produced from groundwater supplies within the district bears to all water to be produced by persons and operators within the district from supplemental sources as well as from groundwater within the district.” The BPP applies only to water producers that utilize more than 25 AF of groundwater per water year. Water producers that use 25 AF or less from the groundwater basin are excluded from the production percentage limitation. The BPP for the 2007-08 water year was established at 80.2 percent by the OCWD Board of Directors. The overall BPP achieved within OCWD in the 2007-08 water year was equal to 78.6%. The BPP achieved by the District’s major groundwater producers for non-irrigation use for this same time period and water conservation credits, was 78.4 percent. The production percentage achieved by each major producer for non-irrigation use is presented in Appendix 1. Historical assigned and achieved BPPs are presented below in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2. Groundwater BPP

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1985

-86

1987

-88

1989

-90

1991

-92

1993

-94

1995

-96

1997

-98

1999

-00

2001

-02

2003

-04

2005

-06

2007

-08

Water Year

Prod

uctio

n Pe

rcen

tage

In-LieuGroundwater

OCWD Assigned Basin Production Percentage

GROUNDWATER LEVELS Groundwater levels in the Orange County groundwater basin are shown on Plate 1. Groundwater level data used to prepare this plate were collected during late June and early July 2008 from approximately 400 production wells and monitoring wells screened within the principal aquifers (approximately 300 to 1,200 feet deep). The groundwater

8

elevation plate shows pumping depressions generally ranging from 80 to 130 feet below sea level in coastal and western areas of the basin. A general indicator of changing basin levels is the location of the zero (0) mean sea level elevation contour line each year. The “zero contour line” generally migrated less than one mile landward when compared to its alignment in the prior year, indicating a generally mild decline in groundwater elevations. Plate 2 shows the change in water levels between June 2007 and 2008 for the groundwater basin’s principal aquifer system. Throughout the basin, groundwater levels in June 2008 were generally lower than June 2007 primarily due to the following conditions that occurred during 2007-08 water year: 1) below average rainfall, 2) historical high basin production of 366,185AF (including MWD Supplemental Storage Program supplies), and 3) no imported MWD replenishment water. The below-average rainfall led to less than anticipated incidental recharge as well as less Santa Ana River flow available to capture. The dry-year effect was amplified by the lack of any imported MWD water (either as In-Lieu or Direct Forebay recharge) available for replenishment. Basin pumping reached a historical high due to the BPP of 74% that was subsequently increased to 82% mid-year to facilitate pumping of MWD Supplemental Storage Program water (14,800 af). These factors contributed to the relatively large storage decrease of 108,000 AF. Below is a general description of the groundwater level decline during 2007-08 water year within each of the three major aquifer systems. Shallow Aquifer System Water levels dropped approximately 10 to 20 feet at the OCWD recharge areas in Anaheim and Orange due to the limited amount of recharge supply water for percolation. However, the exception to this water level decline in the recharge area was in the immediate vicinity of Kraemer and Miller basins, where water levels in June 2008 were approximately the same as June 2007 (no change). The sustained water level elevations at Kraemer and Miller basins were primarily due to these two basins being kept full for the entire second half of 2007-08 water year for a 6-month tracer study using GWR System water. Throughout the majority of the pressure area of the basin, as well as the Irvine Sub-basin, shallow aquifer water levels dropped only 5 to 10 feet. Relatively smaller or more gradual water level fluctuations in the pressure area of the shallow aquifer system are typically due to the lack of pumping from this aquifer along with being further away from the Anaheim and Orange recharge area. At the Talbert Barrier, water levels rose 0 to 5 feet along the eastern half of the Ellis Avenue alignment. While water levels in the surrounding pressure area were dropping,

9

the slight rising trend at the Talbert Barrier was achieved by significantly increasing injection volumes with the commencement of the GWR System in January 2008. However, the June 2008 groundwater elevations both at and seaward of the Talbert Barrier were still below protective elevations (below sea level). Principal Aquifer System Water levels dropped only 5 to 10 feet in portions of the OCWD recharge area, especially near Kraemer and Miller Basins similar to the shallow aquifer response mentioned above related to the 6-month GWR System tracer test conducted at those two basins during the latter half of 2007-08 water year. However, in the greater Forebay area of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Orange, as well as the central portion of the basin within the pressure area, water levels declined approximately 10 to 20 feet due in large part to heavy basin production as described above. In the eastern half of the coastal area, water levels dropped only 5 to 10 feet due largely to increased injection efforts at the Talbert Barrier with the commissioning of the GWR System in January 2008. In fact, in the immediate vicinity of the new GWR System injection wells on the west end of the Talbert Barrier on the Huntington Beach Mesa, water levels did not change from June 2007 to June 2008. In the vicinity of the Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD) well field, June 2008 water levels remained relatively unchanged from June 2007 which may likely be due to termination of Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) participation in the seasonal shift program; thereby, reducing summer-month production from the IRWD Dyer Road Well Field relative to the previous year. Deep Aquifer System In the deep aquifer, water levels generally dropped 10 to 20 feet throughout the majority of the basin. However, the water level decline was only 5 to 10 feet in the MCWD and IRWD Dyer Road Well Field areas. As mentioned for the principal aquifer water levels, the lack of decline in this area may be at least partially due to termination of the seasonal shift program by IRWD, thereby reducing summer-month pumping rates and associated water level declines. Water level hydrographs for four monitoring wells located in different areas of the basin are shown on Plate 3. The hydrographs are representative of the principal aquifer system and span the years between 1970 (shortly after the basin was considered approximately full) and 2008.

10

COASTAL GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS The coastal portion of the groundwater basin, essentially that area within five miles of the coast, is sensitive to lower groundwater levels due to seawater intrusion potential and seasonal effects on production well capacity. Coastal groundwater levels are affected by groundwater production, overall groundwater storage in the basin and, to a lesser extent, injection at the Talbert and Alamitos barriers. For the year ending June 30, 2008, groundwater production from the cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Seal Beach and Westminster as well as IRWD’s Dyer Road Well Field, MCWD and OCWD totaled approximately 118,700 AF. This significant increase in coastal pumping was primarily a result of three factors: 1) No In-Lieu Program water was available for purchase from MWD during 2007-08 compared to 2006-07, 2) MWD’s withdrawal of water stored under the Supplemental Storage Program (also refereed to as Super In-Lieu), and 3) BPP increase. The combined injections into both Talbert and Alamitos barriers totaled approximately 16,200 AF (includes all sources of water—imported and recycled) for the 2007-08 water year, which was an 86% increase from the prior year (2006-07). The increase in 2007-08 injection quantity was primarily due to the operations of the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWR System) Advanced Water Purification Facility and the Leo J. Vander Lans advanced wastewater treatment facility (in Long Beach). For the first half of 2007-08 (i.e., July 2007 to December 2007), the Talbert Barrier was limited to receiving injection water exclusively from the imported potable water turnout at OC-44 on Adams Avenue in Huntington Beach (conveyed to the barrier via a transmission line). For the second half of 2007-08 (i.e., January 2008 to June 2008), both GWR System recycled water and imported water from OC-44 connection (as a blending water source) were injected to Talbert Barrier. Coastal groundwater levels during the 2007-08 water year reached their lowest point in the late summer and early fall of 2007. Minimum levels in the Principal aquifer for summer/fall 2007 were consistently 30 feet lower than the minimum levels for summer/fall 2006 throughout the entire coastal area from Seal Beach to Costa Mesa. In the Costa Mesa area, the low point occurred during September 2007, as is typical of most years signifying the end of the higher-demand summer season. In the Seal Beach and Huntington Beach areas, summer water levels kept declining into early November 2007 when the low point was finally reached. This late-season water level decline was likely attributable to the lack of any coastal In-Lieu program as well as the higher BPP that was raised mid-year to pump the Supplemental Storage program water from the basin. ANNUAL GROUNDWATER BASIN OVERDRAFT Annual groundwater basin overdraft (or “annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water” as used in this Engineer’s Report), as defined in the

11

District Act, is the quantity by which production of groundwater supplies exceeds natural replenishment of groundwater supplies during a water year. This difference between extraction and replenishment can be estimated by determining the change in volume of groundwater in storage that would have occurred had supplemental water not been used for any groundwater recharge purpose, including seawater intrusion protection, water reclamation and the In-Lieu Program. For the 2007-08 water year, it is estimated that the volume of groundwater in storage decreased by 108,000 AF. Approximately, 10,300 AF of water was supplied to the basin as follows: 1) directly from the percolation or injection of imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project (SWP), 2) indirectly from groundwater producers participation in the In-Lieu Program, and 3) use of recycled water to supplement imported water in the Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion barriers. The annual overdraft was 136,000 AF for the 2007-08 water year. For the five-year period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008, an annual average of approximately 83,200 AF of supplemental water and recycled water was percolated or injected into the underground basin for replenishment or used directly in place of pumping groundwater. The annual overdraft during the same five-year period was approximately 71,600 AF.

