Southern California

Regional Watershed

Supply Opportunities

Richard Atwater, Executive Director

Southern California Water Committee

Water 101

Water Education Foundation

October 2, 2014

Heavy dependence on imported supplies

Emphasis on conservation, local supplies, storage & transfers

2010 Service Area Water Supplies

Total Retail Demand: 3.6 MAF

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Gal

lon

s p

er

Cap

ita

pe

r D

ay (

GP

CD

)

Regional GPCD

1996-2005 Average = 177 GPCD

2020 goal = 141 GPCD

Indoor Water Use Efficiency Trends

Average Indoor Water Use in 1999 (62 gpcd; Meyer et al., 1999),

2014 (46 gpcd; WateRF ongoing) and for Efficient New Homes (37 gpcd; DeOreo, 2011

24.0%

16.5%

20.4%

19.1%

12.3%

3.8% 2.6%

1.2%

toilet

clothes washer

shower

faucet

leak

other

bathtub

dishwasher

Average Allocation of Indoor Water Use

(46.3 gpcd) in 8 North American Cities

(WaterRF ongoing study)

0

250

500

750

1000

TAF

Incentives

17%

Non-incentives

83%

Regional

demand

lowered by

1.5 MAF

7

Lasting change in market for water-efficient technologies and services

Changing consumer preferences Public messaging and education

Collaboration

Technology and incentives

Retail water rates

Advancing water efficiency standards

8

Regional Efforts

Regional programs, supply chain relationships, technical assistance, research, regulation, codes and standards

Local Efforts

Local programs

Retail agency compliance with 20x2020

Conservation-based rate structures

Conservation ordinances

Outreach 9

FY 11/12: proper irrigation control

Common themes and messages throughout region

Work with irrigation manufacturers, landscape industry

10

“it never rain in the summer”

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Bas

e D

em

and

S1: I

rrig

atio

n

S2: T

oile

t

S3: I

rrig

. + T

oile

t

Bas

e D

em

and

S1: I

rrig

atio

n

S2: T

oile

t

S3: I

rrig

. + T

oile

t

Bas

e D

em

and

S1: I

rrig

atio

n

S2: T

oile

t

S3: I

rrig

. + T

oile

t

Bas

e D

em

and

S1: I

rrig

atio

n

S2: T

oile

t

S3: I

rrig

. + T

oile

t

Bas

e D

em

and

S1: I

rrig

atio

n

S2: T

oile

t

S3: I

rrig

. + T

oile

t

Bas

e D

em

and

S1: I

rrig

atio

n

S2: T

oile

t

S3: I

rrig

. + T

oile

t

Los Angeles, CA Seattle, WA Lincoln, NB Madison, WI Birmingham, AL Newark, NJ

De

man

d (

MG

pe

r yr

)

Irrigation Demand

Indoor Demand

Laundry and showers main sources for graywater

Future graywater would produce about 21 gpcd

Most common use is outdoor irrigation but could replumb for toilet flushing ($$$)

Tradeoff with water recycling supply option

Secondary Tertiary

Soil-Aquifer Treatment

Primary

Groundwater Blend & Hold

Dis

tribu

tion S

yste

m

Industrial

& Brine

Export

95% TOC Removal

to 7.0 mg/L Avg.

75% TOC Removal to ±2 mg/L

Ind

us

tria

l

Pre

tre

atm

en

t &

So

urc

e C

on

tro

l

Influent TOC

Avg. 165 mg/L

50% TOC Removal

to ±1 mg/L

Chino Basin

Big Bear

Pacific Ocean

Program Number of

Projects Annual (AF)

Recycling 100+ 450,000

Groundwater

Storage 9 350,000

Desalination GW &

Seawater 240,000

Invested $10 billion since 1995

Current as of 9/22/10

Northwest MWD Service Area Basins

San Fernando Valley Basins

LA County Coastal Plain Basins

San Gabriel Valley Basins

Orange County Basins

Inland Empire Basins

Eastside MWD Service Area Basins

San Diego County Basins

~ 3 MAF of

Available

Storage Space

NA

510,000

484,300

353,000

218,000

500,000

0 600,000

NA

2011

Multi-Use Project Types

Flood Protection and Drainage Erosion and Sedimentation Traditional Water Supply

Water Quality Streetscape Habitat and Environment Recreation Trails and Education

Site Specific LID -- Water Supply

and Water Quality

Deep Percolation of Stormwater

Source: SCWC Stormwater White Paper

Stormwater:

A Smart & Sensible Solution

• 450,000 acre-feet of stormwater is currently captured and

recharged into So Cal groundwater basins per year

(enough water for 3 million people/year)

• Billions of gallons are lost every year because we

don’t have enough stormwater capture systems

• Capturing stormwater is viable, cost-effective and

environmentally preferable

• Capturing stormwater provides numerous benefits, including:

• Creating more local water supplies

• Reducing polluted run-off

• Providing a cost-effective water supply option

Stormwater Capture Types

• Individual

• Neighborhood

• Large Scale

Bioretention (in-ground)

Testing / Observations:

• Design & Construction

• Vegetation Durability

• Engineered Media performance

• Maintenance

• Water Quality (as Bioretention)

• Water Quality (as a swale)

• Volume / Hydrograph changes

Whitnall Highway Power Line Easement Project

• LADWP Project.

• Conceptual plan being developed.

• Project expected to increase groundwater recharge by more than 110 acre-feet per year.

• Goal is to capture and infiltrate stormwater beneath LADWP power lines using swales and ponds.

• Designs expected in 2013.

Small Scale Projects

Courtesy of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Pacoima Spreading Grounds Project

• LACFCD/LADWP Project.

• Estimated cost $32 million.

• Increased recharge by 2,000 acre-feet annually.

• Designs expected in late 2012.

Large Scale Projects

Lopez Spreading Grounds Project

• LACFCD/LADWP Project.

• Increased recharge by 750 acre-feet annually.

• Designs expected in 2013.

• Estimated cost $8 million.

Courtesy of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

28

major channel

watershed boundary

County of Los Angeles Map

EXPLANATION

Water Quality Benefits

Water Supply Benefits

Recreation Benefits

Funding

Site Availability

Flood Mitigation

Proximity to Storm Drain Infrastructure

Stakeholder Interest

US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

1

4

2 3

5

7

8

6 Beyond Alt. 13, Alt. 20 includes: • Double the improved river length • Triple the concrete removal • Quadruple the amount of jobs • 130+ more restored acres • Reach 2 widening • Verdugo Wash Confluence

Restoration • Reach 5 widening • LA State Historic Park Connection • Piggyback Yard/LATC Connection

Alternative 20 LA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY “ARBOR” STUDY

Riparian Integration via Varied Ecological Reintroduction (RIVER)

8

More Sophisticated Data

Management

Planning For Uncertainty

Natural Disaster

Water Quality

Climate Change

Endangered Species

Thank You!

Richard Atwater

Southern California Water Committee