HomeMy WebLinkAboutF-1. Azusa Water Supply Update Information Item —
Presented 4)12-k 1+
Oil
1,0Vv5h. r
INFORMATION ITEM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE SA UTILITY
BOARD
FROM: GEORGE MORROW,DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
DATE: MARCH 24,2014
SUBJECT: AZUSA WATER SUPPLY UPDATE
On January 10, 2014,the Baldwin Park Key Well, a key indicator of the groundwater supply in
the Main San Gabriel Water Basin was at elevation 197.57. On March 14, 2014, the Key Well
elevation was 195.18,a decrease of 2.39 feet. The historic low at the Key Well was 189.2 feet on
December 3, 2009. The elevation of the Key Well decreased due to the cessation of Watermaster
deliveries of imported water at 350 cfs from USG-3 which began November 21 and ended
December 20. An additional delivery of imported water from USG-3 began on February 4,2014
and will end on April 1. However, the water is being delivered at 55 cfs which is not enough
volume for the delivery to reach the Main Basin. Most of the water is sinking into the River bed
north of Foothill Avenue and is not making it to the Main Basin.
In order for the Key Well to make a significant recovery, a great deal of rain will be necessary.
However, because the water behind the dams before weekend of March 1 was very low, the
water rainfall of the March 1 weekend that actually ran to the River was held behind the dams
and was not released to the Main Basin. In a rainfall event that occurs when the ground of the
watershed is very dry, much of the actual rainfall is retained in the ground and does not run off
until the ground is saturated and the rainfall begins to run to the River.The observed effect of the
rainfall on the water behind the dams will be discussed more fully below.
The new water year began October 1, and rainfall to March 19, 2014 is 7.44 inches, measured at
the Pasadena powerhouse. This is 33% of average, up from last month's 23.8% of average.
March's rainfall so far is 2.69", 75% of an average March. Calendar year 2013 ending in
December was the driest in recorded history,but so far 2013-2014 is not yet as dry.
Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD's replenishment delivery to the River was turned on February 4
at 55 cfs and will end April 1 with a total delivery of 5,000 AF. However, Azusa can only direct
diverted water to its water treatment plant because the canal to the spreading grounds is blocked
UB-73
Water Supply Update
March 24,2014
off by the County for a project. Also the 4-Cites pipeline to the spreading grounds has been off
for quite some time and may be back on in April. Currently,the North Pit of the Canyon Basin is
25 feet below overflow and dropping at 1 foot per week; the South Pit is 46 feet below overflow
and dropping 2 feet a week.
According to a study done by Stetson Engineers for AL&W,the water level of the Canyon Basin
on December 2014 could be at its lowest level ever which could significantly affect the ability to
pump water from the Canyon Basin. Although the study made relatively conservative
assumptions as to Canyon Basin inflow, the assumed replenishment levels may not even occur.
Strict conservation will help to alleviate the lack of replenishment water. The Stetson report is
attached.
River inflow to San Gabriel Dam is currently 34.7 cfs. During,the March 1 weekend rainfall,
County Public Works estimated that the inflow to San Gabriel Dam peaked at 400 cfs but
quickly dropped to 100 cfs and then to the current 34.7 cfs,all within a matter of two weeks.
Currently, the Azusa Treatment Plant is delivering approximately 6.0 million gallons per day
(MGD) to the system. Current Azusa system demand is 16.21 MGD which is being met by the
wells and the treatment plant;last month's demand was 15 MGD. Demand has moved up instead
of down as conservation measures would anticipate. With the wells supplying over 10 MGD,
coupled with Glendora's pumping demand and Cal America's pumping demand on the Canyon
Basin, the Basin is under stress and dropping rapidly without replenishment available at this
time.
On, February 24, just before the March 1 weekend rains, Morris Dam held 8,223.2 AF, San
Gabriel Dam held 2,428.8 AF, and Cogswell Dam was very low at 59.5 AF. On March 17,
following the March 1 rain and subsequent runoff, Morris Dam held 7,685.6 AF, San Gabriel
Dam held 7,933.3 AF, and Cogswell held 1247.5 AF. Cogswell's recovery was due to about 11
inches of rainfall at Cogswell's watershed. The total gain in water held by the dams was 6,154.9
AF.
The maximum capacity of all three reservoirs is 83,478 AF; the current combined storage is
16,866.4 AF, 20.2% of capacity, including minimum pool. Prior to the rains, the combined
storage was 10,711.5 AF, 12.8% of capacity,including minimum pool. Before the rain, usable
Committee of Nine storage remaining above minimum pool was 1,200 AF and may now be near
2000 AF. Committee of Nine storage is part of Azusa's local water supply.
Strict water conservation is necessary to reduce demand. Without rain, the recovery will be slow
if possible at all without imported water.
Statewide, water availability conditions are growing worse in some locations. Last spring, the
State Water Project allocation for San Gabriel Valley MWD, our local supplier, was set at 35%
of their full allotment of 28,800 AF. The preliminary allocation for the upcoming year has been
set at zero (0) for the first time in history and probably will not change because snowpack in the
UB-74
Water Supply Update
March 24,2014
Sierras is nearly nonexistent. Sierra runoff is necessary to supply water to the State Water
Project.
Around the State, all reservoir levels are extremely low with stranded boats in some. Lake Mead
is low and Lake Powell is normal or above for the time being. Metropolitan Water District
continues to say they have enough stored water to last through one bad winter, but without rain,
next year could be difficult. San Luis Obispo County has declared a county-wide water
emergency with some cities reaching the endpoint of their water supply, despite overlying a
groundwater basin nearly three times the size of the Main San Gabriel Basin yet less well
managed.
Prepared by: Chet F. Anderson P.E.,Assistant Director-Water Operations
Attachment: 2014 Update to Forecasted Groundwater Elevation in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin
UB-75
661 Village Oaks Drive,Suite 100 •Covina,California 91724
Phone:(626)967.6202• FAX:(626)331-7065• Web she:www.stetsonenglneers.com
Northern California • Southern California • New Mexico • Arizona • Nevada • Colorado
e
ENGINEERS INC,
2459-02
February 26, 2014
Mr. George Morrow
Director of Utilities
City of Azusa Light and Water
729 N. Azusa Ave.
Azusa, CA 91702
Subject: 2014 Update to Forecasted Groundwater Elevation
In the San Gabriel Canyon Basin
Dear Mr. Morrow:
In response to the City of Azusa's request for an update to the 2013 report
titled "Forecasted Groundwater Elevation in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin", Stetson
Engineers Inc. (Stetson) is pleased to provide the City of Azusa Light & Water (City of
Azusa) with this updated reconnaissance level analysis of the impact which
groundwater production and groundwater replenishment may have on groundwater
levels in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin and the City of Azusa's sources of water
supplies. This update includes: (1) modifying the 2013 projected groundwater
replenishment and production numbers to actual groundwater replenishment and
production numbers, (2) analyzing groundwater elevations using projected groundwater
replenishment and production numbers over the balance of calendar year 2014;and (3)
the effect the new projected 2014 groundwater replenishment and production numbers
have on the City of Azusa's sources of water supplies.
