Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-21 Board PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING BY TELECONFERENCE 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY June 2, 2021 3:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 5, 2021 AND SPE-CIAL BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2021 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURIS-DICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA This meeting is being held via teleconference. Members of the public may submit their comments on agendized and non-agendized items by either of the following two meth- ods: a) No later than a half hour before the start of the meeting, complete and submit a Request to Speak Form. Your request to speak will be acknowledged during the “Public Participation” portion of the meeting when the board will hear your public comment. When called to speak, please state your Name and the City in which you reside. You will be provided three minutes to speak. OR b) No later than a half hour before the start of the meeting, email your comment to BoardSecretary@otaywater.gov and it will be read aloud during the “Public Partici-pation” portion of the meeting. Please provide your Name and the City in which you reside, with your comment. Your comment must not take more than three minutes to read. The District’s meeting is live streamed. Information on how to watch and listen to the Dis-trict’s meeting can be found at this link: https://otaywater.gov/board-of-directors/agenda- and-minutes/board-agenda/ PUBLIC HEARING 6. THE BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOL-LOWING AGENDA ITEMS (6a, 6b, AND 6c) AND INVITES THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE ITEMS a) APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 4395, ADOPTING THE DISTRICT’S 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN b) APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 4396, ADOPTING THE 2020 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 583 TO AMEND SEC- TION 39, WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PROGRAM OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES c) APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 4397 AMENDING THE DISTRICT’S 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TO INCLUDE DRAFT APPENDIX L – QUANTIFY- ING REGIONAL SELF-RELIANCE AND REDUCED RELIANCE ON THE DELTA WATERSHED CONSENT CALENDAR 7. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICU-LAR ITEM: a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4398 TO CONTINUE WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGES FOR DISTRICT CUSTOMERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 TO BE COLLECTED THROUGH PROPERTY TAX BILLS b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4399 TO ESTABLISH A REDUCED TAX RATE FOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 AT $0.0021 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 c) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC. FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT OF THE RALPH W. CHAPMAN WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES DISINFECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT- TO-EXCEED $458,374.00 d) AWARD TWO (2) PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES CONTRACTS TO ALYSON CONSULTING AND VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, EACH IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $600,000. THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR THE TWO (2) AGREEMENTS WILL NOT EXCEED $600,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 2022 AND 2023 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2023) ACTION ITEMS 8. FINANCE a) AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE UP TO FIVE (5) ADDI- TIONAL ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS TO THE SEWER BILLING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT (KOEPPEN) 9. BOARD a) CONSIDERATION TO CAST A VOTE FOR THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 2021 SPECIAL DISTRICT ELECTION (MARTINEZ) b) DISCUSS THE 2021 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR (RAMOS-KROGMAN) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 10. THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PUR-POSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGEND ITEM: a) THIRD QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2021 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO-GRAM REPORT (LONG) FY 2022 BUDGET 11. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4400 TO APPROVE THE FY 2021-2022 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET WITH A 4.2% RATE INCREASE FOR WATER AND A 4.9% RATE INCREASE FOR SEWER; APPROVE FUND TRANSFERS FOR POTABLE, RECY-CLED, AND SEWER; ADOPT THE SALARY SCHEDULE; AND DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT AND MAIL SEWER PROPOSITION 218 HEARING NOTICES TO CUSTOM-ERS, AND REINSTATE PENALTIES EFFICTIVE JULY 1, 2021; ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 582 APPENDIX A WITH THE APPROVED WATER AND SEWER RATE CHANGES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2022 REPORTS 12. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT a) UPDATE ON DISTRICT’S RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC 13. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE 14. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS 15. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 16. CLOSED SESSION a) DISCUSSION RELATING TO CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) AND PUBLIC SER-VICES [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957] b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.8 Property: SALT CREEK GOLF COURSE 525 HUNTE PARKWAY CHULA VISTA, CA 91914 Agency negotiator: General Counsel Under negotiation: Disposition of Property c) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERN-MENT CODE §54956.9] MARK COZIAHR, ET AL. vs. OTAY WATER DISTRICT, CASE NO. 37-2015-00400000-CU-MC-CTL d) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERN-MENT CODE §54956.9] OTAY WATER DISTRICT vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; CASE NO. 37-2017-00019348-CU-WM-CTL RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 17. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION. OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY 18. NO MATTERS TO DISCUSS 19. ADJOURNMENT All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliber-ated and may be subject to action by the Board. The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the District’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available by contacting the District Secretary at (619) 670-2253. If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to partici-pate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at (619) 670-2253 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on May 28, 2021 I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section §54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley, California on May 28, 2021. /s/ Tita Ramos-Krogman, District Secretary 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY May 5, 2021 1.The meeting was called to order by President Smith at 3:32 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Directors Present:Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Staff Present:General Manager Jose Martinez, General Counsel Dan Shinoff, General Counsel Jeanne Blumenfeld, Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Administration Adolfo Segura, Chief of Operations Pedro Porras, Asst. Chief of Finance Kevin Koeppen, District Secretary Tita Ramos-Krogman and others per attached list. 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Director Lopez, seconded by Director Keyes, and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the agenda. 5.APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 7, 2021 A motion was made by Director Keyes, seconded by Director Lopez and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the minutes of the regular board meeting of April 7, 2021. AGENDA ITEM 4 2 6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA No one wished to be heard. ACTION ITEM 7. APPOINTMENT OF DISTRICT SECRETARY (CALIFORNIA WATER CODE § 71340; OTAY WATER DISTRICT CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 2, § 1.02 and § 1.07) General Manager Jose Martinez provided the staff report and requested that the Board approve the appointment of the new District Secretary, Tita Ramos-Krogman, as the Secretary to the Board of Directors. As stated in the staff report, currently there are two (2) positions that support the Board and the General Manager: District Secretary and the Senior Confidential Executive Assistant (SCEA). Mr. Martinez stated that with the recent retirement of the District Secretary and upon review of the two (2) positions, it was determined that the SCEA position will be eliminated and the new District Secretary will continue to perform both the District Secretary and the SCEA job functions. Mr. Martinez responded to comments and questions from the board. Board members provided their comments and a motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by President Smith and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve staff’s recommendation. CONSENT ITEMS 8. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICULAR ITEM: A motion was made by Director Lopez, seconded by Director Keyes and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the following consent calendar items: 3 a) APPROVE TO INCREASE THE CIP P2671 BUDGET IN AN AMOUNT OF $200,000 (FROM $450,000 TO $650,000) AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO CCL CONTRACTING, INC. FOR THE MELROSE AVENUE (CIP P2605) AND OLEANDER AVENUE (CIP P2627) 458/340 PRESSURE REDUCING STATIONS REPLACEMENT AND 980 RESERVOIRS ALTITUDE VALVE VAULTS RENOVATION (CIP P2671) PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,331,523 b) AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT FOR THE RECPL – 20-INCH, 680 ZONE, OLYMPIC PARKWAY RECYCLED PIPELINE REHABILITATION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR c) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT OF THE 1655-1 RESERVOIR AND RANCHO JAMUL HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMP STATION MODIFICATIONS PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $622,575 d) APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 9 TO THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $117,045.51 FOR THE 870-2 PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT e) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO MERKEL & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING OF THE SAN MIGUEL HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA AND CIP-ASSOCIATED MITIGATION PROJECTS FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD (JUNE 2021 – JUNE 2024) IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $382,881.30 ACTION ITEMS 9. FINANCE a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4394 AMENDING POLICY NO. 27, THE INVESTMENT POLICY, OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES AND RE-DELEGATE AUTHORITY FOR ALL INVESTMENT RELATED ACTIVITIES TO THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53607 Finance Manager Eid Fakhouri provided a PowerPoint presentation to the Board that included the following information: Policy Review, Investment Objective, Policy Changes, and Delegation of Investment Authority. See Attachment C of the staff report for additional information. Mr. Fakhouri requested that the Board adopt Resolution No. 4394 to amend Policy No. 27, The Investment Policy, of the District’s Code of Ordinances and re-delegate authority for all investment related activities to the Chief Financial Officer, in accordance with Government Code Section 53607. 