GROUNDWATER BASIN ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT The accumulated overdraft, as defined in the District Act, is the quantity of water needed to be replaced at OCWD’s intake area to prevent landward movement of ocean water into the fresh groundwater body. Landward movement of ocean water can be prevented if groundwater levels near the coast are several feet above sea level. Groundwater levels along the coast are related to the volume of water stored in the intake area, water pumped from the entire basin and the pattern or location of pumping. However, the Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion control projects have been implemented to prevent landward movement of ocean water into the fresh groundwater body. These facilities allow greater utilization of the basin’s storage capacity. OCWD is also dedicated to maximizing its replenishment capabilities by actively negotiating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to increase its water conservation program behind Prado Dam and creating a Long-Term Facilities Plan to evaluate cost-effective improvements to its groundwater recharge capabilities. In February 2007, OCWD staff completed a report titled, “Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy.” This report presented a new methodology that had been developed, tested, and documented for calculating accumulated overdraft and storage change based on a three aquifer layer approach. Furthermore, the report provided the basis for calculating accumulated overdraft using a new full-basin benchmark that was developed for each of the three aquifer layers, which in effect replaces the traditional single-layer full benchmark of 1969. Lastly, the report recommended a basin management operational strategy that provided general guidelines

12

for annual basin refill or storage decrease based on the level of accumulated overdraft while using the BPP formula. The District endorsed and adopted the new storage change method on March 21, 2007. The annual analysis of basin storage change and accumulated overdraft for water year 2007-08 has been completed. This effort represents the third year (water year 2005-06 was the first year) of implementing the new methodology for calculating the storage change in the basin based on water levels in the three primary aquifer layers, as well as a new full basin benchmark for calculating the accumulated overdraft. Based on the new methodology using the new “full” benchmark, an accumulated overdraft of 306,000 AF was calculated for the water year ending June 30, 2008. The accumulated overdraft for the prior water year ending June 30, 2007 was 198,000 AF (calculated using the new three-layer storage method). Therefore, the annual decrease of 108,000 AF (reported earlier herein this report) in stored groundwater was calculated as the difference between the June 2007 and June 2008 accumulated overdrafts. Figure 3 shows the accumulated overdraft quantities for the years 1969 through 2008. It is noteworthy mentioning that all reported quantities up through June 2005 were based upon the traditional single-layer full benchmark of 1969 methodology. Starting in July 2005 and thereafter, the reported quantities were calculated based upon the new full condition three-layer methodology.

FIGURE 3. Accumulated Basin Overdraft

Projected accumulated overdrafts for the current water year (2008-09) and the ensuing water year (2009-10) ending June 30 are estimated to be 333,000 AF and 305,000 AF,

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

2009

Year (on June 30)

Acr

e-fe

et

Single-Layer Model (Old 1969 Full)

Three-Layer Model (New Full)

June 2005 (New ) = 201,000 AFJune 2005 (Old) = 230,000 AF

June 2008 = 306,000 AFDewatered Area

Groundwater

13

respectively assuming average hydrology. Projected annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water for the current water year (2008-09) is estimated to be 95,000 AF. This quantity is based on the assumption that annual groundwater production for the current water year will be approximately 360,000 AF (including groundwater pumping within the BPP, In-Lieu Program water, groundwater pumped above BPP from water quality improvement projects and extraction of MWD’s Long-Term Groundwater Storage Program water) and that natural replenishment (i.e., captured SAR base and storm flows, and natural incidental recharge) will be approximately 265,000 AF for the Santa Ana River basin under normal conditions for precipitation (as of mid-December 2008). Projected annual basin storage decrease without supplemental replenishment water for the ensuing water year (2009-10) is estimated to be 71,000 AF. This estimate is based on the assumption that total annual groundwater production for the ensuing water year will be 303,000 AF—a figure that is based upon an assumed BPP of 60% and includes 22,000 AF of production from wellhead water quality improvement projects (discussed further in the subsequent section, “Recommended BPP”). Additionally, 22,000 AF of MWD stored water (groundwater storage program described in next paragraph) is expected to be extracted. However, this water is considered to be MWD supply and not groundwater production. Natural replenishment is, on average, approximately 256,000 AF. On June 25, 2003, OCWD, the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), MWD, and participating producers officially approved the funding agreement for the MWD Long-Term Groundwater Storage Program. This conjunctive use storage program (also informally referred to as “MWD CUP”) provides for MWD to store up to 66,000 AF in the OCWD groundwater basin to be extracted (less basin losses) via pumping in place of receiving imported supplies during water shortage events. A compensation package from MWD was included in the agreement to build eight new groundwater production wells, improvements to the seawater intrusion barrier, construction of the Diemer Bypass Pipeline and an annual administrative fee. The preferred means to store water in the MWD storage account will be through the In-Lieu deliveries to participating groundwater producers. Storage will also be available through direct storage using OCWD’s spreading grounds. The annual quantities and cumulative totals of MWD water stored since the program’s inception are shown in Appendix 6 (please note that the quantities reported do not take into account basin losses). Cumulative basin losses for the CUP through June 30, 2007 were calculated to be 1,951.6 AF (i.e., annual losses are as follow: 2003-04 = losses were ignored for various reasons; 2004-05 = 154.0 AF; 2005-06 = 714.5 AF; and 2006-07 = 1,083.1 AF). On November 16, 2005, OCWD, MWDOC and MWD approved a Letter Agreement to enter into a second storage program with MWD. This agreement allowed for storage between 2,000 and 40,000 AF of imported water in the OCWD groundwater basin for 2005-06. The program is called the 2005-06 Supplemental Storage Program and was established

14

as a one-year program to take advantage of the availability of excess water supplies that resulted from the unusually wet winter experienced during water year 2004-05. For the water year 2005-06, 16,000 AF was stored in OCWD groundwater basin via the In-Lieu Program. MWD has called for this stored water and withdrawn the full 16,000 AF in the water year 2007-08. The Supplemental Storage Program is now completed and closed. REPLENISHMENT RECOMMENDATION Section 27(b) of the District Act states the following: “The total of the replenishment assessment levied in any year shall not exceed an amount of money found to be necessary to purchase sufficient water to replenish the average annual overdraft for the immediate past five water years plus an additional amount of water sufficient to eliminate over a period of not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years, the accumulated overdraft, plus an amount of money to pay the costs of initiating, carrying on, and completing any of the powers, projects and purposes for which this district is organized.” Based upon Section 27(b), that portion of the RA that is used for water purchases for the ensuing water year 2009-10 is limited to the amount needed to purchase 102,000 AF (rounded), as calculated below:

Five-year (7/1/2003 through 6/30/2008) Average Annual Basin Storage Decrease without Supplemental Replenishment Water* = 71,600 AF End of Water Year 2007-08 Accumulated Overdraft = 306,000 AF Assumed Time Period to Eliminate Accumulated Overdraft = 10 years Potential Water Purchase Amount: 71,600 AF + (306,000 AF/10 years) = 102,200 AF (use 102,000 AF)

*Referred to as the Average Annual Overdraft in Section 27(b) of the District Act. Table 2 presents the proposed 2009-10 budget for water purchases, which shows the proposed quantity of purchased water (37,500 AF) being significantly less than the prescribed limit of 102,000 AF as allowed for under the provisions of Section 27(b) of the District Act.

15

TABLE 2. 2009-10 Budget for Water Purchases Water Source AF Rate ($/AF)* Total Cost

Alamitos Barrier 2,000 $673.00 $ 1,346,000 Arlington Desalter 1,000 $347.00 $ 346,500 Recycled Water from IRWD Intertie 2,000 $ 89.15 $ 178,300 MWD Untreated Non-interruptible Water 10,500 $476.00 $ 5,066,250 MWD In-Lieu Water 5,000 $494.00 $ 2,470,000 MWD Direct Replenishment Water 15,000 $340.00 $ 5,092,500 WMWD Replenishment Water 2,000 $150.00 $ 300,000WATER PURCHASES SUBTOTAL 37,500 — $14,799,550

Applicable Charges Total Cost MWDOC Surcharge (8-year average) — — $ 450,000 MWD/MWDOC Capacity Charge — — $ 100,000 MWD/MWDOC RTS Charge — — $ 128,878ADDITIONAL CHARGES SUBTOTAL — — $678,878

WATER COST 37,500 — $15,478,428

*Rates include required MWDOC Capacity and Readiness to Serve charges where appropriate.