Introduction
Below average rainfall, which has occurred since fiscal year 2012-13, and
has continued through fiscal year 2013-14, has impacted stormwater runoff which is
typically available for groundwater replenishment of the San Gabriel Canyon Basin. In
order to assist in the management of water resources in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin,
the City of Azusa requested Stetson prepare and update a spreadsheet analysis
identifying groundwater production and locaVimported water replenishment, by month,
to estimate future groundwater levels which then could be used as tool to help manage
resources in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin. The historical and projected San Gabriel
Canyon Basin replenishment (local and imported water), groundwater production, and
groundwater level changes and resulting impacts to water supplies are presented
below.
WATER RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS
SERVING CLIENTS SINCE 1 9 5 7
UB-76
Mr. George Morrow
February 26,2014
Page 2
Description of San Gabriel Canyon Basin
The San Gabriel Canyon Basin is located north of the Main San Gabriel
Basin and consists of the Upper Canyon Basin and the Intermediate Canyon Basin.
Faults belonging to the Sierra Madre fault system form the San Gabriel Canyon Basin.
As shown on Plate 1, the Sierra Madre fault consists of several distinct faults: the
Duarte and Upper Duarte (Lohman Dike) faults and several unnamed faults traceable
along the mountain front. The basin north of the Upper Duarte fault is the Upper
Canyon Basin and the basin south of the Upper Duarte fault is the Intermediate Canyon
Basin. The Sierra Madre fault system is located generally in an east-west direction
along the southerly base of the San Gabriel Mountains. These faults directly influence
groundwater movement from the Canyon Basins into the Main San Gabriel Basin
(California Department of Water Resources, March 1966). The City of Azusa, the City
of Glendora, and California American Water Company - Duarte system (CAWC) all
produce groundwater from the Canyon Basin area.
Replenishment of the San Gabriel Canyon Basin
The San Gabriel Canyon Basin historically has been replenished by both
deliveries of untreated imported water and by local runoff. These two primary sources of
replenishment water are briefly described below.
Untreated Imported Water Deliveries
San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (SGVMWD) owns and
operates the Devil Canyon — Azusa Pipeline and has a turn-out directly into the San
Gabriel Canyon Spreading Grounds. SGVMWD is a State Water Project (SWP)
contractor and has an entitlement to 28,800 acre-feet(AF). Based on annual hydrologic
conditions, SGVMWD receives an allocation to its SWP entitlement and that allocation
is then delivered to replenish the Main San Gabriel Basin and/or the San Gabriel
Canyon Basin. SGVMWD's calendar year 2013 allocation is 35 percent of its SWP
entitlement which equals 10,080 AF. During calendar year 2013, 9,158 AF was
delivered. As of the date of this report, the 2014 SWP water allocation for SGVMWD is
zero percent; as a result, it is assumed that there will be zero AF delivered to the
spreading grounds for replenishment.
In addition, SGVMWD historically has made the Devil Canyon — Azusa
Pipeline available to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) which
has made untreated imported water deliveries on behalf of Three Valley's Municipal
Water District (TVMWD) and Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
(USGVMWD). In calendar year 2013, there was approximately 4,609 AF of untreated
imported water delivered to the San Gabriel Canyon Spreading Grounds. TVMWD staff
UB-77
Mr. George Morrow
February 26, 2014
Page 3
has indicated there will be no delivery of untreated imported water to the San Gabriel
Canyon Spreading Grounds between February and December 2014. At this juncture, it
is anticipated there will be no deliveries by USGVMWD.
Furthermore, MWD historically has made deliveries through USGVMWD
service connection USG-3, which is located about 0.25 miles southerly of Morris
Reservoir and discharges directly into the San Gabriel River. In discussions with the
operators of the deliveries from USG-3, it was observed that almost the entirety of
deliveries from USG-3 during February 2014(when the delivery rate was about 50 cubic
feet per second (cfs)) was infiltrated in the San Gabriel River into the San Gabriel
Canyon Basin. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that the percolation rate of
the San Gabriel River is estimated at about 50 cfs or about 100 AF per day. In calendar
year 2013, approximately 26,000 AF of water was delivered through USG-3, of which
approximately 4,800 AF was infiltrated into the San Gabriel Canyon Basin. At this
juncture, it is anticipated there will be 15,000 AF of deliveries between February and
December 2014 through USG-3, which would take place during the months of February
thru April. These deliveries began on February 4, 2014 and delivered continuously
through April 30, 2014, which would equal 8,600 AF of water to be infiltrated into the
San Gabriel Canyon Basin.
Local Runoff
A portion of local surface water released from Morris Reservoir percolates
in the San Gabriel River and replenishes the San Gabriel Canyon Basin before being
diverted at the Azusa-Duarte Tunnel by the Committee of Nine. For the purposes of this
study it is assumed that approximately 15 percent of the instantaneous release from
Morris Reservoir percolates in the San Gabriel River(down to about the 1-210 Freeway)
with a maximum percolation rate of about 50 cls (about 100 AF per day). In calendar
year 2013, the actual releases from the Moms dam totaled 9,800 AF with approximately
1,510 AF in replenishment of the San Gabriel Canyon Basin, as shown in Table 2.
Runoff for calendar year 2013 was projected by the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District (LACFCD) (See Plate 2). However, LACFCD indicated the projected runoff for
calendar year 2014 was not available. Runoff around the end of February 2013 is about
10 to 15 cfs and runoff around the end of February 2014 is also about 10 to 15 cfs.
Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it is, assumed that the calendar year 2013
projected runoff is equivalent to the calendar year 2014 projected runoff.
In addition, a portion of local surface water treated at the City of Azusa's
Joseph F. Hsu Filtration Plant (Filtration Plant) is delivered to the San Gabriel Canyon
Spreading Grounds for replenishment. Furthermore, a portion of the water diverted by
the Committee of Nine can also be diverted to the San Gabriel Canyon Spreading
Grounds for replenishment. In addition to these deliveries, it is assumed that some
UB-78
Mr. George Morrow
February 26, 2014
Page 4
surface water delivered through USG-3 into the San Gabriel River is diverted to the
spreading grounds for replenishment. These three deliveries are consolidated into one
replenishment amount, which is shown on Table 1 as "Percolation of Local Surface
Water Runoff to the Spreading Grounds." Due to below average runoff, it is assumed
there will be no replenishment from these sources.