4 A motion was made by Director Robak, seconded by Director Lopez and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve staff’s recommendation. 10. BOARD a) DISCUSS THE 2021 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR There were no changes to the board meeting calendar. REPORTS 11. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT General Manager Martinez presented information from his report that included information on workforce development, Collections and Bad Debt Exposure, and an update on the Paseo Ladera emergency main break and related outstanding expenses from Cass-Arrieta. He also shared that Chief of Operations Pedro Porras announced his intent to retire at the end of September 2021. 12. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE President Smith shared that as a regional partner, CWA is looking into an out-of- region water supply storage in Kern County that would help increase the diversity of water supply resources for San Diego County. He also shared that CWA received a presentation from Scripps Institute that discussed the impacts on water demands due to climate change. President Smith stated that CWA is looking at ways to cut costs in its preliminary two-year budget. He indicated that most of the costs are from MWD, which CWA is monitoring as those costs impacts the Otay Water District’s budget. Director Croucher shared that CWA’s General Counsel, Mark Hattam, will be retiring at the end of September 2021. He also provided an update on the Vallecitos vs. CWA litigation, MOU for employees, and MWD General Manager recruitment. Director Croucher also discussed his continued outreach with legislatures to discuss the Lake Mead and San Vicente storage options, and funding relief for disadvantaged communities. 13. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS In response to a request from Director Lopez, President Smith noted that he will inform board members of potential CWA meetings that may be beneficial for them to attend. It was also noted that District Secretary Ramos-Krogman will provide 5 CWA and MWD board meeting information to board members so that they are aware of these meetings. It was noted that board members are pre-approved to attend four (4) CWA board meetings and one (1) MWD meeting each year. President Smith made a comment about the District’s Bad Debt and Collections Exposure and the waived charges that impacts the District’s budget. Board members provided comments on the retirement announcement of Chief of Operations Pedro Porras and thanked him for his many years of dedicated service to the District. Written reports from Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez and Robak was submitted to District Secretary Ramos-Krogman, which will be attached to the minutes for today’s meeting. 14. PRESIDENT’S REPORT A written report from President Smith was submitted to District Secretary Ramos- Krogman and will be attached to the minutes for today’s meeting. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 15. CLOSED SESSION The board recessed to closed session at 4:27 p.m. to discuss the following matter: a) DISCUSSION RELATING TO CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) AND PUBLIC SERVICES [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957] b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] MARK COZIAHR, ET AL. vs. OTAY WATER DISTRICT, CASE NO. 37-2015-00400000-CU-MC-CTL c) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] OTAY WATER DISTRICT vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; CASE NO. 37-2017- 00019348-CU-WM-CTL RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 16. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION. The board reconvened from closed session at approximately 4:46 p.m. and General Counsel Dan Shinoff reported that the board took no reportable actions in closed session. 6 OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY 17. NO MATTERS TO DISCUSS There were no items scheduled for discussion for the Otay Water District Financing Authority board. 18. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Smith adjourned the meeting at 4:47 p.m. President ATTEST: Acting District Secretary (Director’s Signature) GM Receipt: Date: FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Tim Smith Period Covered: Employee Number: 1845 From: 4/1/21 To: 4/30/21 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES DISCUSSED (Via Teleconference) MILEAGE HOME to OWD OWD to HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 1 4/1/21 Agenda Briefing Meeting Met with GM Martinez and GC’s Blumenfeld and Shinoff to review the April Board Meeting Agenda - - 2 4/7/21 OWD Regular Board Meeting Monthly Board Meeting - - 3 4/15/21 Committee Agenda Briefing Met with GM Martinez to review items that will be present at the April committee meetings - - 4 4/20/21 EO&WR Committee Meeting Reviewed items that will be presented at the May Board Meeting - - 5 4/21/21 East County Caucus Discuss East County issues with agencies and CWA - - 6 4/21/21 CWA Matter Meeting Discuss CWA Matters with GM and Director Croucher (NO CHARGE) - - 7 4/27/21 Agenda Briefing Meeting Met with GM Martinez and GC’s Blumenfeld and Shinoff to review the May Board Meeting Agenda - - 8 4/28/21 OWD Special Board Meeting Special Board Meeting/Budget Workshop: Key Budget Assumptions 9 10 Total Meeting Per Diem: $ 1,064 ($152 per diem) Total Mileage Claimed: 0 miles 05/19/21 (Director’s Signature) GM Receipt: Date: FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Gary Croucher Period Covered: Employee Number: 7011 From: 4/1/21 To: 4/30/21 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES DISCUSSED (Via Teleconference) MILEAGE HOME to OWD OWD to HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 1 4/5/21 General Manager Otay/CWA related issues - - 2 4/7/21 OWD Board Meeting Monthly Board of Directors meeting - - 3 4/20/21 EO&WR Committee Mtg. Monthly Engineering, Operations and Water Resources planning Regional Water meeting - - 4 4/20/21 County of Water Utilities Monthly regional meeting (NO CHARGE) - - 5 4/21/21 East County Water Agencies Discussion upcoming CWA issues - - 6 4/21/21 GM and President Smith CWA Matters meeting (NO CHARGE) - - 7 4/28/21 Special Board Budget Workshop - - 8 9 Total Meeting Per Diem: $760 ($152 per diem) Total Mileage Claimed: 0 miles 05/19/21 (Director’s Signature) GM Receipt: Date: FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Ryan Keyes Period Covered: Employee Number: 1896 From: 4-1-21 To: 4-30-21 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES DISCUSSED MILEAGE HOME to OWD OWD to HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 1 4-7-21 OWD Regular Board Meeting Monthly Board Meeting - - 2 4-20-21 Council of Water Utilities Meeting Discussion of Regional Water Issues - - 3 4-22-21 Water Education Foundation Discussion of State Water Issues-Policies - - 4 4-23-21 Water Education Foundation Discussion of State Water Issues-Policies - - 5 4-28-21 OWD Special Board Meeting Budget Workshop-discussed specific topics to Otay Water - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 -- Total Meeting Per Diem: $760 ($152 per meeting) Total Mileage Claimed: 0 Miles 05/19/21 05/19/21 Mark Robak 7014 From:4/1/2021 4/30/2021 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES MILEAGE HOME TO OWD OWD TO HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 1 4/1/2021 San Diego Chamber of Commerce Sustainability & Industry Committee 0 0 2 4/6/2021 East County Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs & Infrastructure Committee 0 0 3 4/7/2021 OWD Board Meeting OWD Monthly Board Meeting 0 0 4 4/15/2021 Water Conservation Garden Board of Directors Meeting 0 0 5 4/20/2021 Council of Water Utilities Speaker was Deven Upadhyay, AGM/COO for MWD 0 0 6 4/21/2021 Otay Finance & Administration Committee Discussed District finance and administration items 0 0 7 4/21/2021 P3 Water Summit Discussion of project delivery models to deliver water infrastructure on time and on budget- NO CHARGE 0 0 8 4/22/2021 P3 Water Summit Discussion of project delivery models to deliver water infrastructure on time and on budget 0 0 9 4/23/2021 P3 Water Summit Discussion of project delivery models to deliver water infrastructure on time and on budget- NO CHARGE 0 0 10 4/26/2021 San Diego County's Climate Future Event on climate change, drought and water supply, with speaker from SDCWA 0 0 11 4/28/2021 OWD Board Meeting Budget Workshop 0 0 12 4/29/2021 Southern California Water Coalition "Drought: Are We Ready?" - 0 0 0 0 $ 1,520 0 Miles Pay To:Period Covered Employee Number Total Mileage Claimed: Director Signature ($152 PER MEETING) Total Meeting Per Diem: OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM GM Receipt: Date: ___________________ FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $_____________ 05/19/21 1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OTAY WATER DISTRICT April 28, 2021 1.President Smith called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Directors Present:Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak, and Smith Staff Present:General Manager Jose Martinez, General Counsel Dan Shinoff, General Counsel Jeanne Blumenfeld, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Asst. Chief of Finance Kevin Koeppen, Acting District Secretary Tita Ramos-Krogman and others per attached list. 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Robak and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the agenda. 5.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA No one wished to be heard. WORKSHOP 6.DISCUSSION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET KEY FIGURES AND ASSUMPTIONS Budget Manager Kevin Koeppen indicated that the board received the annual economic outlook presentation from economist, Mr. Alan Nevin, Director of Economic and Market Research of Xpera Group, at the April 7, 2021 regular board meeting. AGENDA ITEM 4 2 Presentations were then provided by staff that included the workshop agenda, budget objectives, budget schedule, budget process, Proposition 218 – Water and Sewer, legislative initiatives, challenges and strengths for the upcoming fiscal year, the Board’s proactive approach to financial and operational stability, Strategic Plan strategies and objectives, the key assumptions staff utilized to develop the budget, and the development of the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022 to FY 2027. After the presentations, there were questions asked by members of the board and responses were provided by staff. President Smith discussed several items that would help the District save money. He made a comment about grant funding and stated that he is pleased to see that staff is seeking these funds to help pay for shovel ready projects. He also made a comment about the District’s Pension and OPEB Strategy where it will save approximately $5 million over 12 years and help maintain customer rates. There was a discussion on staff’s recommendation to reinstate penalty fees on July 1, 2021. Directors Robak and Lopez indicated their support of staff’s recommendation. Director Keyes requested that the unemployment rate be considered before reinstating penalty fees. In response to a question from Director Croucher, General Manager Martinez stated that the District sent a letter to MWD on December 20, 2021 to request that the agency reduce its costs of water supply and transportation services. President Smith recommended that staff send another letter to MWD for the upcoming fiscal year. Directors Robak and Croucher recommended that the Pipeline Newsletter provide information of the District’s efforts to increase efficiencies and savings to help maintain rates for its customers. 7. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Smith adjourned the meeting at 1:48 p.m. President ATTEST: Acting District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 2, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist PROJECT: P1210-026000 DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Otay Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Approve Resolution No. 4395 Adopting the District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board), after holding a public hearing on the District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), approve Resolution No. 4395 adopting the District’s 2020 UWMP. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: That the Board, after holding a public hearing on the District’s 2020 UWMP, approve Resolution No. 4395 (Attachment B) adopting the District’s 2020 UWMP (Attachment C). ANALYSIS: In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act). This law required each urban water supplier that provides water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplies more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually to adopt an Urban Water AGENDA ITEM 6a 2 Management Plan (UWMP) every five (5) years. The Act recognizes that water is a limited and renewable resource subject to ever-increasing demands and that conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies is a statewide concern. In directing water suppliers to prepare UWMP’s, the Legislature established a clear policy that directs local water agencies to actively pursue conservation and efficient use of water. In their UWMP’s the Act requires agencies to: • Include information on the agency’s past, current, and projected water supplies and demands. • Describe ongoing and planned water conservation measures. • Provide a stand-alone Water Shortage Contingency Plan as part of the UWMP. • Describe the availability of, and potential use of, recycled water. • Provide an assessment over a twenty-year period of water supply reliability under various hydrologic conditions. The District utilized DWR’s “Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2020 FINAL March 2021” to prepare the UWMP. The District’s UWMP includes projections of future demands and supplies, based on estimates of future growth in the District’s service area. It also discusses the steps the District has taken to promote water conservation and ensure water is being used wisely. The strategies outlined in the UWMP are intended to allow the District to continue to provide a safe and reliable water supply to its customers. An UWMP is also required for a water supplier to receive DWR administered State grants, loans, and drought assistance. In addition, the UWMP is the reference document cited in Water Supply Assessment and Verification Reports mandated in 2001 by Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 for new developments. As required by the Act, the public hearing was noticed in newspapers of general circulation, including the San Diego Union Tribune, the Star News, the East County Californian, and the Alpine Sun. In addition, the notice of the hearing with a link to the draft UWMP was posted on the District’s website. The District also noticed and solicited comments from the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, local planning groups, and the general public. Any relevant comments received will be incorporated into the final document. 3 The District’s 2020 UWMP is consistent with the Water Authority’s 2020 UWMP. Demand and population estimates, along with service reliability, are consistent with those used by the Water Authority. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer An approved UWMP is required for the District to receive DWR administered grants, loans, and to receive drought assistance. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: In accordance with the Act, the District will meet its legal requirement if the 2020 UWMP is approved by the Board before July 1, 2021 and copies of the UWMP are submitted to DWR within 30 days of Board adoption and no later than July 1, 2021. LC-B/BK:jf Https://Otaywater365.Sharepoint.Com/Sites/Engoperating/Shared Documents/Engineering/P1210 WFMP-PEIR, UWMP & IRP/2020 UWMP Update/Staff Report/BD 06-02-21, Staff Report, 2020 UWMP & Resolution 4395 Adoption, (LCB-BK).Docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Resolution No. 4395 Attachment C – Otay Water District 2020 UWMP Attachment D – PowerPoint Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P1210-026000 Public Hearing for the Otay Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Approve Resolution No. 4395 Adopting the District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 18, 2021 and the following comments were made: • Staff provided the staff report to the Committee and recommended that the Board, after holding a public hearing on the District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), approve Resolution No. 4395 adopting the District’s 2020 UWMP. • The Committee noted the District’s potable water supply resources come from the Water Authority, recycled water from the District’s Water Reclamation Plant (RWCWRF)and the City of San Diego South Bay Plant, and future groundwater projects like the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Project. • In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that the District may receive water beginning in the year 2030 from local regional supply projects. These are designated as additional planned or conceptual projects such as the groundwater well and desalination projects. • There was a discussion on how climate change impacts water demands. The Committee recommended that staff include additional information on this in the report to clarify that water demands may increase or decrease depending on a future wet or dry climate. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as a Public Hearing and Action Item. ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. 4395 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING THE 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Otay Water District (District) is required by California Water Code section 10610 et seq. to complete an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years; and WHEREAS, the last UWMP completed by the District, adopted by the Board, and submitted to the California Department of Water Resources in June 2016 was the 2015 UWMP, and WHEREAS, the District has now completed its 2020 UWMP; and WHEREAS, the 2020 UWMP is a formal document that addresses and discusses past, current, and projected water demands, current and alternative water conservation measures, water supply deficiencies, and future management practices for the District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District approves and adopts the plan entitled “2020 Urban Water Management Plan”, for the Otay Water District; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager of the District is hereby authorized and directed to implement the water conservation measures included in the 2020 UWMP as the District’s part in the local and regional water conservation effort. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District at a regular meeting this 2nd day of June 2021, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________ President ATTEST: ________________________ District Secretary 1-i Otay Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update Prepared by Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, California 91978 MAY 2021 ATTACHMENT C i Table of Contents Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations…………………………………......……………………..................….............iv Introduction & Lay Description………………………………………………………………………………………. 1-1 1.1 Changes to the California Urban Water Management Planning Act…….... 1-1 1.2 Senate Bills 610 and 221………………………………………………………………………… 1-2 1.3 Water Conservation Components of UWMP Legislation………………………… 1-2 1.4 Lay Description………………………………………………………………………………………. 1-4 Plan Preparation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2-1 2.1 Basis and Approach for Preparing the UWMP………………………………………… 2-1 2.2 Level of Planning and Compliance……………………………………………………….... 2-1 2.3 Agency Coordination and Outreach………………………………………………………. 2-2 Service Area Characteristics……………………………………………………………………………………………. 3-1 3.1 Service Area Description………………………………………………………………………… 3-1 3.2 Service Area Population…………………………………………………………………………. 3-3 3.3 Climate Data……………………………………………………………………………………….... 3-3 Customer Water Use………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4-1 4.1 Existing Water Use by Customer Class........................................................ 4-1 4.2 Projected Future Water Demands.............................................................. 4-2 4.3 Service Area Sales and System Losses........................................................ 4-6 4.4 Projected Future Water Conservation Savings........................................... 4-6 4.5 Lower Income Water Demand Projections................................................. 4-7 4.6 Climate Change........................................................................................... 4-7 Conservation Target Compliance......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Baselines and Targets................................................................................. 5-1 Service Area Supplies........................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Water Resources......................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Groundwater............................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Surface Water............................................................................................. 6-2 6.4 Stormwater................................................................................................. 6-2 6.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water……………………………………………………………. 6-3 6.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities…………………………………………………………… 6-6 6.7 Exchanges or Transfers…………………………………………..............…......…..........6-6 6.8 Future Water Supplies……………………………………………………………………………. 6-7 6.9 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water…………………...…………6-11 Water Service Reliability & Drought Risk Assessment…………………………………………………… 7-1 7.1 Reliability of Supply………………………………………………………………………………. 7-1 7.2 Projected Normal Water Year Assessment………………………………………….... 7-3 7.3 Projected Single Dry Year Assessment…………………………………………………... 7-4 7.4 Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison………………. 7-5 OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP ii 7.5 Drought Risk Assessment………………………….……………………………….….………. 7-6 Water Shortage Contingency Plan………………………………………………………………………….….......8-1 Demand Management Measures………………………………………………………………………...………....9-1 9.1 Water Conservation Programs and Water Efficiency Practices...................9-1 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation…………………………………………………....