RECOMMENDED BASIN PRODUCTION PERCENTAGE

In December 2002, OCWD approved a basin management approach for determining the BPP for future water years. The management approach is based upon developing a base amount of groundwater production the basin can annually sustain utilizing dependable water supplies OCWD expects to receive. In December 2007, a new methodology was adopted by OCWD for setting the BPP and a policy that calls for OCWD to provide an estimate of the BPP each January for the following fiscal year to assist the groundwater producers in the preparation of their annual budgets. Prior to setting the BPP for the ensuing water year 2009-10 (in April 2009), OCWD will need to review and decide on the following significant policy issues that will have an impact on the final BPP setting.

1. MWD Replenishment water will not be available in water year 2009-10. OCWD will need to determine how to operate the basin under this condition. As illustrated by the adopted BPP equation (on the following page), the value placed in the “MWD Replenishment Water” box can have a big impact on the resulting BPP.

2. Replenishment water may not be available for extended periods due to recent events

with the State’s water supplies. MWD has estimated that replenishment water may only be available 2 out of 10 years in the future. This lack of replenishment water will create a need to reduce basin pumping and the BPP. On the average, the BPP would need to decline by approximately 13%. A decision will be needed on this issue starting with the BPP setting for 2009-10.

16

3. The Water Purchase budget was previously based upon OCWD’s long-term average

of purchasing replenishment supplies from MWD which is 65,000 AF. For the fiscal year 2008-09, only 35,000 AF of MWD replenishment water (both Direct and In-Lieu) were budgeted, a direct indication of the limited availability of MWD water supplies. It is recommended that 20,000 AF be included in the 2009-10 water purchase budget.

4. The District will also establish an estimate for the amount of basin refill to occur

under average hydrologic conditions. This figure will reduce the basin accumulated overdraft.

Adopted BPP Equation As adopted in December 2007, the following equation is used to assist OCWD in annually setting the BPP.

Based upon historical water supply data and current conditions through December 2008, a BPP of 60% to 64% is currently recommended for the ensuing water year 2009-10. Analysis of the groundwater basin’s accumulated overdraft, available supplies to the basin and projected pumping demands indicate that this level of pumping can be sustained for 2009-10 without detriment to the basin. A BPP of 60% corresponds to approximately 303,000 of groundwater production (including In-Lieu Program water). This includes 22,000 AF of groundwater production above the BPP to account for groundwater quality enhancement projects, as described below. An additional 22,000 AF of pumping in the ensuing water year 2009-10 is expected to come from the MWD storage program. However, this water is considered MWD supply. A BPP of 64% would include approximately 20,000 AF of additional groundwater pumping.

SAR Stormflows

using Rainfall Probability

Natural Incidental Recharge using

Rainfall Probability

SAR Baseflows (5-yr Avg)

Expected MWD Replenishment

Water

Expected GWR System Supplies

Other expected supplies such as Alamitos

Barrier and Arlington Desalter

Expected WQ pumping

above BPP

Planned Basin Refill (from table)

BPP =

+ +

- -

Total Water Demands (5-yr Avg.)

Expected Reclaimed & Local Supplies -

+

+

+

17

In order to achieve water quality objectives in the groundwater basin, it is recommended for the ensuing water year 2009-10 that additional production of approximately 22,000 AF (above the BPP) be allowed for the cities of Garden Grove and Tustin, and MCWD and IRWD. These agencies need the additional pumping allowance in order to accommodate groundwater quality improvement projects. As in prior years, production above the BPP from these projects would be partially or fully exempt from the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) as a result of the basin benefit provided by removing poor-quality groundwater and treating it for beneficial use. In March 2009, staff will review with the OCWD Board the basis and assumptions made for the proposed BPP and receive any direction on the matter. In April 2009, staff will again apprise the OCWD Board on the status of the aforementioned conditions. If the estimates of basin supplies in the current or ensuing year are substantially different than those contained in the respective conditions, then a revised BPP may be recommended. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The notice of public hearing will be mailed out sometimes in March 2009.

18

PART II: WATER SUPPLY AND BASIN UTILIZATION Section 31.5 of the District Act requires an investigation and annual report setting forth the following information related to water supply and basin utilization within the OCWD service area, together with other information as OCWD may desire:

WATER SUPPLY AND BASIN UTILIZATION 2007-08 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1. Water usage from all supplemental sources totaled 113,255 AF for the 2007-08 water year, and no In-Lieu water was available for purchase.

2. Water usage from recycled water produced from within OCWD totaled 27,895 AF

for the 2007-08 water year. 3. Water demand within OCWD totaled 479,308 AF for the 2007-08 water year. 4. Estimated demand for groundwater for the ensuing 2009-10 water year is 303,000 AF. 5. Supplemental replenishment water will not be available through June 2009. For the

ensuing 2009-10 water year, it is unlikely that replenishment water of any type (Direct or In-Lieu) will be available.

19

SUPPLEMENTAL WATER Supplemental water is used by water agencies within OCWD’s boundary to augment groundwater supplies in satisfying their user demands and by OCWD to recharge the groundwater basin. Supplemental water, as defined in Section 31.5 of the District Act, is any water that originates from outside the Santa Ana River (SAR) watershed (area of 2,081 square miles) with the exception of water that originates within the portion of the Santiago Creek watershed that lies upstream of Villa Park Dam is also counted as supplemental water. Please note that the Santiago Creek watershed lies entirely within the SAR watershed. Sources of supplemental water typically include imported deliveries from MWD and diversions from Irvine Lake/Santiago Reservoir (i.e., Santiago Creek) that are conveyed to users within OCWD boundaries. MWD deliveries originate from either the Colorado River or the SWP. In addition, supplemental water would also include deliveries from within the SAR watershed that involve “water exchanges” (i.e., releasing a quantity of water that originates from within the SAR watershed while importing an equal quantity of supplemental water to replace it). Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) in Riverside County has a water exchange program with OCWD. Non-local waters are defined, for purposes of this report, as waters purchased from agencies outside of the OCWD boundary for use within OCWD. Non-local waters include supplemental water and also water deliveries purchased by OCWD where the water source is located within the SAR watershed. Water deliveries to OCWD from the Arlington Desalter in Riverside and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District’s (SBVMWD) High Groundwater Mitigation Project are non-local waters. Both projects involve the pumping (and treatment in Arlington’s case) and release of groundwater from SAR upstream groundwater basins to OCWD via the SAR for groundwater replenishment at the OCWD Forebay recharge facilities. For the purpose of being consistent with previous Engineer’s Reports and to present information in a concise manner, non-local water deliveries that are purchased and used by OCWD for groundwater replenishment are included in the supplemental water totals in this report. Recycled wastewater that is produced and used within OCWD is considered, for purposes of this report, as neither non-local water nor supplemental water (sometimes referred to as “neutral water”). Therefore, recycled water that originates from within OCWD is reported separately from supplemental water totals. However, recycled water used in the Alamitos Barrier is supplied by Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) and as such is categorized as supplemental water. Water agencies utilizing supplemental water are listed in Appendix 1. As shown in Table 3, during the 2007-08 water year, use of supplemental water in the OCWD service area totaled 113,255 AF, which resulted from 103,019 AF used directly by water agencies and 10,236 AF (includes any In-Lieu Program water which was zero for 2007-08) used for groundwater replenishment purposes. Supplemental water used by water agencies included 96,627 AF

20

for municipal and industrial use and 6,392 AF for agricultural purposes. Historical supplemental water usage for the 2007-08 water year and earlier is shown in Figure 4. Starting in January 2008 (i.e., the second half of 2007-08 water year), the GWR System began delivering recycled water to both Talbert Barrier and the recharge basins. It is noteworthy to include the GWR System water production in Figure 4 in the near future in an effort to highlight its important role in the historical water usage. A breakdown of non-local water purchases by OCWD for 1990-91 through 2007-08 is presented in Appendix 6.

TABLE 3. 2007-08 Supplemental Water Usage Direct Agency Use AFImported Water 101,045 Santiago Creek Native Water 1,974

Subtotal 103,019Groundwater Replenishment (Purchased)In-Lieu Program1 0 Forebay Recharge 0 Alamitos Barrier2 1,506 Talbert Barrier 4,581 Western Municipal Water District3 2,882 Arlington Desalter3 1,267 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District3 0

Subtotal 10,236 TOTAL 113,255

1Any amount reported herein includes water received by OCWD’s groundwater producers as In-Lieu water under MWD’s groundwater storage program (i.e., CUP).