Replenishment Totals
The historical deliveries of untreated imported water and local water are
summarized in Table 1 and range from approximately 0 AF per month to approximately
5,700 AF per month,with an average of approximately 2,176 AF per month.
The projected monthly deliveries of local and untreated imported water for
groundwater replenishment,for the period from February 2014 through December 2014,
were estimated based on data obtained from TVMWD, SGVMWD, USGVMWD, and
LACFCD. The projected deliveries are summarized in Table 1 and range from 0 AF per
month to approximately 3,100 AF per month, with an average of approximately 782 AF
per month.
Production from the San Gabriel Canyon Basin
The following groundwater production wells currently produce from the
San Gabriel Canyon Basin (See Plate 1):
• Ten (10) City of Azusa wells
o (Wells No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 11, and No. 12 pump from the
Upper Canyon Basin)
o (Wells No. 6, No. 7,and No. 8 pump from the Intermediate Canyon Basin)
• Four(4) City of Glendora wells
o (Wells 5-E,8-E, 9-E, and 12-E pump from the Upper Canyon Basin)
• Five(5) California American Water Company— Duarte wells
o (Wells Fish Canyon and Wiley pump from the Upper Canyon Basin)
o (Wells Bacon, Las Lomas 2, and Encanto pump from the Intermediate
Canyon Basin)
The historical monthly groundwater production from the San Gabriel
Canyon Basin wells,from July 2012 through January 2014, was based on data obtained
from the City of Azusa and the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (Watermaster).
The historical production totals are summarized in Table 1 and range from
approximately 1,637 AF per month to approximately 2,971 AF per month, with an
average of approximately 2,363 AF per month.
UB-79
Mr. George Morrow
February 26, 2014
Page 5
The projected monthly groundwater production from the San Gabriel
Canyon Basin wells, from February 2014 through December2014, was-based on data
obtained from the City of Azusa and Watermaster's historical data. In discussions with
the City of Azusa, it was assumed approximately 14,000 AF to 16,000 AF of
groundwater would be pumped during calendar year 2014. The actual pumping for
January 2014 was used and the February 2014 through December 2014 projection was
based on actual production from calendar year 2013. CACW and the City of Glendora
did not provide projections. Based on similarities in the groundwater elevation during
calendar year 2007 and the beginning of calendar year 2014, the historical pumping
quantities for calendar year 2007 were used for projected pumping quantities in
calendar year 2014. The projected groundwater production totals are summarized in
Table 1 and range from approximately 1,439 AF per month to approximately 2,686 AF
per month, with an average of approximately 2,188 AF per month.
San Gabriel Canyon Basin Groundwater Levels
The historical groundwater levels in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin, from
January 2005 through January 2014, are provided in Plate 3 and are based on static
groundwater level measurements obtained from CAWC's Fish Canyon well. CAWC's
Fish Canyon well has a data logger which provides regular water level measurements,
is located away from other wells whose pumping may influence static water levels, and
is seldom pumped. Although it may not reflect the same water levels as a City of Azusa
well, it provides the trend of water levels in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin.
Based on the projected groundwater replenishment and production totals
discussed previously, the groundwater levels in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin from
February 2014 through December 2014 have been projected. The San Gabriel Canyon
Basin Management Plan (prepared in 2002) noted that every foot of change in the San
Gabriel Canyon Basin groundwater level represents approximately 500 AF of storage.
Plate 3 Indicates water levels in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin have ranged from
approximately 640 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 550 above feet
MSL, a range of 90 feet. For the purposes for this reconnaissance level analysis, one
(1) foot of groundwater level change between 640 feet MSL and 600 feet MSL
represents 500 AF of storage. In addition, based on historical data, it is assumed the
surface area, and as a result storage, of the San Gabriel Canyon Basin decreases at
lower elevations. For the purposes for this reconnaissance level analysis, one(1)foot of
groundwater level change below 600 feet MSL represents approximately 250 AF of
storage.
The net change in storage (production compared to replenishment) is
reflected as a change in groundwater levels. The projected net change in storage is
summarized in Table 1 and ranges from a loss of approximately 2,686 AF per month to
UB-80
Mr. George Morrow
February 26, 2014
Page 6
a gain of approximately 1,108 AF per month, with an average loss of approximately
1,406 AF per month. The corresponding change in groundwater levels is summarized
in Table 2 and ranges from a decrease of approximately 10.4 feet per month to an
increase of approximately 3.1 feet per month, with an average decrease of
approximately 5.0 feet per month. The actual (recorded) groundwater level at CAWC's
Fish Canyon well, as of the end of January 2014, was approximately 600 feet MSL and
was used as a starting point to project the monthly groundwater levels through
December 2014, as show in Table 2. Table 2 projects San Gabriel Canyon Basin
groundwater levels will be approximately 603 feet MSL, in February 2014, to
approximately 545 feet MSL, in December 2014, a decrease of about 58 feet. Plate 4
provides the historical and projected San Gabriel Canyon Basin groundwater levels.
As a historical comparison, groundwater levels in the San Gabriel Canyon
Basin decreased from approximately 623 feet MSL during April 2007 to approximately
551 feet MSL during October 2007, as shown in Plate 3. This represents a decrease of
approximately 72 feet in groundwater elevation. From April 2007 to December 2007,
approximately 5,700 AF of untreated imported water and very little local water was
replenished into the San Gabriel Canyon Basin. However, it is projected from February
2014 to December 2014 that approximately 8,600 AF of untreated imported water will
be replenished into the San Gabriel Canyon Basin. The difference in these
replenishment amounts is approximately 2,900 AF (8,600 AF — 5,700 AF). Assuming
one foot of groundwater level change below 600 feet MSL represents approximately
250 AF of storage, the increased untreated imported water delivery of 2,900 AF
represents approximately 12 feet. Without such deliveries, the projected water levels in
the San Gabriel Canyon Basin by December 2014 could be about 533 feet MSL (545
feet — 12 feet). The projected water levels in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin by
December 2014 are lower than water levels experienced during 2007. The decrease in
groundwater elevation between April 2007 and October 2007 is 72 feet, which is
comparable to the projected decrease in groundwater elevation of 58 feet between
February 2014 and December 2014.
Water Supply Impacts to City of Azusa
Below average rainfall, which has occurred since fiscal year 2012-13 and
thus far during fiscal year 2013-14, has impacted stormwater runoff which is typically
available for groundwater replenishment of the San Gabriel Canyon Basin. In addition,
reduced stormwater runoff will impact the availability of local surface water which is
treated at the Filtration Plant and then delivered to the City of Azusa's distribution
system.