…......10-1 10.1 Notice of Public Hearing.............................................................................10-1 10.2 Plan Submittal............................................................................................ 10-2 Appendices Appendix A Urban Water Management Plan Act Text Appendix B Adoption Resolution and Related Documentation Appendix C DWR 2020 UWMP Checklist Appendix D AWWA Water Loss Worksheet Appendix E City of San Diego Agreement for Otay WTP Appendix F City of San Diego Agreement for SBWRP Appendix G Water Authority Documentation of Supply Reliability Appendix H Water Shortage Contingency Plan Appendix I District Code of Ordinance Sect.39 Drought Response Conservation Program Appendix J Energy Intensity Calculations Appendix K Quantifying Regional Self-Reliance and Reduced Reliance on the Delta Watershed Appendix L DWR Standardized Tables Table(s) Table 2-1: Public Water Systems.......................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2: Plan Identification................................................................................................ 2-2 Table 2-3: Agency Identification........................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-4: Water Supplier Information Exchange ................................................................ 2-3 Table 3-1: Population - Current and Projected..................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2: Climate Data........................................................................................................ 3-4 Table 4-1: Demands for Potable Water – Actual.................................................................. 4-1 Table 4-S1: Summary of Unit Use Adjustment Factors........................................................ 4-3 Table 4-S2: District Anticipated Near-Term Annexations.................................................... 4-4 Table 4-2: Demands for Potable Water – Projected............................................................. 4-5 Table 4-3: Total Water Demands.......................................................................................... 4-5 OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP iii Table 4-4: Last Five Years of Water Loss Audit Reporting................................................... 4-6 Table 4-5: Inclusion in Water Use Projections..................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-6: Projected Future Conservation Savings – District................................................ 4-7 Table 5-1: Baselines and Targets Summary.......................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2: SBX 7-7 Compliance............................................................................................. 5-2 Table 6-2: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2015........................................... 6-3 Table 6-3: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020................... 6-4 Table 6-4: Current and Projected Recycled Water Use within Service Area......................... 6-5 Table 6-5: 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual............ 6-5 Table 6-6: Retail: Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use...................................... 6-6 Table 6-7: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs.......................................... 6-8 Table 6-8: Water Supplies — Actual 2020...........................................................................6-11 Table 6-9: Water Supplies — Projected...............................................................................6-12 Table 7-1: Basis of Water Year Data..................................................................................... 7-2 Table 7-2: Normal Year Supply and Demand Assessment.................................................... 7-3 Table 7-3: Single Dry-Year Supply and Demand Assessment................................................ 7-4 Table 7-4: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison.......................................... 7-5 Table 7-5: 2021-2025 Demand Projection Multipliers…………………………………………..............7-6 Table 7-6: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment………………………………………………………............7-7 Table 10-1: Notification to Cities and Counties...................................................................10-1 Figure(s) Figure 3-1. Water Service Area............................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2. Temperature and Precipitation Distribution...................................................... 3-5 OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP iv Acronyms and Abbreviations 20x2020 20 percent reduction goal Act Urban Water Management Act AF acre-feet AFG accelerated forecasted growth AFY acre-feet per year AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency AWWA American Water Works Association CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System CRA California River Aqueduct Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta District Otay Water District DMP Drought Management Plan DWR Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement ERP Emergency Response Plan ESP Emergency Storage Project ETo Evapotranspiration FY Fiscal Year GDP General Development Plan GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographical information system gpcd gallons per capita per day gpd gallons per day gpf gallons per flush gpm gallons per minute Guidebook Guidebook to Assist Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2020 UWMP IID Imperial Irrigation District IRP Integrated Water Resources Plan kWh Kilowatt hour LMSE La Mesa-Sweetwater Extension LOPS Lower Otay Pump Station M & I Municipal & Industrial Master Plan District 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MFR Multi-Family Residential mgd million gallons per day MWWD City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department Pipeline No. 4 Water Authority Pipeline Number 4 PS Pump Station RWCWRF Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP v SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SBWRP South Bay Water Reclamation Plant SBX7-7 Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Second Aqueduct Second San Diego Aqueduct Series 13 SANDAG Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast SFR Single Family Residential SVSD County of San Diego Spring Valley Sanitation District UWMP or Plan Urban Water Management Plan Water Authority San Diego County Water Authority Water Code California Water Code WD Water District WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSRP Water Shortage Response Plan WTP Water Treatment Plant WUCA Water Utility Climate Alliance WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP 1-1 Section 1 - Introduction & Lay Description Since 1984, California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act) has required each urban water supplier in the state to prepare an urban water management plan (UWMP). The requirement applies to each urban water supplier that provides water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplies more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually. These agencies must update their UWMP at least once every five years on or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero. The deadline for submittal of the 2020 UWMP for retail water purveyors is July 1, 2021 because of recent legislation (Water Code Section 10621(f)). Sections 10610 through 10657 of the California Water Code (Water Code) detail the information that must be included in these plans. In accordance with the Act, the Otay Water District (District) is required to update and adopt its plan for submittal to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) by July 1, 2021. 1.1 Changes to the California Urban Water Management Planning Act There are several additional requirements passed by the Legislature for 2020 UWMPs, updating the 2015 UWMP guidance. These major new requirements include: • Five Consecutive Dry-Year Water Reliability Assessment (Water Code Section 10631(b) and 10635 The Legislature modified the dry-year water reliability planning from a “multiyear” time period to a “drought lasting five consecutive water years” designation. This statutory change requires a Supplier to analyze the reliability of its water supplies to meet its water use over an extended drought period. • Drought Risk Assessment (Water Code Sections 10612 and 10635) The California Legislature created a new UWMP requirement for drought planning in part because of the significant duration of recent California droughts and the predictions about hydrological variability attributable to climate change. The Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) requires a Supplier to assess water supply reliability over a five-year period from 2021 to 2025 that examines water supplies, water uses, and the resulting water supply reliability under a reasonable prediction for five consecutive dry years. • Seismic Risk (Water Code Section 10632.5) The Water Code now requires Suppliers to specifically address seismic risk to various water system facilities and to have a mitigation plan. An important aspect of this provision is the intersection of water supply infrastructure planning with a county or regional hazard mitigation plan. • Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Water Code Section 10631 (b)) In 2018, the Legislature modified Water Code Section 10632 to require a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) with specific elements be included in the UWMP. The WSCP is a document that provides a Supplier with an action plan for a drought or catastrophic water supply shortage. • Groundwater Supplies Coordination (Water Code Section 10630.5) In 2014, the Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to address groundwater conditions throughout California. Water Code now requires Suppliers’ 2020 UWMPs to be consistent with Groundwater Sustainability Plans, in areas where those plans have been completed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION & LAY DESCRIPTION 1-2 • Lay Description (Water Code Section 10630.5) The Legislature included a new statutory requirement for Suppliers to include a lay description of the fundamental determinations of the UWMP, especially regarding water service reliability, challenges ahead, and strategies for managing reliability risks. Additional regulations that are not located within the UWMP Act, but may affect the contents of 2020 UWMPs and future updates, include the following: • Bay-Delta Reliance – California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 5003 requires implementation of Policy WR P1: Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Reliance in The Delta Plan (Delta Stewardship Council, 2013). In the 2020 Guidebook (DWR, 2021), DWR recommends that any urban water supplier receiving water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta (Bay-Delta) include voluntary information in their 2020 UWMP to demonstrate compliance with Policy WR P1. • Urban Water Use Objectives and Water Use Reporting – Water Code Sections 10609 – 10609.38 details the timeline and requirements for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), in collaboration with DWR, to establish new urban water use objectives for urban water suppliers and then requires annual reporting on compliance with those objectives. This 2020 UWMP does not address these requirements as the water use objectives will not be available until June 2022. 