2Total combines imported and recycled water deliveries. 3Non-local water deliveries to OCWD are included herein for the purpose of being consistent with

reporting in previous Engineer’s Reports.

Groundwater replenishment quantities, as shown in Table 3 for 2007-08, include direct deliveries to OCWD’s Forebay recharge facilities, Alamitos Barrier, Talbert Barrier and indirectly from reduction in pumping through the In-Lieu Program. Replenishment water typically comes from MWD supplies; SAR upstream releases from the Arlington Desalter, WMWD and SBVMWD; and recycled water from OCWD’s GWR System and the WRD Alamitos Barrier Recycled Water Project. For the 2007-08, a total of 10,236 AF of supplemental water was used for the purpose of groundwater replenishment and barrier injection.

For the 2007-08 water year, the OCWD Board of Directors budgeted funds to participate in the In-Lieu Program provided by MWD. The cost of the In-Lieu Program water to OCWD is the difference between the cost for treated replenishment water (formerly called “Long-Term Seasonal Storage” water) and the cost to produce groundwater (i.e., RA plus cost of energy to pump groundwater). OCWD pays this difference to the

21

participating agencies. There was no In-Lieu Program water delivery for the 2007-08 water year as shown in Table 3.

FIGURE 4. Historical Supplemental Water Usage

Recycled water use within OCWD is presented in Table 4 (excluding WRD-supplied recycled water to the Alamitos Barrier, because this water is categorized as supplemental water and is already included in totals reported in Table 3). The major areas of use for recycled water are: 1) groundwater replenishment (including recharge basins and the blended injection water used to supply the Talbert Barrier), and 2) supply water for irrigation and industrial users.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1962

-63

1967

-68

1972

-73

1977

-78

1982

-83

1987

-88

1992

-93

1997

-98

2002

-03

2007

-08

Water Year

Acr

e-fe

et

Purchased for Recharge

In-Lieu Program

Producer Direct Use

22

TABLE 4. 2007-08 Recycled Water Usage Groundwater Replenishment AFGWR System AWPF (for Talbert Barrier) 10,072 GWR System AWPF (for Recharge Basins) 7,719

Subtotal 17,791Irrigation and IndustrialIRWD1 7,940 OCWD (Green Acres Project)2 2,164

Subtotal 10,104 TOTAL 27,895

1Recycled water used within the portion of OCWD that lies within IRWD’s boundaries (excludes OCWD/IRWD intertie water deliveries to the Green Acres Project). 2Excludes deliveries to the Orange County Sanitation District and includes IRWD/OCWD Intertie deliveries to the Green Acres Project.

AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPLENISHMENT WATER The availability of replenishment water from MWD has been significantly impacted by the pumping restrictions on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in order to protect the endangered Delta smelt. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service released a new biological opinion in December 2008 regarding the Delta smelt and the operation of SWP and Central Valley Project pumps. The biological opinion will continue reductions in SWP and federal Central Valley Project Delta water exports, and the pumping restrictions contained in the biological opinion will replace the interim Delta water cuts put in place by Judge Wanger in December 2007. The biological opinion is currently being reviewed by MWD and other affected agencies to determine its impact(s). Preliminary analysis by the Department of Water Resources indicates that the Delta water deliveries throughout much of California will be reduced from 20% to 30% in average years and up to 50% in dry hydrological conditions. These new operating restrictions mean that the years in which MWD has excess imported supplies (thus allowing it to provide replenishment water to local groundwater agencies) will be significantly reduced. MWD is estimating that they will have excess supplies approximately 2 out of 10 years. MWD has projected that replenishment water will not be available through June 2010. The availability of replenishment water in ensuing water year 2009-10 is highly unlikely. WATER DEMANDS During the 2007-08 water year, total water demands within OCWD’s service area totaled 479,308 AF. Total demand includes the use of groundwater, MWD In-Lieu Program water, imported water, Santiago Creek native water and recycled water. Total demand excludes groundwater, supplemental water and recycled water used by OCWD for groundwater recharge and also excludes water credits given for water conservation.

23

Water demands for 2007-08 and projected water demands for 2008-09 and 2009-10 are shown in Table 5. The water demands for 2008-09 (current year) were determined by assessing the current year data that is available and projecting that data to develop annual totals for the current year. The water demands for 2009-10 (ensuing year) are based on projections provided by the retail water agencies within OCWD’s service area. Long-term projections are shown in Figure 5.

TABLE 5. Water Demands Within OCWDGround-water1

ImportedWater2,3

SantiagoCreek Native

Water3

Recycled Water4 Total

2007-08 Non-Irrigation 364,192 94,653 1,974 10,104 470,923 Irrigation 1,993 6,392 - - 8,385 Total 366,185 101,045 1,974 10,104 479,3082008-09 (Current Year)5 Non-Irrigation 338,500 131,500 3,000 11,000 484,000 Irrigation 2,500 1,500 - - 4,000 Total 341,000 133,000 3,000 11,000 488,0002009-10 (Ensuing Year)5 Non-Irrigation 301,000 170,000 3,000 11,000 485,000Irrigation 2,000 1,000 - - 3,000Total 303,000 171,000 3,000 11,000 488,000

1 Includes In-Lieu Program water if such Program water were available (none in 2007-08). 2Excludes water conservation credits and imported water used for groundwater replenishment. 3 “Imported Water” and “Santiago Creek Native Water” are both counted as supplemental water. 4Excludes recycled water injected into the groundwater basin for seawater intrusion protection. Includes recycled water from IRWD and OCWD’s Green Acres Project (excluding OCSD usage).

5 Demands are estimated by OCWD.

WATER DEMAND FORECAST OCWD participates with MWDOC and retail groundwater producers to predict future demands in the OCWD service area. Each producer projected its total water demands to the year 2025. These projections include the effect of local water conservation measures. Figure 5 illustrates historical and projected water demands for the OCWD service area to the year 2025. Population within OCWD’s service area is expected to increase from the current 2.40 million people to approximately 2.67 million people by the year 2025. This population growth is expected to increase water demands from the current approximately 491,000 AF per year to 548,000 AF per year in 2025 as projected in the OCWD Long-Term Facilities

24

Plan (Draft Final, dated December 5, 2008). In an effort to support increasing water demands, OCWD will look to increase basin production by operating the recently completed GWR System (and possibly expanding the current AWPF production capacity), capturing SAR flows, purchasing imported supplies for groundwater recharge whenever supplies are available, developing other local recycled water supplies for replenishment purposes, expanding recharge facilities and improving the In-Lieu Program.

FIGURE 5. Water Demand Projections

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1984

-85

1989

-90

1994

-95

1999

-00

2004

-05

2009

-10

2014

-15

2019

-20

2024

-25

Water Year

Acr

e-Fe

et

Historical Demand

Projected Demand

ADVANCED WASTEWATER RECLAMATION Historically, groundwater, supplemental water and local surface water have been the primary water sources within OCWD. In recent decades, wastewater reclamation has become increasingly a significant source of additional water. Purified recycled wastewater has been produced by OCWD for use as injection water in the Talbert Barrier. OCWD and IRWD recycle wastewater at their respective treatment plants for non-irrigation and industrial uses. In October 2002, a major development took place in the wastewater reclamation. OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) signed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to construct the $486.9 million GWR System. The advanced treatment processes consist of microfiltration (MF) followed by reverse osmosis (RO) and ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection in combination with hydrogen peroxide. Construction for this project commenced in June 2003 and was completed at the end of 2007. The GWR System was operational in January 2008. This project treats and delivers 72,000 AF per year of wastewater that has been purified to drinking water standards for direct injection into the

25

Talbert seawater intrusion barrier and percolation into the OCWD groundwater basin through the use of recharge basins. For 2007-08, GAP and IRWD recycled wastewater deliveries for landscape irrigation and industrial use in Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Santa Ana and the IRWD service area totaled 10,104 AF. In October 2005, WRD placed the 3 MGD Alamitos Barrier Recycled Water Project known as the Leo J. Vander Lans into service. The project supplies highly treated recycled water to the Alamitos Barrier. The Leo J. Vander Lans advanced wastewater treatment facility located in Long Beach utilizes the treatment processes of MF, RO and UV light disinfection. This project is intended to replace up to 50% of the imported water used to supply the barrier. The project operated for ten months in 2007-08 (from September 2007 to June 2008). For 2007-08, the project supplied 347 AF of recycled water to the barrier, which represented 23% of the barrier’s supply. Recycled water deliveries from the Leo J. Vander Lans plant to the Orange County portion of the Alamitos Barrier are classified as supplemental water (i.e., water that originates outside the SAR watershed).