UB-81
Mr.George Morrow
February 26,2014
Page 7
According to the City of Azusa's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the
City's historical demands (from 2005 through 2009) ranged from approximately 21,600
AF per year to 26,100 AF per year, with an average of approximately 24,000 AF per
year. In addition, deliveries of treated surface water from the Filtration Plant to the City
of Azusa ranged from approximately 4,000 AF per year to 6,900 AF per year(from 2005
through 2009), with an average of approximately 5,100 AF per year.
The projected releases from Morris Reservoir are expected to be zero for
the remainder of calendar year 2014, due to the assumption of no additional rainfall
during the year. The below average runoff and absence of projected releases from the
Morris Reservoir may impact deliveries to the Filtration Plant. Reductions in the delivery
amount from the Filtration Plant may require the City of Azusa to produce additional
groundwater from the San Gabriel Canyon Basin. Table 1 indicates the total water
production by the City of Azusa from the San Gabriel Canyon Basin during calendar
year 2014 is projected to be approximately 16,585 AF per year. However, decreasing
groundwater levels may impact the City of Azusa's ability to provide groundwater from
the San Gabriel Canyon Basin.
Summary,
Below average rainfall since fiscal year 2012-13, which has continued into
fiscal year 2013-14, has impacted stormwater runoff and consequently groundwater
replenishment of the San Gabriel Canyon Basin. A spreadsheet analysis has been
prepared which identifies groundwater production and local/imported water
replenishment, by month, which has been used to estimate future groundwater levels
which then could be used as tool to help manage resources in the San Gabriel Canyon
Basin. The projected San Gabriel Canyon Basin replenishment (local and imported
water) is estimated to be about 8,600 AF between February and December 2014 and
groundwater production is estimated to be about 24,063 AF over the same period. As a
result of production exceeding replenishment, groundwater levels in the San Gabriel
Canyon Basin are projected to be approximately 545 feet MSL by December 2014. As
shown in Plate 3, groundwater levels in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin significantly
decreased to approximately 551 feet MSL during October 2007. San Gabriel Canyon
Basin groundwater levels in December 2014 are anticipated to be about 6 feet lower
than groundwater levels in October 2007. The groundwater elevations between April
2007 and October 2007 decreased from approximately 623 feet MSL to 551 feet MSL, a
decrease of approximately 72 feet. The replenishment amount during this period was
approximately 5,700 AF. The projected groundwater elevation is estimated to decrease
from 603 feet MSL to 545 feet MSL between February 2014 and December 2014, a
decrease of approximately 58 feet. The projected replenishment during this period is
estimated at 8,600 AF. The difference in the replenishment amounts between the two
periods is approximately 2,900 AF (8,600 AF — 5,700 AF). Without the projected
UB-82
Mr. George Morrow
February 26,2014
Page 8
imported water deliveries, the projected water levels in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin
by December 2014 could be lower than the expected 545 feet MSL, which is already
lowered than water levels experienced during 2007.
Groundwater levels in the San Gabriel Canyon Basin are highly
dependent upon replenishment of untreated imported water deliveries, replenishment of
local surface runoff, and groundwater production. Any changes to the projected
quantities of replenishment and production may impact San Gabriel Canyon Basin
groundwater levels and will need to be carefully monitored.
It has been Stetson's pleasure to assist the City of Azusa on this study.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Smead
Stetson Engineers Inc.
Cc: Mr. Chet Anderson, City of Azusa Light and Water
ZWobs124591ReporNUpdated '.Doc
UB-83
Table 1
City of Azusa Light&Waatu
Hlatoricai and Projaatad San Gabriel Canyon Galin Net Replenishment
Replsalehment(AF) Prodaedae(AP) tat Camp In
960rage OF)
lapelled Water'Osavedaa Pa slsOonatLe aSurfaoaSanaRrndf GNa.50$MfProA11d108
TVMWD 44115 60 1J5GVM613 Subtotal Mesas69a SPs4Mg Bobtail na~at ALAN CAWC Glaadsis UMW /4.04811/161.111
111 131 (3l OW141 a I Pereefillen Grenade m Pi W Lass Produon
etl
July 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 985. 050 MO 1,221 413 949 2,463 (1,005)
August 2012 0 9 0 3 0 0 971 071 074 1.351 413 949 2,713 (4,730)
Seplanber 2012 0 352 0 302 700 110 400 510 0101 1,300 418 919 2480 (1,150)
Odobar 2012 0 3,455 1.310 4,715 1,500 230 706 595 0,700 1,280 920 008 2,163 3.996
Noonan 2012 1,836 1,719 490 3,195 0 0 721 721 4,063 961 320 008 1,637 2,573
December 2012 1,703 801 0 2,104 0 0 238 295 2740 708 320 000 1,724 1.514
January 2013 0 2115 0 2,115 2,300 380 705 1,556 3,170 836 282 500 1,185 1,512
February 2013 0 0 0 0 1,500 230 458 NO 515 815 282 580 1,637 649)
Mach 2013 417 0 0 417 1,100 170 241 411 Oto 1,090 282 510 1,102 (1474)
API 2013 2,104 0 0 1154 1.100 170 145 355 2.120 1.203 200 873 2.415 (30)
May 2013 0 2434 0 2A34 1.100 170 76 246 2,610 1.403 200 873 2,455 24
Jur 2013 0 2,291 0 2.101 600 60 90 171 2.470 1,820 290 873 2.715 (313)
Jit 2013 110 2,18 0 2,425 BOO 140 32 172 2.405 1,796 36 2.1
1 800 47 (M)
2018 1,280 0 1,115 300 60 40 15 1.375 1.820 361 800 2,571 (1,501)
September 2013 615 0 ISO 0 0 41 41 739 1.880 351 800 2.811 (2,100)
October 2013 3,000 3,15e 800 90 1.840 1,030 4,030 1,630 253 880 4,553 2247
November 2013 1,200 1,301 400 00 OBS 1,024 2,925 1,196 333 880 2,410 O53)
December 2013 600 400 0 0 709 763 1,353 801 263 860 1154 (701)
January 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1, 93 315 507 2,213 42.2151
Febnasy 2014 0 2.000 2,550 0 0 0 0 2,505 826 315 597 1,727 773
Mach 2014 0 '3,100 3,190 0 0 0 0 3,115 1,060 315 597 1,992 1,180
April 2014 0 3,000 3,015 0 0 0 0 3,080 1,293 460 018 2,380 151
2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,403 450 010 2,505 (2.010)
Jt a 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1620 460 816 1,114 (2,015)
July 2014 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1,708 643 432 2,571 (2,471)
Aught 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.800 646 432 2$5 (2,010)
September 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1608 343 432 2.416 4
October 2014 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 1,530 164 314 2,080 (1,005)
November 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,188 104 314 1,014 (1,554)
Decanter 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 081 164 314 1,138 (1,490)
Naas
Ili ►Ietorltal and prcisoled deliveries provided by Three Valets Municipal Warr Diarist
I21 F&brk l and prNedledblinds 47ONd9dbySan Gabriel WNyMunicipal Water DWrlct
pi Beard Ondeliveries through USO3 Markel and PrepdedU81i3Nesse Nowt.provided byUSGVMWD
Tort dtdveryfor USGO uvea 2763AF in October 2012,3,281 AFM Navwrber 2012,16,004 AF in October 2013.6,121 AF In November 2019,and 4.789 AF In December 2013.