1.2 Senate Bills 610 and 221 Senate Bills (SB) 610 and 221 are the common names for Water Code Sections 10910 through 10914 and Government Code Sections 65867.5, 66455.3, and 66473.7. These bills amended state law to improve the link between water supply planning and land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires that the water purveyor of the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be included in the environmental documentation of certain large, proposed projects. SB 221 requires a written verification from the water purveyor that sufficient water supplies are available for certain large residential subdivisions prior to approval of a tentative map. The District’s UWMP provides information that will be used in future assessments and verifications prepared to meet the requirements of these bills. 1.3 Water Conservation Components of UWMP Legislation In addition to changes in the Act listed above, the state Legislature passed Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBX7-7) on November 10, 2009, which became effective February 3, 2010. This new law was the water conservation component to the Delta legislation package and sought to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020. Specifically, SBX 7-7 from this Extraordinary Session requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent reduction goal by 2020 (20x2020). In the 2015 UWMP, the District reported its interim compliance and actual compliance is reported in this 2020 report. Discussion on the District’s baseline, its 2015 interim compliance and 2020 compliance are discussed in more detail in Section 5. New water conservation legislation was signed into law in 2018. This legislation includes Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668 which created a framework that directed DWR and the SWRCB to develop and adopt long term water efficiency targets that exceed 20x2020 water savings by 2027. Each retail water supplier in the state will have a water use target based on efficiency standards for indoor residential water use, landscape irrigation and water loss. These standards re currently being developed and expected to be adopted in 2022. SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION & LAY DESCRIPTION 1-3 1.4 Lay Description The District’s mission is to provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner. The District’s 2020 UWMP is an important planning tool that the District will use to ensure that its customers have enough water to meet their needs. The UWMP provides information on the District’s current and expected future population within its service area and how the District will meet the water demands of that population with a reliable source of water, both in normal years and single and multiple dry years. The UWMP looks at existing and historical data to project water use in the future. Projecting future water use requires the consideration of factors that may affect that use including water conservation practices, climate change effects, and changes in housing densities (single-family to multi-family). 1.4.1 Water Demands In fiscal year 2020, total water demand in the District’s service area was 27,488 acre-feet (AF). By 2045, the District’s water demands are projected to reach 45,265 AF, representing a 65% increase from the fiscal year 2020 demands. Demand will steadily increase due to increases in population and development within the District’s service area. However, the increase in demands is less significant than was seen in the previous 20 years which reached a peak of 41,909 AF in 2007. The decrease in potable water demand is due to several factors including above-average rainfall in the San Diego area in four of the last five fiscal years, continuing conservation efforts by District customers, a growing water use efficiency ethic, and consumer price response to the retail cost of water. 1.4.2 Demand Management The District is committed to increasing the reliability of its water supply by reducing reliance on imported water. This is accomplished by developing strategies that will accomplish this goal. One of those strategies is the promotion of water-use efficiency programs. In partnership with the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), the City of Chula Vista, and residential and commercial developers, the District’s water-use efficiencies and conservation efforts are expected to grow and expand. Another strategy is the District’s commitment to continuing investigations of local groundwater, additional recycled water, desalination, and other potential water resources that could further reduce the District’s reliance on imported water. 1.4.3 Water Supply Reliability and Drought Planning For many years, the District has worked to reduce its reliance on imported water, and more specifically, treated imported water. On August 3, 1994, the District’s Board of Directors established a goal of being able to meet 40 percent of annual demands from local water sources when water is unavailable from the Water Authority. The District and the Water Authority entered into an agreement in 2006 to provide the District with treated water from the Helix Water District (Helix WD) in addition to the District’s normal treated water supply from the Water Authority. A similar arrangement made with the City of San Diego in 1999 provides the District access to treated water from the City of San Diego’s Otay Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The District has also aggressively developed its recycled water distribution system and has entered into an agreement to purchase recycled water from the City of San Diego. Drought planning is important to ensuring that the District’s customers have a reliable source of water, even in extended periods of drought. The UWMP Act requires that the supplier include a drought risk assessment in this 2020 UWMP. Because the Water Authority is the sole provider of the District’s potable water supply, the drought risk assessment is dependent on the Water Authority’s assessment of their ability to provide water during an extended drought. The Water Authority is well positioned to SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION & LAY DESCRIPTION 1-4 meet multiple dry year demands as presented in their 2020 UWMP. The District’s drought risk assessment builds on the Water Authority’s data and shows that the District will have a reliable source of potable water for its customers in an extended five-year period of drought. 1.4.4 Climate Change The vulnerability of the water resources in California to climate change stems from a modified hydrology that affects the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme events, which, in turn, affect water quantity, quality, and infrastructure. The California Climate Science and Data for Water Resources Management (DWR, June 2015) report summarizes climate change indicators, implications, and strategies for water managers in California under key climate-induced factors. While uncertainties remain regarding the exact timing, magnitude, and regional impacts of these temperature and precipitation changes, researchers have identified several areas of concern for California water planners. These include: • Reduction in Sierra Nevada snowpack; • Increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events; and • Rising sea levels resulting in increased risk of damage from storms, high-tide events, and the erosion of levees. Other important issues of concern due to global climate change include: • Effects on local supplies such as groundwater; • Changes in urban and agricultural demand levels and patterns; • Impacts to human health from waterborne pathogens and water quality degradation; • Declines in ecosystem health and function; and • Alterations to power generation and pumping regimes. Typically, water supplies that are dependent on natural hydrology are vulnerable to climate change, especially if the water source originates from mountain snowpack. The most vulnerable water sources subject to climate change impacts are the District’s imported water supplies from the Water Authority. The Water Authority recognizes the importance of adapting to climate change. The Water Authority is an active and founding member of the Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA). WUCA consists of twelve of the nation’s largest water providers collaborating on climate change adaptation and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation issues. WUCA monitors development of climate change-related research, technology, programs, and federal legislation. In addition, the Water Authority became a founding member of the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) Water Affiliates Group (WAG) in 2020. The WAG provides water leaders with information on advances in atmospheric river and drought research that can be used to improve water management, mitigate flood risk, and increase water supply reliability. The WAG also connects like-minded water managers to share best practices in forecast- informed water operations and provides practical tools to support core water management services. The Water Authority has made great strides in implementing GHG mitigation programs and policies for its facilities and operations. To date, these programs and policies have focused on the following: • Updating of the Water Authority’s Climate Action Plan in 2019. • Continuing water supply/energy relationships and opportunities to increase efficiencies to lower GHG emissions. SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION & LAY DESCRIPTION 1-5 • Participating in the Climate Registry; the Water Authority developed its GHG inventory for calendar year 2019. • Generating solar power at three Water Authority sites, including the Twin Oaks Valley WTP, the Escondido Operations Center, and the San Diego Headquarters. These three sites cumulatively generate an estimated 2.5 million kilowatt-hours each year. OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP 2-1 Section 2 - Plan Preparation This section provides the basis and approach that the District used to update its UWMP. It also includes the data reporting period (calendar vs. fiscal year) and units of measure used by the District to report water volumes. This section also includes the details of the coordination and outreach activities conducted by the District during the preparation of this UWMP. 2.1 Basis and Approach for Preparing the UWMP The District submitted its first UWMP in 2000 in compliance with the Act. The District submitted the last update to the UWMP in June 2016, according to State law which extended the submittal deadline to July 1, 2016. In accordance with the Water Code, urban water suppliers with 3,000 or more service connections or supplying 3,000 or more AF of water per year are required to prepare an UWMP every five years. As an urban water supplier, the District is required to update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021. The District has served 52,680 municipal connections and supplied volume of 27,448 AF in 2020 (Table 2-1). The District utilized DWR’s “Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2020” (Guidebook) and SBX 7-7 to prepare this plan. SBX 7-7 was passed in November 2009 with the goal of reducing California’s urban per capita water use by 20 percent by December 31, 2020 with an incremental goal of reducing per capita water use by 10 percent by December 31, 2015. Each urban water supplier is also required to meet SBX 7-7 goals, which