WATER QUALITY When blended together by the major agencies within the OCWD service area, the blended groundwater (without treatment) and treated supplemental water for 2007-08 year is determined to have a flow-weighted average of 469 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of total dissolved solids (TDS), which is an increase from 436 mg/L for average TDS reported for the prior year (2006-07). The average groundwater TDS concentration for the basin for 2007-08 is 456 mg/L (versus 449 mg/L reported for 2006-07), ranging from a low of 212 mg/L in the Seal Beach area to greater than 600 mg/L in certain inland areas. Average concentrations of TDS, nitrates and hardness for groundwater and groundwater combined with supplemental water supplied by agencies within OCWD’s service area during the 2007-08 water year are shown in Table 6. These concentrations were determined from groundwater and supplemental water analyses and from production reports submitted to and filed with OCWD by each agency. The city of Tustin and IRWD have active groundwater treatment projects that help to reduce certain constituents reported in Table 6 in their groundwater supply prior to service to their customers (see note 6 in Table 6).

26

TABLE 6. 2007-08 Water Quality Summary

Groundwater1,7 Delivered Blend1,2,7

City/Agency TDS3 NO3-N4 Hard-ness5

TDS3 NO3-N4 Hard-ness5

Anaheim 552 3.0 319 544 2.4 300Buena Park 364 1.1 203 400 0.9 209East Orange County Water District 608 3.9 361 542 1.5 269 Fountain Valley 388 1.2 231 414 1.0 230Fullerton 572 2.9 303 555 2.1 281Garden Grove 498 3.2 300 501 2.6 285Golden State Water Company 440 1.9 242 464 1.4 237 Huntington Beach 387 0.4 190 412 0.4 197Irvine Ranch Water District6 341* 0.2* 131* 361* 0.3* 142* La Palma 269 ND8 141 337 0.1 165Mesa Consolidated Water District 374 0.4 151 395 0.4 163Newport Beach 444 1.4 234 458 1.2 233Orange 492 2.5 290 496 2.0 277Orange Park Acres Mutual Water Co. 680 4.3 433 654 3.8 401 Santa Ana 410 2.2 245 430 1.8 242Seal Beach 212 ND8 59 281 0.1 98Serrano Water District 653 1.2 366 674 0.9 357 Tustin6 543* 6.4* 302* 534* 4.6* 279* Westminster 346 1.0 209 378 0.9 213 Yorba Linda Water District 620 3.0 332 592 2.3 304 Weighted Average7 456 2.0 247 469 1.6 243 1All groundwater results (alone or blend) are for untreated groundwater (see note 6 below). Units are reported in mg/L. 2Delivered blend includes untreated groundwater and treated imported MWD water (i.e., blend of Colorado River water and State Project water as measured at the MWD Diemer Plant), except Serrano Water District, which blends with treated Santiago Reservoir water. Units are reported in mg/L. Annual average water qualities for MWD and Santiago Reservoir (Irvine Lake) for 2007-08 are as follows:

MWD Water Quality Santiago Reservoir Water QualityTDS = 513 mg/L TDS = 724 mg/L

N03-N = 2.0 mg/L N03-N = 0.21 mg/L Hardness (as CaCO3) = 228 mg/L Hardness (as CaCO3) = 336 mg/L3 Secondary Drinking Water Standards for TDS are as follows: 500 mg/L = recommended limit 1,000 mg/L = upper limit4 Primary Drinking Water Standard for nitrate NO3-N (i.e., nitrate expressed as nitrogen) is 10 mg/L.5 Hardness is reported as mg/L of CaCO3. General classifications of hard and soft water are within the following concentration ranges:

0-75 mg/L = soft 150-300 mg/L = hard75-150 mg/L = moderately hard 300-up mg/L = very hard

6 Agencies with active groundwater quality improvement projects that treat for one or more of the constituents listed in the table. The results shown herein for “groundwater” and “delivered blend” reflect results from untreated groundwater. Water quality constituents that are marked with an asterisk (*) are reduced prior to delivery to customers.

7All water quality results are flow-weighted averages based on groundwater and imported water delivered to each entity. 8ND = non-detect. Nitrate (as NO3-N) analytical detection limit for OCWD Laboratory = 0.1 mg/L.

27

WATER RESOURCES DATA A summary of water resources data within OCWD for the 2007-08 water year and the previous year (2006-07) is shown in Appendix 5.

28

PART III: WATER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR ENSUING YEAR (2009-10)

Section 31.5 of the District Act requires that costs of producing groundwater and obtaining supplemental water be evaluated annually. These costs vary for each producer and depend on many factors. Although these variations in cost are recognized, it is necessary for the purpose of this report to arrive at figures representing the average cost of producing groundwater and purchasing supplemental water.

ENSUING YEAR (2009-10) WATER PRODUCTION COSTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1. Cost for producing water from the groundwater basin within OCWD including any

replenishment assessment for 2009-10 is estimated to be $408per acre-foot. 2. Cost of treated, non-interruptible supplemental water for 2009-10 is estimated to be

$703 per acre-foot. 4. Cost for untreated, interruptible replenishment water for 2009-10 is estimated to be

$347.00 per acre-foot. 5. Cost for In-Lieu Program water for 2009-10 is estimated to be $501 per acre-foot.

29

GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR NON-IRRIGATION USE Cost for producing an acre-foot of groundwater in the ensuing 2009-10 water year has been estimated for a potable water well for a large groundwater producer (e.g., a city water department, water district) in OCWD’s service area. Operations and maintenance (O&M) and energy costs were estimated using cost information provided by several of the large groundwater producers from a survey conducted by OCWD in fall 2008. The capital cost component was derived using available actual project cost data for eight production wells constructed under the MWD Long-Term Groundwater Storage Program. Drilling, development, construction and startup of the groundwater pumping equipment and appurtenances of the eight wells have all been completed. Appendix 4 contains several of the key design characteristics for the eight production wells project. The OCWD RA used in the cost determination is the proposed RA for 2009-10. The estimated cost for groundwater production for a large groundwater producing entity (e.g., a city water department, water district, etc.) is presented in Table 7. The total cost to produce an acre-foot of groundwater within OCWD in the ensuing 2009-10 water year is estimated to be $408 per acre-foot. Based on responses to the aforementioned survey, the flow-weighted average (based upon the quantity of water pumped) for energy cost equaled $59 per AF. O&M costs ranged from $18 to $164 per acre-foot with a median cost of approximately $48 per acre-foot. Elements that influence these costs include load factors and variations in groundwater levels. Recently drilled wells are generally deeper than those drilled decades ago. From the aforementioned survey, the average load factor which indicates the percent-of-use of an extraction facility equaled 56 percent.

TABLE 7. Estimated 2009-10 Groundwater Production Costs

Non-irrigationItemAnnual $ $/AF

Energy 153,4001 592

Proposed RA 647,4001 2493

Total Production Costs 800,800 308 Capital 135,2004 524

O&M 124,8001 482

Total Other Costs 260,000 100 Total Cost to Producers 1,060,800 408

1 Based upon an annual average production of 2,600 AF per production well. 2 Based on survey of major agencies within OCWD’s service area, non-irrigation groundwater users. 3 Proposed RA for 2009-10. 4 Based on the estimated average cost for design and construction of a production well (excluding land cost) under the MWD Long-Term Groundwater Storage Program (cost amortized over 30 years at 5 percent interest). Typical design parameters are listed in Appendix 4.

30

COST OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER Supplemental water is supplied to the OCWD service area by MWD. MWD delivers both treated and untreated water as either a non-interruptible supply or an interruptible supply. As a result, there are several categories of water available from MWD. The categories most applicable for purposes of this report are 1) uninterruptible (i.e., firm) treated water, which is referred to as “full service water,” 2) interruptible treated water, which is referred to as “In-Lieu water,” and 3) interruptible untreated water, which is referred to as “replenishment water.” Treated water is used directly by the various producers for municipal and industrial purposes, while untreated water is used by OCWD for groundwater replenishment. Table 8 shows the estimated costs for the three aforementioned MWD water categories for the ensuing 2009-10 water year. Figure 6 shows historical supplemental water costs along with historical groundwater production costs. A comparison of estimated costs for groundwater versus supplemental water (non-irrigation use) during the ensuing water year (2009-10) is shown in Table 9 and also in Figure 6. Values used in Figure 6 are presented in tabular form in Appendix 7.