Assume nrdmm k114r0On of 100 AF/Day
I41 F4ebrral Mara Dam anew basad an average dwddy ds madam rounded b news hundred AP.Projected Morrie Dam Outflow based on 2013 Mal low Maroai.
153 Assumes 16%d Mara Dan callow irk In San Gabriel Plear.kdllalm assumed inked to 50 ds.
151 Spreading at San Gabriel Canyon BprsAng Grounds by Azusa lipid 8 Wear and Comae'Maine.
tbldrkel spreading sun a5O bated on Mad San Gabriel Canyon Sprseg Grounds sanding Information provided Los Angeles Canty DepedmiS Of Roble Wenn tae IVMWD and SGMAWO chimeras to San
Oebnel Canyon Spreading Grounds,Amara may contain water Averted au USGVMW D releases No is San Gabriel River
Asmara aPsdrg by My of Azusa WM&Wein and Canalise of Nes does not ooarfrom February 201111=04 4 Decanter 2014.
17) Based on produclon Som War No.1.No.2.N0.3.No.4.No.5,No.6,No.7,NO,O.N0,11,and Na 12
Hewes and projected deliveries provided by dry el MAI Milt d water.Probated numbers bled on asurapbdn of a Mom of 15.5000F b be lanced during lend year.for tonsen alive pauses.
(81 Based on production torn Wets Fish Canyon,W35y.flacon,baa lanes 2,sad Ennnb.
Worm!proiridlon dabs vas Obtained front Waleeoeler
trawled Febrarry 2014 MINN Decenber2014 production vs assumed to be Is earns ea eokal well produclet from February 2007 SvsOh Decanter 2007.respectivey
(9) Based on produran00m Web 5.E.68,4E,and 12•E
Hsldrl04 probuclon di is vs drained torn WMomwst r
Prgecled Fabnary 2014 through December 2014 induction vas assured b be the sats es actual well produclion torn February 3007 trough Decanter 2007,respect very
rylglalglYyMlTaHs 1 awl 2 i
UB-84
Table 2
City of Azusa Light&Water
Historical and Projected San Gabriel Canyon Basin Groundwater Levels
Net Change in Storage Water L sie
CAWC
Replenishment Less Projected Change In Fish Canyon
Production(AF) Water Level(ft) (ft MSL)
N] [Z] [3]
July 2012 (1,598) 613.30
August 2012 (1,739) 80224
September 2012 (1,800) 595.30
October 2012 3,505 624.87
November 2012 2,673 635.12
December 2012 1,016 832.12
January 2013 1,512 633.71
February 2013 (949) 629.56
March 2013 (1,074) 615.42
April 2013 (36) 60832
May 2013 24 606.43
June 2013 (313) 604.74
July 2013 (347) 600.83
August 2013 (1,601) 595.22
September 2013 (2,100) 587.92
October 2013 2,267 636.82
November 2013 (93) 624.93
December 2013 (701) 619.08
January 2014 (2.215) 599.72
February 2014 773 3.1 602.81
March 2014 1,108 2.2 605.03
April 2014 641 1.3 806.31
May 2014 (2,559) (5.1) 801.19
June 2014 (2,686) (5.4) 595.82
July 2014 (2,571) (10.3) 585.54
August 2014 (2,595) (10.4) 575.16
September 2014 (2,463) (9.9) 565.31
October 2014 (2,008) (8.0) 55727
November 2014 (1,664) (6.7) 560.82
December 2014 (1,439) (5.8) 544,86
Notes
[1] From Table 1
[2] Assumes one(1)foot of groundwater level change above 800 ft MSL represents 500 AF of storage
Assumes one(1)foot of groundwater level change below 600 ft MSL represents 250 AF of storage
[3] Historical water levels based on water level data neer the end of each corresponding menet
Projected water levels based on the sum of the water levels for previous month and the change in water level during the
cement month
UB-85
1\
I
\�.
/
UPPER FISH CANYON NO. 11-AZUSA G EDERT• •;DAL 10`N J
CANYONSPREADING GROUNDS r'�
BASIN FISHC-CAWC NO. 12 AZUSA SAN GABRIEL CANYON
(WATERMASTER KEY WELL)• i NO. 2-AZUSA SPREADING GROUNDS
A WILEY-CAW: NO. 3-AZUSA 08E-GLENDORA (MOU KEY WELI
BACO -CAWC NO. 1- ' . SA SSA
'I 09E-GLENDORA
• --. • 12G-GLENDORA SIERRA
05E-GLE► ORA,....., A ---
4275A`�285M • O. 5-AZUSA
• �� •NO. . AZUSA
LA T� • C.-CAWC-CAWC 265A 5A ; UPPER DUARTE FAULT
_. NO. 7-AZU A
/ *.--._ DU
.. �Ar INTERMEDIATE
CANYON FOOTHILL
tit
--
FOOTHILL
• PRODUCTION WELL al'VD. �,�
/ • NON-MUNICIPAL WELL -
4; A MONITORING WELL
/7 ----
CO O!t VRAAOE OAKSC600E.SUITE ftp
COWAN CA' MA2172' CITY OF AZUSA
1 �<_' TTL h76)9Q/41IR
tsenserasics17TCFwWitatis am04011CANYON BASINS VICINITY MAP
STETSON Irr.astwcl►elfirsro,81AfMOO G O 7600
epoM!l�IOG e�2 _
ocesearnmi1 CTS�t.OMJ6
JOS
I
SAN GABRIEL CANYON-NORMAL FLOW
2250 4 i I i
I i I j
2000 iit I
i
II —AVERAGE YEAR 1750 4 i —2012-13
I —2013 NORMAL FLOW FORECAST 11.t F1� i - 11.
I
i I ► I t
1000 ' , 1
'"FACT AVERAGE NORMAL ROW PAOOUCES120,0O0AV I
I 1 j 201241 NORMAL PAW OP 7OMAR01LI,2013PRODUOTA900AP I
750 it `! ` NORMALPtAMfIo cASSLOTOIHFENO OFWA7E1tYEARWIU.