are discussed later in this report. This report includes projections of the District’s future demands and supplies, based on estimates of future growth in the District’s service area. It also discusses the steps the District has taken to promote water conservation and ensure water is being used wisely. The strategies outlined in this report are intended to allow the District to continue to provide a safe and reliable water supply to its customers. Table 2-1 Public Water Systems Public Water System Number Public Water System Name Number of Municipal Connections 2020 Volume of Water Supplied 2020 CA 3710034 Otay Water District 52,680 27,448 Source: District CWA Data Report for FY20 2.2 Level of Planning and Compliance The District joined the Water Authority as a member agency in 1956. The Water Authority is responsible for the supply of imported water into the San Diego County through its membership in Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The District receives imported potable water from the aqueduct systems owned and operated by the Water Authority and Metropolitan. Together these agencies work to ensure a diverse and reliable supply for the San Diego region. SECTION 2 – PLAN PREPARATION 2-2 Effective water planning for the Water Authority and its member agencies requires consistent projections of supply and demand. The Water Authority facilitated an Urban Water Management Plan Working Group made up of staff from the Water Authority and its member agencies. This group provided a forum for exchanging demand and supply information. The District participated in workshops and meetings, providing water supply and demand and recycled water information. The District’s potable demands are currently met with imported water provided through the Water Authority and Metropolitan. Much of the supply discussion in this report is based on the supply planning performed by these regional agencies. The District is engaged in regional water supply planning and coordinates with regional partners. However, this is an individual UWMP that reports on water demands and supplies in the District's service area (as noted in Table 2-2). The District maintains its records of water use on a fiscal year (FY) that runs from July 1 through June 30 (Table 2-3). For example, FY 2020 runs from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. In this document, projections of water demand over the course of a year are reported on a fiscal year basis. For estimates that are based on an instantaneous value and not a year-long accumulation (for example, the service area population), values are assumed to be valid on January 1 of the corresponding year. Table 2-2: Plan Identification X Individual UWMP Regional UWMP NOTES: Table 2-3: Agency Identification Type of Agency Agency is a wholesaler X Agency is a retailer Fiscal or Calendar Year UWMP Tables Are in Calendar Years X UWMP Tables Are in Fiscal Years If Using Fiscal Years Provide Month and Day that the Fiscal Year Begins 1 July Units of Measure Used in UWMP X Acre Feet (AF) Million Gallons (MG) Hundred Cubic Feet (CCF) NOTES: 2.3 Agency Coordination and Outreach 2.3.1 Wholesale and Retail Coordination The District has coordinated the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including its wholesaler, i.e., the Water Authority (Table 2-4). Since the District relies upon the water supply from the Water Authority, the District has worked with the Water Authority and shared information for water supply and demand projections. SECTION 2 – PLAN PREPARATION 2-3 Table 2-4: Water Supplier Information Exchange The retail supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use in accordance with CWC 10631. Wholesale Water Supplier Name San Diego County Water Authority NOTES: 2.3.2 Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community The District has coordinated the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and public agencies (Table 2-5). In accordance with the Act, the District provided a 60-day notice to the Water Authority (its wholesale water supplier), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of El Cajon, San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the County of San Diego that they were reviewing and considering amendments or changes to the UWMP and that they would be holding a public hearing prior to the adoption of the UWMP. A copy of the 60-day notice is included in Appendix B. Prior to adoption, the District will make its Draft 2020 UWMP available to a larger number of stakeholders including the agencies above. This second notice included instructions for downloading the Draft 2020 UWMP from the District’s website. The Draft 2020 UWMP was first presented at an Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources (EO&WR) Committee Meeting of the District’s Board of Directors. A Public Hearing regarding the 2020 UWMP will be held on June 2, 2021. Notices of the Public Hearing will be published in the San Diego Union-Tribune (May 3 and May 12, 2021), The Star News (May 7, 2021), The East County Californian (May 7, 2021), and The Alpine Sun (May 7, 2021). A copy of the public notice is included in Appendix B. OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP 3-1 Section 3 - Service Area Characteristics This section of the report provides an overview of the District’s service area, its current water supply, an analysis of available demographics, population growth projections, and climate data to provide a basis for estimating future water requirements. The District’s service area has experienced some growth in the past five years, and the service area population is expected to be approximately 285,340 people by 2040. 3.1 Service Area Description The District is located in the southern half of San Diego County and was created in 1956 by a small group of private citizens, ranchers and landowners who were concerned about the declining quality and quantity of water from their rural wells. The District joined the Water Authority as a member agency in the same year. The Water Authority is the agency responsible for the supply of imported water into the San Diego County through its membership in Metropolitan. The District is a California special district authorized under the provisions of the Municipal Water District Law of 1911 and is revenue neutral, i.e., each end user pays their fair share of costs for capital improvements, water acquisition, and the operation and maintenance of facilities. Its elected Board of Directors sets the District ordinances, policies, taxes, and rates for providing wastewater, potable water, and recycled water services. The District’s water service area is generally located within the south, central portion of San Diego County and includes approximately 126 square miles. The topography of the service area is diverse, consisting of a variety of valleys, hills, mountains, mesas, lakes, and rivers. The service area includes both urban and rural development. The major transportation arteries serving the area include State Highway 94 in the north, Interstate 805 in the southwest, and State Route 125 to the east. Interstate 905 and State Route 11 are in the process of being constructed in the Otay Mesa area. The District serves a wide spectrum of communities including southern El Cajon, La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, eastern City of Chula Vista, East Lake, Otay Ranch, and Otay Mesa areas. The water purveyors that border the District include Padre Dam Municipal Water District (Padre Dam MWD) on the north, Helix WD on the northwest, and the Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego on the west. The southern boundary of the District is the international border with Mexico. A map showing the regional jurisdictional boundaries within the District is shown on Figure 3-1. There is currently no adjacent water purveyor located to the east of the District, which provides an opportunity for service for future land uses, such as the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Area of Influence. SECTION 3 – SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS 3-2 Figure 3-1. Water Service Area 3-3 3.2 Service Area Population The District’s service area population has grown from approximately 48,300 in 1980 to a 2020 population of 225,870. Data on the future rate of growth within the District were obtained from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast (Version 17) developed for its 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan and adopted by SANDAG’s Board of Directors on October 25, 2019. In the Series 14 forecast, SANDAG adopted a new approach to utilize the California Department of Finance population projections for its regional population control totals. Additionally, SANDAG also utilized all available housing unit capacity from local jurisdictions because of the projected number of housing units needed to meet the population projections. These housing unit capacities are determined by a local jurisdiction’s interpretation of their general plan and will govern how many units can be accommodated based on land use and available area out to the year 2050. The District asked SANDAG to take a closer look at its population projections using District created geographical information system (GIS) shapefiles to ensure that all areas, including future potential annexations, were accounted for in the numbers and this was confirmed. The estimated service area population is shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Population - Current and Projected Population Served 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 225,870 233,256 239,627 242,883 248,905 272,353 Source: SANDAG Series 14 (version 17) forecast. 3.2.1 Other Demographic Factors The District’s long-term historic growth rate has averaged around 4 percent. Growth had been decreasing because of slow economic conditions but has begun to recover in recent years. The economy in the District’s service area and the San Diego area is generally stable. The SANDAG forecast shows an average annual growth rate from 2025 through 2045 of approximately 2.5 percent. The water service planning area comprises three distinct land use planning agencies: the City of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, and the County of San Diego. Documents that govern land use planning in these jurisdictions consist of the City of San Diego General Plan, the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and the County of San Diego’s General Plan. All three include various sub-regional and community level plans within the District. Approximately 90 percent of the District’s customers are single-family residences. Much of the anticipated development in the District’s service area is also single-family residential, although the proportion of multi-family residences has been increasing in recent years and will continue to increase through 2045. However, the relative composition of the District’s customers is expected to remain consistent. The other customer sectors, such as commercial, industrial, and institutional are expected to grow at the same rate to support the residential development. 