TABLE 8. Estimated 2009-10 Supplemental Water Costs1

Rate and Charge Components Treated Water Rates ($/AF)

Firm Deliveries Full Service Water MWD Supply Rate (MWDOC Melded Rate) MWD System Access Rate MWD System Power Rate MWD Water Stewardship Rate MWD Treatment Surcharge MWD RTS and Capacity Charges2

MWDOC Surcharge

Total

165.00161.50117.50

31.50179.50

41.00 7.00

703.00

Rate and Charge Components Treated Water Rates ($/AF)

UntreatedWater Rates

($/AF)Interruptible Deliveries In-Lieu Water Replenishment

WaterMWD Replenishment Water Rate 494.00 340.00MWDOC Surcharge 7.00 7.00Total 501.00 347.00

1 Rates are an average of calendar year 2009 and proposed calendar year 2010. Supplemental water costs for MWD member agencies (i.e., Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana) are not reported herein due to the variability between the agencies on water supply allocations between MWD’s Tier 1 and Tier 2.

2 Readiness-to-Serve (RTS) and Capacity charges have been converted to an approximate cost per acre-foot, but are not normally reported in terms of unit cost.

31

Cost components for supplemental treated and untreated water are listed in Table 8. Beyond the normally expected water supply and treatment and power charges, there are several other charges. The System Access charge is for costs associated with the conveyance and distribution system, including capital and O&M costs. The Water Stewardship charge is used to support MWD’s financial commitment to conservation, water recycling, groundwater recovery and other water management programs approved by MWD. MWD uses the Capacity Charge to recover its cost for use of peaking capacity within its distribution system. The Readiness-to-Serve (RTS) charge is to recover MWD’s cost associated with providing standby and peak conveyance capacity and system emergency storage capacity. As of Jan. 1, 2003, the RTS charge was discontinued for “interruptible” deliveries and the Capacity Charge commenced for full service and agricultural program deliveries. The Capacity Charge does not apply to replenishment water. MWDOC is a MWD member agency that distributes MWD supplemental water to many water agencies within the OCWD service area. The MWDOC surcharge (applied to the MWD supplemental water purchased by these agencies) provides general funding for MWDOC. There are three agencies within OCWD that purchase supplemental water directly from MWD (i.e., the MWD member agencies of Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana) for which the MWDOC surcharge does not apply.

FIGURE 61. Adopted and ProjectedWater Rates for Non-Irrigation Use

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

1993

-94

1995

-96

1997

-98

1999

-00

2001

-02

2003

-04

2005

-06

2007

-08

2009

-10

Water Year

Cos

t ($/

acre

-foo

t)

MWD/MWDOC Treated FullService

MWD/MWDOC Treated In-LieuProgramGroundw ater Production Cost(i.e., RA+Energy)

OCWD ReplenishmentAssessment (i.e., RA)

1 Refer to Appendix 7 for actual values used in Figure 6.

32

TABLE 9. Estimated 2009-10 Water Production Cost Comparison

Non-Irrigation Use Groundwater ($/AF)

Supplemental Water ($/AF)

Fixed Cost 521 7033

Variable Cost 3562 -3

Total 408 703 1 Capital cost. 2 Cost for energy, O&M plus proposed RA. 3 Delineation of fixed and variable costs is not available.

35

PLATE 3MONITORING WELL HYDROGRAPH TRENDS

Measured water level elevationsin feet relative to mean sea level

35

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005-120-110-100-90-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10

0102030

ELEV

ATIO

N (F

EET

MSL

)

COS-PLAZ05S/10W-35K01

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005-120-110-100-90-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10

0102030

ELEV

ATIO

N (F

EET

MSL

)

GG-1604S/11W-33L01

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005-20-10

0102030405060708090

100110120130

ELEV

ATIO

N (F

EET

MSL

)

A-26 AM-1404S/10W-01F01 04S/10W-01P02

A-26 -- Destroyed/SealedAM-14

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005-20-10

0102030405060708090

100110120130

ELEV

ATIO

N (F

EET

MSL

)

TIC-4105S/09W-36B01

IDM-305S/09W-36B02

TIC-41 -- Destroyed/SealedIDM-3, Casing 2

36

APP

END

IX 1

. W

ater

Pro

duct

ion

Dat

a 20

07-0

8

Gro

undw

ater

(AF)

S

uppl

emen

tal W

ater

(AF)

(A

F)A

ctua

l BP

P

Non

-Irrig

atio

n1Irr

igat

ion

Non

-Irrig

atio

n1Irr

igat

ion

Non

-Irrig

atio

n1

Gro

undw

ater

Pro

duce

r P

umpi

ngIn

-Lie

uP

rogr

am2

Pum

ping

Tota

l D

eliv

erie

s C

onse

rvat

ion

Cre

dit3

Del

iver

ies

Tota

l G

rand

Tot

al

only

Ana

heim

, City

of

58,3

82.2

-

- 58

,382

.215

,271

.9

203.

8

-

15,4

75.7

73,8

57.9

79.0

%B

uena

Par

k, C

ity o

f 13

,257

.8

-

-

13,2

57.8

4,19

5.5

17.6

-

4,

213.

117

,470

.975

.9%

Eas

t Ora

nge

Cou

nty

Wat

er D

istri

ct

416.

2

-

-

416.

292

5.6

52.5

-

97

8.1

1,39

4.3

29.9

%C

ount

y of

Ora

nge

104.

6

-

- 10

4.6

144.

0

-

-

144.

024

8.6

42.1

%Fo

unta

in V

alle

y, C

ity o

f 8,

727.

9

-

- 8,

727.

92,

268.

8 46

.2

-

2,31

5.0

11,0

42.9

79.0

%Fu

llerto

n, C

ity o

f 22

,509

.8

- 14

.922

,524

.79,

224.

8 46

.6-

9,27

1.4

31,7

96.1

70.8

%G

arde

n G

rove

, City

of4

23,4

61.9

-

- 23

,461

.95,

811.

7 86

.8

-

5,89

8.5

29,3

60.4

79.9

%G

olde

n S

tate

Wat

er C

ompa

ny

20,4

55.2

-

- 20

,455

.210

,252

.3

75.8

-

10

,328

.130

,783

.366

.4%

Hun

tingt

on B

each

, City

of

25,5

72.6

-

-

25,5

72.6

6,28

4.7

91.0

-

6,

375.

731

,948

.380

.0%

Irvin

e R

anch

Wat

er D

istri

ct4,

5 44

,958

.1

-

318.

045

,276

.15,

388.

7 28

8.7

6,34

0.2

12,0

17.6

57,2

93.7

88.8

%La

Pal

ma,

City

of

1,74

7.9

-

-

1,74

7.9

667.

0 4.

2

-

671.

22,

419.

172

.3%

Mes

a C

onso

lidat

ed W

ater

Dis

trict

4 16

,859

.6

- 36

.216

,895

.83,

007.

1 10

1.3

-

3,

108.

420

,004

.284

.4%

New

port

Bea

ch, C

ity o

f 14

,342

.0

-

-

14,3

42.0

3,73

8.6

33.9

-

3,

772.

518

,114

.579

.2%

Ora

nge,

City

of 5

27,2

75.3

-

114.

327

,389

.67,

144.

0 31

.140

.37,

215.

434

,605

.079

.2%

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

Wat

er D

istri

ct6

2,29

0.1

-

-

2,29

0.1

-

-

-

- 2,

290.

110

0.0%

Ora

nge

Par

k A

cres

Mut

ual W

ater

Co.

78

0.0

-

-

780.

014

2.6

-

-

14

2.6

922.

684

.5%

San

ta A

na, C

ity o

f 34

,572

.3

-

-

34,5

72.3

8,52

0.8

71.0

-

8,

591.

843

,164

.180

.1%

Sea

l Bea

ch, C

ity o

f 3,

107.

3

-

- 3,

107.

392

9.4

3.0

-

93

2.4

4,03

9.7

76.9

%S

erra

no W

ater

Dis

trict

5 2,

350.

1

-

- 2,

350.

199

0.5

2.4

-

99

2.9

3,34

3.0

70.3

%Tu

stin

, City

of4

9,51

6.8

-

- 9,

516.

84,

166.

3 17

.7

-

4,18

4.0

13,7

00.8

69.5

%W

estm

inst

er, C

ity o

f 11

,087

.8

-

-

11,0

87.8

2,66

6.3

73.4

-

2,

739.

713

,827

.580

.2%

Yorb

a Li

nda

Wat

er D

istri

ct

13,5

70.7

-

104.

613

,675

.34,

886.

8 24

.711

.44,

922.