I ' ( P11DDlICE5�900AF 1
soo
M 1
1 I
i i ► r
250 i i
0 1 _ 1 .:....__ _ 1
! 0 N D J F M A M J J A 5 0
Source:Los Angeles County Flood Control District
t $1 VILLAGE OWLS ORIVE�$UrI 100
1 <3 < rAx::411-7 s
��+ CITY OF AZUSA
rAx(.2e>snaaa
OQ } 17
J •
2,fl°""'°"°°°'"°''""KanRrwOeMniYM01 PROJECTED RELEASES FROM MORRIS RESERVOIR
STETSON sw°vid Ie ,ewrA2a
Ra
E?IRJINEPIl,>S.Nic. e+IM..M40MP,)
JOIE2/LATE2 DWG !
JOEE12430GTE
660 - - __ _
a- 640 - 1 -,.
iii;ihaik
, - ,2
•-• 620 - •• Ail i 1 tk A. Al=1, 2 ii i
g I • N
600 _, — - _
580 - < -- - __.-
var
g
2
AOII
560 - - 1
0 SP s# AP �0 0 0 ' s9 1 tis til.' ;0' N, ,, sl" tit'
%'a NO N 06 O 0 *Iv 406. � 1 �� 40 0 C fr 40 04 1 per'
Date
CITY OF AZUSA
<_ ` STETSON ENGINEERS INC. SD
`' Covina San Rafael Mesa,Arizona HISTORICAL SAN GABRIEL CANYON BASIN
00 ILEUM WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERS GROUNDWATER LEVELS (CAWC FISH CANYON)
00 w
xV dNW 99Vtepornriias 9end 4
670 -
PROrECTED
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATIONS
650 __ anTHROUGNzo�.,.,.
DECEMBER 2014)
630 _ _ — • __,Q '
1�i i r
610
590
I
570
t9
550
530
S;°
•0° °' s3° s,/ "SI c est' �° do acrti'� ti'> 1'� titi ti'), •;b 4.
4. Jam,
Esc � a� ? No No p to% cc` I I dd'
Date
CITY OF AZUSA
(I < STETSON ENGINEERS INC. "0
>7> Covina San Rafael Mesa,Arizona PROJECTED SAN GABRIEL CANYON BASIN
pel iGUali'S! WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERS GROUNDWATER LEVELS (CAWC FISH CANYON)
a.
LulebA2A3341•PwA113143
S,nd4
ev11`�9pat.rsy���y March 5,20i4+www.ranua arg
r 915LSUeet,sineeS46o.Sacramento.CA95824 4 Pie)32645810
SIAT1VE UPDATE...,
,,,,,,,,,.... .
-1.0Tf1 -K141 r�,slatnr F�I n;;o+n� Ire �F;trt _, ,_,._,„„, ,,,,, a,,,,,_, 2Gii0 ,,Ili,Pi a,,' liP('11 int 1„Lni , I)( T,.,, r 1)( 1,1
�IF1U7 5. TIC 'aSS nil?I,�int,,, U:
2014 Water Bond Round Up
water Bond Toppi Bond S Key CMUA "
Califo r is voters have not passed a water
•
bond sitioe 2(7(3(3:`A motet, nd
Measures 20{4 Prlortles C3�1-�4) #ice
.. by the Le$ Iafun:in 2013n� teen
AB 1331 Total billion postponed tw -At the ss
(Rendon) 611111.4)!.--. .,„R ,Kihe
$100 million g`oundwater Cleanup state fao®s drought and thio efF+ecp of
CBUA support if $250 million stcrmweter climate cE ehat thr na ss to
amended $504million water recydmg
1ean+af nr�•able�and rel�ble sources l
$250 million water conservation►" water`for. + ntis and Indust#).
$400 ndli6rl'wtrtkinp water DAC
$1,5 billion pr sinking a-surface storage Nine bids have been Introduced that would
revise the 2(3;t4water bond on thealbs
AB lass Total Bond:45.8 Bdiion CMllAs Board of Governor'$has adopted
(Logue) $4.8 for surface;toes(and groundwater
$1 billion tilli water waterbond policy(tee usingtttbe.-..
Legislative"Committee is usingto`r v
AB 1674 Declares intent to amend erdsttng water bond. these bills
(Bigelow)
AB 2°43
Total Bond:$7.93 billion
(Bigelow) $840 million IRWM
$800 groundwater cleanup
$800 water:recycling
$3 bi
E e
•
-4,2p
`'het...
California Municipal Utilities Association
CMUA Water Bond Principles 2014
(February 4, 2014)
Fund Existing State Grant and Loan Programs
Drought conditions in California continue after a record dry 2013 --underscoring the
critical need to increase and develop new local water supplies. The bond should build on
successful grant and loan programs by providing competitive grant funding or loan funds
to state programs for conservation and alternative water supply programs. Separate.
funding sources within the bond should be prioritized for the following:
• Integrated Regional Water Management
• Water conservation and water use efficiency
• Recycled Water
• Groundwater remediation
• Desalination for groundwater
• Storm water capture
Avoid New Mandates and Policy Requirements in the Bond Programs
Policy makers should avoid placing new,non-fiscal policies within the Bond.There are
many policies still being implemented from the 2009 Delta Package.
Fund Public Benefits
The bond should fund clearly defined projects or portions of projects with public benefits.Project
proponents should be obligated to fund all mitigation as defined under CEQA.Restoration or
enhancement activities should be defined as public benefit.
Avoid Earmarks and Specify State Agencies
The bond should provide funding for competitive grant and loan programs,identify
which state agencies should administer the program and include matching local and
federal funds requirements,if appropriate.
Fund Drinking Water Programs for Disadvantaged Communities
The bond should provide grant and loan funding for disadvantaged communities,large
and small,that do not have access to clean drinking water.
Fund Water Storage Projects
The bond should provide funding for the public benefits associated with above and
below ground water storage. Other beneficiaries of the storage proiects should
contribute to the funding of the storage nroiects adhering to the beneficiaries pay
princiale.Climatologists are predicting California will continue to experience increased
fluctuation in weather cycles. More water-storage capacity will ensure the state can better
manage its scarce supplies during wet and dry periods.
UB-98
Information Item
Presented �Ill ► � F-4
mod% Fr
INFORMATION ITEM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE AZUSA UTILITY
BOARD
FROM: GEORGE F.MORROW, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
DATE: MARCH 24,2014
SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA DROUGHT FACTS
The Public Policy Institute of California (PICC) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that
aims to inform and improve public policy in California through independent, objective,
nonpartisan research on major social, economic, and political issues. PICC staff has put together
the following information regarding the California's latest drought.