3.3 Climate Data Climatic conditions within the service area are characteristically Mediterranean near the coast, with mild temperatures year-round. Inland areas are both hotter in summer and cooler in winter, with summer 3-4 temperatures often exceeding 90 degrees and winter temperatures occasionally dipping to below freezing. Most of the region’s rainfall occurs December through March. Total average annual rainfall is approximately 10.08 inches per year. Historic climate data were obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center for Station 042706 (El Cajon) for fiscal years 2016 through 2020. This station was selected because its annual temperature variation is representative of most of the District’s service area. While there is a station in Chula Vista, the temperature variation at the Chula Vista station is more typical of a coastal environment than the conditions in most of the District’s service area. Evapotranspiration data were obtained from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) for fiscal years 2016 through 2020. Because conditions in the service area vary from coastal areas to inland areas, evapotranspiration (ETo) data are reported for two stations: 147 (Otay Lakes) and 153 (Escondido SPV). Average total rainfall and temperature data were obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center for Station 042706 (El Cajon). Climate and evapotranspiration data are summarized in Table 3-2 and the typical annual distribution for temperature, precipitation, and evapotranspiration are shown in Figure 3-2. Table 3-2. Climate Data Month Monthly Average Evapotranspiration (inches) El Cajon (042706) Otay Lakes No. 147 Escondido SPV No. 153 Average Monthly Total Rainfall (inches) Average Temperature (Fahrenheit) January 2.26 2.39 2.68 57 February 2.82 2.75 2.26 58 March 4.10 4.05 1.36 61 April 4.95 5.04 0.89 64 May 5.47 5.76 0.76 65 June 5.97 6.59 0.07 72 July 6.15 6.98 0.11 77 August 6.10 6.62 0.00 78 September 4.88 5.20 0.20 75 October 3.89 3.96 0.29 70 November 2.77 2.73 1.42 63 December 2.13 2.12 2.55 57 Total 51.49 54.19 12.37 Source: CIMIS for Stn.147 (Otay Lakes) & Stn.153 (Escondido), Western Regional Climate Center for Station 042706 (El Cajon). 3-5 Figure 3-2. Temperature, Precipitation and Evapotranspiration Distribution 3.3.1 Climate Change Impact Efforts The District recognizes that climate change is a significant issue that has ongoing impacts to water supply planning. Climate change has resulted in increased weather extremes and variability resulting in significant deviations from historical averages and greatly impacting water supply planning decisions. These extremes are expected to cause longer seasonal dry periods within the region and increase evaporation. Climate change, as noted in the 2019 San Diego Integrated Regional Water Management (IWRM) Plan may affect water supply availability due to droughts, seawater intrusion, changes in precipitation, altered fire and weather regimes, and potential changes in the availability of imported water supplies. As a result, the District is continuously reviewing and updating new strategies and reevaluating existing policies, regulations, facilities, and funding priorities to mitigate effects of climate on water resources. Some of the considerations of mitigation and adaptation strategies include: • Exploring the use of local groundwater supplies. • Promoting recycled water use. • Developing long‐term plans that utilize climate change adaptation components. • Promoting water use efficiency for urban, agricultural, commercial, and industrial water users. • Increasing investments in infrastructure that promote adaptation strategies and mitigate the loss of existing supplies that are susceptible to climate change impacts. 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Av e r a g e M o n t h l y T e m p e r a t u r e ( d e g r e e s F a h r e n h e i t ) Mo n t h l y E T , R a i n f a l l ( I n c h e s ) Average Monthly Variables Average Monthly Rainfall, Temperature and Evapotranspiration Average monthly ET (left scale) OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP 4-1 Section 4 - Customer Water Use As part of the UWMP, California regulation requires water suppliers to quantify past and current water use and to project the total water demand for the water system, including calculations of its baseline (base daily per capita) water use and interim and urban water use targets. Projections of future water demand allow a water supplier to analyze if future water supplies are adequate, as well as help the agency when sizing and staging future water facilities to meet water use targets. Projected water use, combined with population projections, provide the basis for estimating future water requirements. This chapter provides the District’s current water use and water use projections through the year 2045. In this chapter, the term “water use” and “water demand” has been used interchangeably. Recycled water is addressed comprehensively in Chapter 6, but a summary of recycled water demand is included in this section (in Table 4-3) as well. 4.1 Existing Water Use by Customer Class The District maintains records of its water consumption and its number of customers by customer type. The breakdown of consumption between customer types in FY 2015 compared to FY 2020 is summarized in Table 4-1. Table 4-1. Demands for Potable Water - Actual Use Type Level of Treatment When Delivered 2020 Actual Volume 2015 Actual Volume Single Family Drinking Water 14,040 16,641 Multi-Family Drinking Water 3,807 3,403 Commercial Drinking Water 3,098 2,675 Industrial Drinking Water Institutional Drinking Water 1,630 2,026 Landscape/Irrigation Drinking Water 3,582 4,121 Losses Drinking Water 1,111 920 Other Drinking Water 180 513 Total 27,448 30,299 The drop in water demand is attributable to a combination of factors, including above-average rainfall at San Diego Lindbergh Field in four of the last five fiscal years, continuing conservation efforts, a growing water use efficiency ethic, and consumer price response to the retail cost of water. 4.2 Projected Future Water Demands 4.2.1 Approach The District projected future water demands as part of its most recent Water Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) update prepared in 2015. These future water demand projections were adjusted with the more recent water demand projections for the District from the Water Authority. The Water Authority projections of future water demand for the District were prepared using the CWA-MAIN model and used the most recent population forecast data for the District’s service area from SANDAG, the SANDAG SECTION 4 – CUSTOMER WATER USE 4-2 Series 14 (Version 17) population projections. SANDAG’s demographic forecast is based on U.S. Census data, annual population and housing estimates produced by California Department of Finance and local inputs gathered from the region’s 18 incorporated cities and unincorporated county areas. This combination of data provides sufficient information to project future demands and maintain consistency with the District’s wholesale provider. The forecasted future water demands use existing demands as a base and scale these demands based on the net effects of population and economic growth, conservation, and weather. The methodologies used in the Master Plan are detailed below. • Existing baseline unit demands. The Master Plan used actual unit use factors for calendar year 2013 as the baseline normal condition demands for the forecast period. 2013 was moderately dryer than normal, which would tend to increase use, but this increase is offset by below-normal economic activity as the economy continued to recover from the Great Recession. • New development. New development demands were generated in the Master Plan using the baseline unit use factors and used the SANDAG Series 13 projections for the District’s population and growth. These were adjusted in this 2020 UWMP using SANDAG Series 14 (Version 17) population and growth. o Residential: Single Family Residential (SFR) and Multi-Family Residential (MFR) usage was scaled upwards proportionate to housing unit counts for each category and adjusted for projected changes in Persons Per Household rates. o Public / Commercial: Commercial, industrial, and governmental usage was scaled upwards from existing use proportionate to employment projections. o Irrigation: Usage was scaled upward as a weighted average of the change in SFR, MFR, and commercial usage. • Reduced demands due to additional conservation efficiencies and other factors. The Master Plan projects unit use rates will continue to decline over time in response to increased water rates, conservation education, and shifting landscape preferences. These factors are summarized in Table 4-S1. SECTION 4 – CUSTOMER WATER USE 4-3 Table 4-S1: Summary of Unit Use Adjustment Factors FACTORS DRIVING UNIT USE REDUCTIONS 1) Landscape Ordinances As required by State law from 2010 and as amended by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2015, all land use jurisdictions have adopted landscape ordinances limiting new landscape construction water use to 55 percent ETo for residential construction, and 45 percent for non-residential construction. The state requirements also limit turf utilization in all types of construction and in and streetscape uses. As a result, new construction in the District will feature less grass, and be lower water using in comparison to pre-2010 construction. 2) Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers Newer landscape irrigation controllers can automatically adjust irrigation schedules consistent with actual climate conditions and plant water needs, reducing unnecessary use due to over-irrigation. The use of these controllers will become increasingly common during the planning horizon. 3) Turf Retirement Metropolitan and the Water Authority are providing financial incentives to customers who replace grass with low water use landscapes, and customer landscape preferences are shifting away from turf. Existing residential landscapes in the District service area are dominated by grass; over the course of the planning horizon this will begin to shift as customers opt to remove turf. 4) High-efficiency clothes washers Newer clothes washing machines, in particular front-loading versions, are more water efficient than older traditional-style washers. 5) High-efficiency toilets California regulations enacted in 2011 require new toilets to operate with a maximum of 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf), compared to 1.6 gpf per the previous 1992 requirements. This will reduce water use at new SFR and MFR construction. 6) MFR Submetering Future MFR construction will be subject to requirements that individual units be submetered and billed by usage. The direct price signal to the consumer results in reduced water use. 7) Increasing Real Prices / Behavioral Changes Retail water rates may continue to increase at a rate faster than inflation, driven by increases in wholesale rates. Customers respond by reducing use. FACTORS DRIVING UNIT USE INCREASES 8) Growth located in warmer inland areas New development in the District is moving further and further inland. The warmer climate of inland areas results in increased unit irrigation demands. The average ETo rate for the geographic center of the District is approximately 47 inches (per CIMIS station data, see San Diego County Landscape Design Manual, App. A). The average ETo at the eastern edge of the District at Lower Otay Reservoir is 51 inches, 6 percent higher than the geographic center. 9) Climate Change The state is experiencing increased weather extremes and variability due to climate change that have led to significant deviations from historical averages impacting water supply planning on all levels. As a result, the region may experience longer seasonal dry periods, which is expected to increase evaporation in the region. 