918

,598

.273

.4%

Tota

l (M

ajor

Gro

undw

ater

Pro

duce

rs)

355,

346.

20.

058

8.0

355,

934.

296

,627

.4

1,27

1.7

6,39

1.9

104,

291.

046

0,22

5.2

78.4

%O

ther

Pro

duce

rs P

rodu

ctio

n

6,90

7.5

-

1,

404.

88,

312.

3

-

-

-

-

8,31

2.3

-

E

xem

pt W

ell P

rodu

ctio

n 1,

938.

4

-

- 1,

938.

4

-

-

-

-

1,93

8.4

-

Tota

l Am

ount

36

4,19

2.1

0.0

1,99

2.8

366,

184.

996

,627

.4

1,27

1.7

6,39

1.9

104,

291.

047

0,47

5.9

-

Bas

in P

rodu

ctio

n Pe

rcen

tage

(BPP

) (in

clud

es n

on-ir

rigat

ion

and

irrig

atio

n de

liver

ies,

but

exc

lude

s co

nser

vatio

n cr

edits

)78

.6%

1W

ater

cla

ssed

as

bein

g us

ed fo

r pur

pose

s ot

her t

han

com

mer

cial

agr

icul

ture

.

2Im

porte

d M

WD

wat

er p

urch

ased

for d

omes

tic u

se to

offs

et g

roun

dwat

er p

umpi

ng.

3 Acc

ount

s fo

r onl

y th

ose

cred

its a

llow

ed fo

r und

er th

e pr

ogra

m in

itiat

ed o

n S

ept.

20, 1

995.

4

Age

ncie

s th

at p

artic

ipat

e in

a g

roun

dwat

er w

ater

qua

lity

clea

nup

proj

ect.

5 A

genc

ies

that

can

rece

ive

San

tiago

Cre

ek n

ativ

e w

ater

abo

ve V

illa

Par

k D

am th

at a

re c

onve

yed

to u

sers

with

in O

CW

D.

Suc

h w

ater

, if d

eliv

ered

, is

incl

uded

w

ithin

the

clas

sific

atio

n of

“Sup

plem

enta

l Wat

er” a

s de

fined

in th

e D

istri

ct A

ct.

6 Gro

undw

ater

qua

ntity

repo

rted

here

in is

that

qua

ntity

use

d by

OC

WD

for p

urpo

ses

othe

r tha

n se

awat

er in

trusi

on b

arrie

r mai

nten

ance

.

36

37

APPENDIX 2. 2007-081 Groundwater Production — Non-Irrigation Use Production Over 25 Acre-feet

PRODUCER AF PRODUCER AFAlta Vista Country Club 393.3 Mesa Verde Country Club 342.1 Anaheim Cemetery 42.6 Midway City Mutual Water Co. 159.7 Anaheim, City of 58,382.2 Mile Square Golf Course 119.6 Angelica Textile Services – Plant 10 168.9 Navy Golf Course 596.7 Buena Park, City of 13,257.8 Newport Beach Golf Course 102.6 Canyon RV Park 109.7 Newport Beach, City of 14,342.0 Catalina St. Pump Owners 33.4 Niagara Drinking Water 77.3 CCDA Waters, L.L.C. 144.4 Old Ranch Country Club 566.8 County of Orange 104.6 Orange, City of 27,275.3 Cypress GC LLC/Cypress Golf Club 44.2 Orange County Water District 2,290.1 Danone Waters of North America 246.8 Orange Park Acres Mutual Water Co. 780.0 Donovan Golf Course Management 327.3 Pacific Science Company 40.3 Eastlake Village HOA 86.5 Page Avenue Mutual Water Co. 31.9 East Orange County Water District 416.2 R.J. Noble Company 25.7 Eastside Water Association 253.7 River View Golf 331.3 Fairhaven Memorial Park 170.0 Santa Ana, City of 34,572.3 Forest Lawn Memorial Park 283.6 Santa Ana Country Club 309.4 Fountain Valley, City of 8,727.9 Seal Beach, City of 3,107.3 Fullerton, City of 22,509.8 Serrano Water District 2,350.1 Garden Grove, City of 23,461.9 South Midway City Water Co. 84.0 Golden State Water Company 20,455.2 The Boeing Company 57.6 Hanson Aggregates West, Inc. 63.0 The Good Shepherd Cemetery 48.6 Huntington Beach, City of 25,572.6 The Lakes Master Association 51.3 Hynes Estates, Inc. 81.4 Tustin, City of 9,516.8 Irvine Ranch Water District 44,958.1 Villa Capri Mobile Home Park 51.9 Knott’s Berry Farm 102.8 Walt Disney Product Maintenance Division 68.1 La Palma, City of 1,747.9 Westminster Memorial Park 426.9 Liberty Park Water Association 26.4 Westminster, City of 11,087.8 Los Alamitos Race Course 200.6 Yorba Linda Country Club 326.1 Melrose Abbey Funeral Center 57.9 Yorba Linda Water District 13,570.7 Mesa Consolidated Water District 16,859.6 Total 362,000.5

1Water year begins July 1.

38

APPENDIX 3. 2007-081 Groundwater Production — Irrigation Use Production Over 25 Acre-feet

PRODUCER AF PRODUCER AFF S Nursery 36.3 Orange County Produce 731.1 Hiroshi Fujishige 75.2 Orange, City of 114.3 Irvine Ranch Water District 318.0 Village Nurseries 133.4 Ito-Ozawa Farms 376.1 Yorba Linda Water District 104.6 Mesa Consolidated Water District 36.2

Total 1,925.2

1Water year begins July 1.

39

APPENDIX 4. Typical Groundwater Extraction Facility Characteristics

PARAMETER NON-IRRIGATIONWater System Pressure 62 psiLoad (Use) Factor 63% Design Flow Rate 2,563 gpmAnnual Production 2,600 AFBowl Efficiency (minimum) 84% Motor Horsepower 325 hpType Motor ElectricWell Casing Diameters 16 – 20 inchesType of Pump Vertical TurbineDepth of Well 1,052 feetDepth of Bowls 278 feetTotal Dynamic Head (TDH) 325 feetEstimated Life 30 yearsAnnual Cost of Facilities1 $135,200

Based on an interest rate of 5 percent amortized over a 30-year period.

Cost for land not included.

40

APPENDIX 5. 2007-08 Water Resources Summary2007-2008Water Year

(AF)

2006-2007Water Year

(AF)

Change from last year to this

year (AF) SUMMARY OF BASIN CONDITIONS BASIN SUPPLIES Non-local Recharge Water (MWD, In-Lieu & other purchases) 4,149 80,817 (76,668) MWD Program Stored Water 0 14,427 (14,427) Natural Flows (SAR @ Imperial, local inflows & Santiago Creek) 212,363 166,586 45,777 GWR System AWPF Water to Forebay 7,719 0 7,719 GWR System AWPF Water to Talbert Barrier 10,073 218 9,855 Imported Water to Talbert Barrier 4,581 7,539 (2,957) Alamitos Barrier 1,506 534 972 Incidental Recharge 46,826 14,172 32,654 River Flow Lost to Ocean (27,430) (150) (27,280) Evaporation from Basin Surfaces (2,924) (2,664) (260) Change in Recharge Facilities Storage3 (1,319) (5,736) 4,417 TOTAL BASIN SUPPLY 258,182 287,215 (29,033)

PRODUCTION AND IN-LIEU Groundwater Production2 366,185 299,118 67,067 In-Lieu (OCWD Purchases) 0 36,670 (36,670) In-Lieu (MWD Purchases) 0 14,427 (14,427) TOTAL GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION AND IN-LIEU 366,185 350,215 15,970

BASIN STATUS Change in Groundwater Storage1 (108,000) (63,000) (45,000) Basin Operation Storage4 – Producible from Storage 394,000 502,000 (108,000) – Recharge Storage 306,000 198,000 108,000 – Overdraft without MWD Storage 353,161 245,892 107,269

OTHER KEY INFORMATION 1. Imported Deliveries to Producers5 107,767 192,092 (84,324) 2. Producers’ Short-term Seasonal Shift Program: 5,618 3,004 2,614 3. BPP (includes OCWD and MWD In-lieu) 77.2% 71.2% 6.0% 4. Total Water Demand (includes recycled water)6 473,952 491,209 (17,257) 5. Talbert Barrier Supplies: - AWPF/WF-21 (without deep wells)6 10,073 218 9,855 - Fountain Valley water to WF-21 (w/o City wells) 0 144 (144) - OC-44 Water 4,581 7,395 (2,814) - Deep Wells and City Wells 0 360 (360) 6. Green Acres Project (w/o Deep Wells, w/ OCSD deliveries) 6,104 5,533 571 7. Arlington Desalter Purchases 1,267 228 1,039 8. WMWD/EVMWD Exchange Water 2,882 1,745 1,137 9. Baseflow of Santa Ana River 121,902 133,338 (11,436) 10. Year-end Storage behind Prado Dam 0 0 0 11. Year-end Storage in Deep Basins 13,951 15,270 (1,319) 12. Total Artificial Recharge (percolation + barriers w/ deep wells) 211,359 222,299 (10,940) 13. Rainfall (measured at OCWD Field Headquarters rain gage) 9.91 2.59 7.3 14. Annual Mean Temperature at Santa Ana Fire Station (°F) 66.6 66.4 0.2

1 Estimated.2 OCWD deep well used for barrier injection is excluded from Seawater Barriers and Groundwater Production. 3 A negative value for “Change in Recharge Facilities Storage” translates into a positive value (i.e., increase in basin supply) when performing a summation of “Total Basin Supply” (with the reverse also holding true).