Just the Facts:
• California is in the midst of a major drought.
• Effect of the drought will be felt differently around the state.
• The drought will be particularly harder on the agricultural sector.
• The environment is also being hit hard.
• Some smaller rural communities will need special help.
• Droughts present both challenges and opportunities.
See attached report for more details and graphs on the statewide average precipitation in California
and average applied water use for 2006-2010.
Prepared by: Liza Cawte, Senior Administrative Technician
Attachment: Just the Facts in English and Spanish
UB-99
siT�6 PACTS
CALIFORNIA'S LATEST DROUGHT
Ellen Hanak,Jeffrey Mount,Caitrin Chappelle
• California is in the midst of a major drought.
After months of record-low precipitation,Governor Brown declared a statewide drought emergency in January
2014,calling for increased conservation,expedited water trading,and the provision of emergency drinking water
supplies.Droughts are a recurring feature of California's climate,and 2013 is now the driest calendar year on record,
with a total of just 30%of average statewide precipitation.The previous record low was in 1976(56%of average).In
2014,January saw almost no precipitation,even though it is typically our wettest month.And after two relatively
dry years,California currently has near record-low reservoir storage.Even if average rainfall returns by the end of
the 2014 rainy season(April),this winter will likely be one of the driest in history.
E Effects of the drought will be felt differently around the state.
Households and non-farm businesses account for about 20%of human water use in California.Despite the
drought,major metropolitan areas in Southern California and the Bay Area are still doing relatively well,thanks to
significant investments in conservation,supply diversification,and new infrastructure that allows communities to
share water during emergencies.But in northern and central parts of the state,communities that do not have
diverse water sources will be facing sharp cutbacks in water use.One important way to conserve is to reduce water
for landscaping,which currently makes up roughly half of all residential water use.
► The drought will be particularly hard on the agricultural,sector.
Most farming in California depends on irrigation,which usually accounts for about 80%of human water use.Extra
groundwater pumping can replace some of the reduced surface water deliveries,but large cuts in crop acreage will be
unavoidable.Farmers will try to cut back on the least profitable activities first,but some may also be forced to reduce
the fruit,vegetable,and nut crops that generate higher revenues.Although agriculture makes up a relatively small
share of the economy(1-2%of state gross domestic product),water cutbacks will cause hardship in many farm
communities—and in sectors that support farming,such as fertilizer sales and industries that process farm products.
I. The environment is also being hit hard.
Some coastal streams are so depleted that scientists are worried about the disappearance of coho salmon and
steelhead trout.More generally,the state is facing difficult tradeoffs,such as whether to hold cold water in
reservoirs to maintain endangered salmon or to release this water either to protect smelt in the Delta or to support
wildlife refuges.The state has already relaxed environmental flow standards to reserve some water supplies for
farms and cities and is under pressure to do more.
Some smaller rural communities will need special help.
By summer,at least 17 small communities could run out of drinking water and need emergency supplies.Many small
farm communities will be severely affected by job losses related to the drought and will need income support.
► Droughts present both challenges and opportunities.
Past droughts have helped push California to improve water management by increasing conservation and
investing in new supplies such as recycled wastewater,groundwater storage,and stormwater collection.
In addition,tools such as water marketing—which allows water to be leased to maintain high-revenue activities—
have increased efficiencies in water system management.The current drought presents the opportunity to make
continued progress in these areas and others.This drought also may be a harbinger of future weather patterns:
climate change simulations indicate that droughts are likely to increase in frequency and severity.
4'. PUBLIC CY INSTITUTEo(CALIFORNIA
www.ppic.+arg
UB-100
THE Q1
AC CAUFORNIA'S LATEST DROUGHT
February 2014
2013 was the driest calendar year on record
45 -
40 -
35 -
30
H 25
ar, -
L`
20
15
10 -
5 -
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013
Source:Western Regional Climate Center.
Note:Statewide average precipitation in California based on calendar year(January-December).
Both the urban and farm sectors will need to find places to save water during this drought
Urban Agriculture
9.1 million acre feet(mat) 35.4 million acre feet(mat)
Commercial and instiidr6onal, Truck taming inigated pasture
large landscapes and horticulture 11%
11% 9%
Commercial and institutional, Rice
Residential,exterior interior and small landscapes 9%,
33% 14%
Fruits
Industrial and nuts ' COM
6% 31% 896%
Energy production
Y y Affairs
Other 18%
Residential,interiorfield crops Colton
34% 10% 4%
Source:California Department of Water Resources.
Notes:Figures show the average applied water use for 2006-2010.Net water use—i.e.the volume consumed by people or plants,
embodied in manufactured goods,evaporated,or discharged to saline waters—is lower:26.3 maf for agriculture and 5.9 maf for urban.
The ratio of net to applied water use varies among crops(e.g.,60%for rice,80%for other field crops).These values also exclude water
used to recharge groundwater basins(6%for urban and 2%for agriculture)and conveyance losses(2%for urban and 8%for agriculture).
Sources:California Department of Fish and Wildlife,California Department of Public Health(community data),California Department of Water
Resources(water use data),U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis(GDP data)and Western Regional Climate Center(precipitation data).
Contact:mount@ppic.org
PPI ; NPuaLie cv
ST TUTE orPOLCALIFORNIA
www.ppic.org
UB-101
UST r in wrimc
ri
TNS ;
LA MAS RECIENTE SEQUIA EN CALIFORNIA
Ellen Hanak,Jeffrey Mount,Caitrin Chappelle
10. California este en medio de una fuerte sequia..
Luego de ureses de los mas bajos niveles de precipitation,el gobernador Brown declaro emergencia de sequia en
todo el estado en enero del 2014,haciendo un llamado para aumentar Ia conservacion,acelerar el comercio del
agua,y el suministro de agua potable de emergencia.Las sequlas son una caracteristica recurrente del clima de
California,y el 2013 es ahora el ano de mayor sequia que se haya registrado,con un total de sOlo 30%de
precipitation promedio en todo el estado.El nivel anterior mas bajo fue en 1976(56%en promedio).En el 2014,
enero no vio casi ninguna precipitation,aunque es tipicamente nuestro mes de mayores Iluvias.Luego de dos anos
relativamente secos,actualmente las reservas en las represas de California tienen los niveles mas bajos.Aun y si Ia
Iluvia promedio regresara para el final de Ia temporada de Iluvias del 2014(abril),este invierno muy probablemente
sera uno de los mas secos en la historia.
II► Los efectos de Ia sequia se sentiran de forma diferente a traves del estado.
Los hogares y los negocios no agricolas representan cerca del 20%del uso humano de agua en California.A pesar
de Ia sequia,las mayores areas metropolitanas del sur de California y el Area de la Bahia aim estan relativamente
bien,gracias a las inversiones significativas en conservaciOn,diversification de suministro,y nueva infraestructura
que les permite a las comunidades compartir agua durante emergencias.Pero en las partes none y centro del
estado,las comunidades que no tienen fuentes diversas de agua enfrentaran recortes agudos en el uso del agua.
Una forma importante de conservar es reduciendo el agua para riego de jardines,que actualmente representa
cerca de la mitad de todo el uso residencial de agua,
01. La sequia sera particularmente dura para el sector agriicola.
La mayoria de la agricultura en California depende de la irrigation,que usualmente representa cerca del 80%del uso
humano de agua.El bombeo adicional de agua subterranea puede reemplazar algo de la disponibilidad de agua en la
superficie,pero seran inevitables los recortes agudos en los terrenos de cultivos.Los agricultores intentaran reducir
primero las actividades menos rentables,pero algunos podrian verse forzados a reducir los cultivos de frutas,
vegetales,y nueces quegeneran mayores ingresos.Aunque la agricultura representa una proportion relativamente
pequena de is economia(1-2%del producto domestico bruto estatal),los recortes en el agua causaran dificultades en
muchas comunidades agricolas—y en sectores que apoyan la agriculture,tales tomo yentas de fertilizantes e
industrias que procesan productos agricolas.
11. El medio ambiente este tambien siendo fuertemente afectado.
Algunos arroyos costeros estan tan agotados que los cientificos esten preocupados por la desapariciOn del salmon
coho y la trucha arco iris.Más generalmente,el estado se enfrenta a diferentes alternatives,tales como mantener
agua fria en las represas para mantener el salmon en peligro o liberar esta agua ya sea para proteger el eperlano en
el Delta o para sustentar refugios de vida silvestre.El estado ya ha relajado las normas de flujo ambiental para
reservar algunos suministros de agua para la agricultura y las ciudades y este bajo presien de hacer mas.
0. Algunas comunidades rurales mas pequenas necesitarSn ayuda especial.
Al Ilegar el verano,al menos 17 pequenas comunidades podrian quedarse sin agua potable y necesltar suministros de
emergencia.Muchas pequenas comunidades agricolas se veran afectadas severamente por las perdidas de empleos
relacionadas con la sequia y necesitaran apoyo financiero.
'' - IsPUBLIC POLICY I INSTITUTE CALIFORNIA
WVVW.ppic.org
UB-102
,TNT F CTS LA MAS RECIENTE SE UTA EN CALIFORNIA
Q Febrero 2014
► Las sequfas presentan tanto retos como oportunidades.
Las pasadas sequfas han ayudado a forzar a California a mejorar su administration del agua aumentando la
conservaci6n e invirtiendo en nuevos suministros tales como reciclaje de aguas sucias,almacenaje subterraneo,
y recolecciOn de aguas Iluvias.Ademas,herramientas tales como el Mercado del agua—que permite que se
arriende agua para mantener actividades de altos ingresos—han aumentado las eficiencfas en la administration
del sistema de aguas.La sequfa actual presenta la oportunidad de hacer progresos continuos en estas y otras
areas.Esta sequfa podria tambien ser un presagio de futuros patrones climatolOgicos:simulaciones de cambio
climatico indican que las sequfas probablemente aumentaran,en frecuencia e intensidad.
[CONTINUA]
PPIC PUBLIC POLICY
INSTITUTE or CALIFORNIA
veww;ppic.org
UB-103
'MST +�
TME ! 5LAMAS RECIENTE SEQUIA EN CALIFORNIA Febrero 2014
El 2013 fue el ano calendario mas sect)que se haya registrado
45-
40
35 -
30 -
25
m
v ,
en 20
a
15
10
5
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013
Fuente:Western Regional Climate Center.
Nota:El promedio estatal de precipitation en California se basa en eland calendario(enero-diciembre).
Tanta los sectores urbanos como agricolas necesltaran encontrar lugares para ahorrar agua durante
esta sequa
Urbana Agricultura
9.1 millions acres pies(mat) 35.4 millions acres pias(mat)
Comercial e institucionai, Agricultura a gran escela Pastures inigades
jardinesgrendes yhorticulttra 11%
11% 9%
Comerck4 e aistituaonal, l Arroz
Residential,exterior jardines pequenos e inter ares
33% - 14% 8%
Frutas y �'
Industrial nuec�es Main
6% 31% rx 8%
Production energia
... � �
2%
Alfalfa
18%
Otos
Residential,interior tultivos Algoden
34% 10% 496
Fuente:Departamento de Recursos Hidraulicos de California.:
Notes:Las graficas muestran el promedio aplicado de uso de agua para el 2006-2010;El uso neto de agua—Le.el volumen consumido por la gente
o las plantas,incorporados en blenes manufacturados,evaporada,o descargada a las aguas saunas—es mas bajo:263 maf para agricultura y 5.9
maf para uso urbano.La proportion de neto a uso aplicado de agua vane entre los cultivos(e.g.,60%para arroz,80%para otros cultivos).Estos
valores tambien excluyen el aqua usada para recargar las cuencas de agua subterranea(6%para uso urbano y 2%para agricultura)y perdidas por
transferencia(2%para uso urban y 8%para agricultura).
Fuentes:Departamento de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de California,Departamento de Salud Publica de California(datos de la comunidad),
Departamento de Recursos Hidraulicos de California(datos de uso de agua),Oficina de Analisis Economico de los EE.UU.(datos PNB),y Centro
Climatic()Regional del Oeste(datos de precipitation).
Contacto:nwunt@ppic.org
PP'CPUBLIC i
INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA.
www»ppi'c.org
UB-104
Information Item
Presented �1/-4-121-______
F-5
Fr
AS11111111111
INFORMATION ITEM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE SA UTILITY
BOARD
FROM: GEORGE F. MORROW,DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
DATE: MARCH 24,2014
SUBJECT: 2014 APPA LEGISLATIVE RALLY BRIEFING PACKET
The annual legislative rally sponsored by the American Public Power Association (APPA) was
recently held in Washington DC on March 10-12, 2014. It was attended by Director of Utilities
George Morrow to promote the interest of publicly-owned electric utilities.
See attached briefing packet. Among the important issues included are:
• Electricity Infrastructure Issues
• Ensuring Diversified Energy Sources
• Environmental Policy
• Promoting Functioning,Competitive Wholesale Electricity Markets
• Tax and Budget Issues
• Telecommunications Issue
Due to the size of the packet,it is only being provided electronically.
Prepared by: Liza Cawte, Senior Administrative Technician
Attachment: 2014 APPA Legislative Rally Briefing Packet.
UB-105