4 Based on water in storage above the 1956 low basin level.5 Santiago Creek Native and In-Lieu water are included (excluded is imported water used for groundwater replenishment).6 GWR System/Water Factory 21; Water Factory 21 went out of service in January 2004.

41

41

APP

END

IX 6

. N

on-L

ocal

Wat

er P

urch

ased

by

OC

WD

for

Wat

er Y

ears

199

0-91

thro

ugh

2007

-08

Wat

er

Exch

ange

Ta

lber

t Bar

rier

Fore

bay

Rec

harg

e In

-Lie

u Pr

ogra

m

Bas

in W

ater

SA

R U

pstr

eam

GW

Pro

ject

s TO

TAL

Wes

tern

A

lam

itos

FV1

MC

WD

Fore

bay

CU

P2C

UP2

Sup

ply

Mgm

t. A

rling

ton

Sa

n B

ern.

MW

D B

arrie

r O

C32

A

OC

44B

R

echa

rge

Rec

harg

e In

-Lie

u In

-Lie

uPr

ogra

m3

Des

alte

r V

alle

y M

WD

Wat

er

Purc

h.Pu

rch.

Purc

h.Pu

rch.

Purc

h.Pu

rch.

Purc

h.Pu

rch.

Purc

h.Pu

rch.

Purc

h.Pu

rch.

Year

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

a.f.

1990

-91

- 1,

933.

1 -

- 15

,619

.0-

- 44

,738

.6

- 4,

490.

7-

66,7

81.4

19

91-9

2 -

1,62

3.0

- -

51,6

91.9

- -

39,7

88.7

-

3,32

5.7

- 96

,429

.3

1992

-93

- 1,

614.

0 -

- 26

,293

.4-

- 38

,900

.3

- 2,

952.

7-

69,7

60.4

19

93-9

4 2,

093.

8 1,

432.

6 -

- 78

,521

.3-

- 48

,133

.9

- 5,

158.

9-

135,

340.

5 19

94-9

5 2,

343.

2 79

8.3

- -

15,3

54.2

- -

15,6

22.2

-

1,93

0.3

- 36

,048

.2

1995

-96

888.

2 1,

691.

6 -

- 15

,278

.7-

- 5,

542.

4 -

2,77

0.6

- 26

,171

.5

1996

-97

2958

.0

1,88

5.5

- -

33,7

42.7

- -

7,88

3.0

- 6,

176.

2-

52,6

45.4

19

97-9

8 70

1.8

1,61

3.8

- -

19,0

29.4

- -

- 27

,674

.92,

516.

9-

51,5

36.8

19

98-9

9 99

6.1

1,49

3.6

- -

10,3

71.5

- -

- 13

,351

.92,

351.

3-

28,5

64.4

19

99-0

0-

1,87

3.6

- -

28,4

78.1

- -

24,7

26.0

13

,280

.84,

994.

6-

73,3

53.1

20

00-0

1 -

1,67

2.5

941.

7 -

59,1

38.4

- -

11,1

91.0

7,

449.

05,

177.

92,

787.

688

,358

.1

2001

-02

2,99

0.3

2,28

2.2

2,67

3.0

- 30

,092

.6-

- 19

,472

.4

- 5,

819.

84,

296.

467

,626

.7

2002

-03

3,47

1.4

1,44

8.7

1,54

0.1

- 35

,755

.1-

- 25

,631

.0

35,8

32.0

4,92

4.7

- 10

8,60

3.0

2003

-04

3,60

5.0

1,93

8.3

1,70

3.3

3,38

0.6

14,8

32.0

2,46

2.7

2,47

9.6

49,6

88.8

-

4,08

7.3

- 84

,177

.6

2004

-05

- 1,

914.

9 2,

451.

8 8,

368.

63,

810.

8-

15,0

21.1

54,5

96.1

-

567.

5-

86,7

30.8

20

05-0

6 -

833.

04 1,

079.

9 5,

431.

17,

256.

7-

15,4

52.9

73,7

63.1

5 -

- -

103,

816.

7 20

06-0

7 1,

745.

0 53

4.14

143.

9 7,

394.

742

,173

.0-

14,4

27.3

36,3

13.0

-

227.

6-

102,

958.

6 20

07-0

8 2,

882.

4 1,

505.

74-

4,58

1.4

- -

- -

- 1,

266.

6-

10,2

36.1

To

tal

24,6

75.2

28

,088

.5

10,5

33.7

29

,156

.448

7,43

8.8

2,46

2.7

47,3

80.9

495,

990.

5 97

,588

.658

,739

.37,

084.

0 1

,289

,138

.6

1In

clud

es o

nly

impo

rted

wat

er (i

.e.,

grou

ndw

ater

exc

lude

d fro

m F

ount

ain

Val

ley

deliv

erie

s to

OC

WD

).2

“CU

P” i

s th

e m

ulti-

agen

cy c

onju

nctiv

e us

e pr

ogra

m (k

now

n as

the

MW

D L

ong-

Term

Gro

undw

ater

Sto

rage

Pro

gram

or M

WD

CU

P).

Bas

in lo

sses

are

not

take

n in

to a

ccou

nt.

3K

now

n as

WS

M w

ater

. A

ll w

ater

was

rece

ived

as

In-L

ieu

exce

pt in

WY

1997

-98

whe

n 12

,579

AF

of th

e to

tal W

SM

del

iver

ies

wer

e re

ceiv

ed a

s Fo

reba

y

R

echa

rge

wat

er.

WS

M to

tals

sho

uld

be a

dded

to In

-Lie

u/R

echa

rge

tota

ls re

porte

d he

rein

.Th

e W

SM

pro

gram

was

term

inat

ed o

n D

ecem

ber 3

1, 2

003.

4In

clud

es b

oth

MW

D im

porte

d de

liver

ies

and

supp

lem

enta

l rec

ycle

d w

ater

del

iver

ies.

5

Incl

udes

16,

000

AF

of 2

005-

06 M

WD

Sup

plem

enta

l Sto

rage

Pro

gram

(i.e

., “S

uper

In-L

ieu”

) wat

er th

at w

as re

ceiv

ed a

s In

-Lie

u by

the

grou

ndw

ater

pro

duce

rs.

42

APPENDIX 7. Values Used in Figure 6 For Water Rates for Non-Irrigation Use

Water Year RA

$/AF

Estimated Groundwater

Production Cost1,2

$/AF

MWD Treated Interruptible Rate

(In-Lieu Program)2,3

$/AF

MWD TreatedNon-Interruptible

Rate(Full Service)2,3

$/AF1985-86 32 85 181 225 1986-87 32 91 187 231 1987-88 32 91 187 231 1988-89 42 105 187 231 1989-90 45 119 136 231 1990-91 48 91 137 232 1991-92 51 100 156 263 1992-93 60 116 206 325 1993-94 67.5 124 257 389 1994-95 88 145 279 416 1995-96 85 140 294 440 1996-97 88 140 303 448 1997-98 91 141 303 455 1998-99 94 143 303 458 1999-00 100 150 303 459 2000-01 107 150 303 459 2001-02 117 162 303 459 2002-03 127 176 299 455 2003-04 149 203 301 460 2004-05 172 229 318 479 2005-06 205 258 337 494 2006-07 223 278 354 510 2007-08 237 296 382 538 2008-09 249 307 420 586 2009-10 2493 308 5014 7034

1 Includes RA plus energy cost to produce groundwater. 2 Rate is rounded. 3 Rate is proposed. 4 Rate is estimated.