4.2.2 Projected Normal Potable Water Demands Water demands in the District service area will increase over time relative to existing demands, but at a slower rate than the underlying growth in population and employment. The water demands also include known potential near-term annexation demands as described below. Near-Term Annexation Demands The District anticipates that additional lands will annex to its service area and anticipates these Near- Term Annexations may include those listed below: • Otay Ranch Village 13 - The portion of the Proctor Valley Parcel (part of the Otay Ranch GDP) outside the District’s boundary is known as the Resort Parcel, or Village 13. The land use mix will include approximately 1,881 single family residential dwelling units, 57 multi-family dwelling units, 16.7 acres SECTION 4 – CUSTOMER WATER USE 4-4 of resort/hotel, 24.6 acres of parks, and a 10.1-acre school site. Village 13 will be annexed into the District to receive water service. • Peaceful Valley Ranch - 152.4 acres for a proposed estate residential development with 52 estate residential units, and equestrian uses and amenities. • Stoddard Parcel - 8-acre lot with existing home, adjacent to the District boundary and the proposed Peaceful Valley Ranch annexation. • San Ysidro Mountains Parcel, Planning Area 17 – The land areas included within the 2,411-acre San Ysidro Mountains Parcel, part of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, includes Village 15 and Planning Area 17. Village 15 (1,611 acres) has been designated as open space preserve. Planning Area 17 is planned to include 296 single-family units over 800 acres. The entire parcel lies outside of Otay's boundaries, but within the Area of Influence. • Annexations East of Village 13 - There are a total of 1,776 acres of developable land in the area east of Village 13. Development will be semi-rural with a projection of 1 Dwelling Unit (DU) for every 8 acres for a total of 222 dwelling units. The District projects water demands for these projects will be as summarized in Table 4-S2: Table 4-S2. District Anticipated Near-Term Annexations Potential Annexation Estimated Annual Demands (AFY) 2020 2025 - 2045 Otay Ranch Village 13 1,318 1,318 Peaceful Valley Ranch 70 70 Stoddard Parcel 2 2 San Ysidro Mt. Parcel Village 17 (296 SFR units) 148 148 Annexations East of Village 13 250 250 Total 1,788 1,788 The District’s projected potable water demand for normal water years, in the District’s service area is summarized in Table 4-2. SECTION 4 – CUSTOMER WATER USE 4-5 Table 4-2. Demands for Potable Water - Projected Use Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Single Family 16.482 16,619 16,879 17,373 17,920 Multi-Family 4,101 4,853 5,189 6,010 7,618 Commercial 5,129 5,803 6,892 7,990 8,608 Industrial Institutional Landscape/Irrigation 4,065 4,600 5,463 6,333 6,823 Other 311 352 418 484 522 Losses 1,589 1,722 1,907 1,788 1,987 Subtotal 31,677 33,948 36,748 39,979 43,477 Near-Term Annexations 1,788 1,788 1,788 1,788 1,788 Total 33,465 35,736 38,536 41,767 45,265 Notes: Based on SANDAG Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast (Ver. 17) and SDCWA Member Agency Level Projections (CWA-MAIN model). Includes projected water conservation savings. 4.2.3 Projected Recycled Demands The Master Plan projected recycled water demands using methodologies similar to those described previously for the potable demand forecasts. The recycled demand forecast assumes that recycled water service will be available only in the Central system area, as described in the Master Plan. Within the Central system area, the forecast assumes that almost all new development will utilize recycled water for irrigation uses, with the only exceptions being those areas that are within the drainage basin of Lower Otay Reservoir and therefore not allowed to use recycle water. The forecast assumes those existing irrigation meters currently on the potable system will remain as potable demands and not convert to recycled service, consistent with the District’s experience with the high costs of retrofitting customer systems for recycled use. Projected recycled water demands are presented in Table 4-3. 4.2.4 Projected Total Demands The District’s total projected demands, inclusive of baseline potable and recycled demands are summarized in Table 4-3 and include water savings from passive and active conservation efforts. Table 4-3: Total Water Demands 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Potable Water Demand 33,465 35,736 38,536 41,767 45,265 Recycled Water Demand 4,500 5,000 5,100 5,200 5,300 Total Water Demand 37,965 40,736 43,636 46,967 50,565 NOTES: SECTION 4 – CUSTOMER WATER USE 4-6 Accelerated Forecasted Growth Demand The Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP long-range water demand forecast incorporates a small demand increment associated with potential accelerated forecasted growth (AFG). This demand increment is intended to account for land-use development included in SANDAG’s growth forecast and projected to occur beyond year 2045 but has the potential to move forward on an accelerated basis. SANDAG estimates that general plan amendments which allow this accelerated development could happen within the planning horizon of the 2020 UWMP. The AFG demand increment is incorporated into the Water Authority’s 2020 UWMP demand forecast at a regional level. The District has access to the Water Authority’s regional supply associated with AFG to document the availability of water supplies to serve proposed projects when preparing a Water Supply Assessment (Water Code Section 10912 (a)). As a member agency, such as the District, incorporates water demands associated with accelerated forecasted growth into their demand forecast, these water demands are removed from the Water Authority’s AFG demand increment. Additionally, the Water Authority will track demands associated with member agency projects requesting a portion of the AFG demand increment, to demonstrate that adequate supplies exist for each new development. 4.3 Service Area Sales and System Losses The District does not sell any water to other agencies. Distribution system water losses (also known as “real losses”) are the physical water losses from the water distribution system and storage facilities, up to the point of customer delivery. These real losses typically include legitimate uses that are not metered, such as street cleaning, hydrant flushing and fire suppression, as well as unaccounted for water, such as meter errors and system leaks. The District uses the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Method and Guidebook worksheet to report and calculate system losses. The District’s reported losses for the last five years are shown in Table 4-4 below. The AWWA worksheets for these reporting periods are provided in Appendix C. Table 4-4: Last Five Years of Water Loss Audit Reporting Reporting Period Start Date (Month/Year) Loss July/2015 918 July/2016 1,135 July/2017 1,242 July/2018 1.443 July/2019 1,111 NOTES: 4.4 Projected Future Water Conservation Savings Conservation within the District and the region overall is an important resource strategy for ensuring a reliable and cost-effective supply of water. The potable water demand projections presented in this UWMP include active and passive water conservation savings. Future water conservation was estimated by the Water Authority for its member agencies, using the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) conservation tracking tool listed in DWR’s 2020 UWMP Guidebook as an application to assist water purveyors in developing savings estimates. The projected active conservation savings are based on the continuation of conservation incentives and rebate programs. SECTION 4 – CUSTOMER WATER USE 4-7 Table 4-5: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Future Water Savings Included Yes If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number where citations of the codes, ordinances, etc. utilized in demand projections are found. Location in UWMP: Section 4.4, Water Authority UWMP Section 2.4.2 Lower Income Residential Demands Included Yes NOTES: Table 4-6: Projected Future Conservation Savings - District 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Active Conservation 2,731 2,351 2,333 2,333 1,984 Passive Conservation 1,757 2,192 2,707 2,707 3,050 Total 4,488 4.542 4,649 5,040 5,034 4.5 Lower Income Water Demand Projections The Water Code Section 10631.1 state that UWMP demand projections shall include estimates of water- use for low-income and multi-family residential households. The District’s water demand projections listed in Table 4-2 represent water-use estimates for all income-levels including low-income households. Demands for projected low-income housing projects and high-density multi-family residential units are contained in SANDAG’s Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast (Version 17) and were consistent with the estimates developed as part of the District’s 2015 Master Plan. These lower-income water demand projections have been included as part of the general growth within the District. 4.6 Climate Change The effects of climate change impacts on water demand projections are important but have a level of uncertainty as climate change research advances over time. However, changes in weather significantly affect water supply planning. Typically, water supplies that are dependent on natural hydrology are vulnerable to climate change, especially if the water source originates from mountain snowpack. The most vulnerable water sources subject to climate change impacts are the District’s imported water supplies from the Water Authority. In addition to water supply impacts, changes in local temperature and precipitation are expected to alter water demand patterns. The Water Authority has included a description of how the effect of climate change was incorporated into its water demands modeling for each agency. In section 2.4.4 of its UWMP, the Authority describes how the body of work currently available from national and international research contains a wide range of possible outcomes based on numerous climate-forcing scenarios that are run through an assortment of general circulation models. In the absence of research consensus, the Water Authority has adopted a qualitative evaluation approach that uses a manageable number of climate change scenarios to develop its projections. Five different climate scenarios were substituted into the CWA-MAIN model. These five scenarios are detailed below. • Relatively large increases in both average temperatures and precipitation (Warm/Wet) • Relatively large increases in average temperature and relatively large decreases in average precipitation (Warm/Dry) SECTION 4 – CUSTOMER WATER USE 4-8 • Relatively small increases in average temperature and relatively large increases in precipitation (Cool/Wet) • Relatively small increases in average temperature and relatively large decreases in precipitation (Cool/Dry) • Moderate increases in average temperature and moderate changes in precipitation (Moderate) The demand for each member agency was forecasted using the selected scenario’s precipitation and temperature data for the individual member agency’s location within the region. This assured that demand forecasts for a particular member agency, such as the District, were derived for a consistent scenario, would better represent real coexistent weather regionally, and could be sensibly aggregated to regional totals, while retaining the climatic heterogeneity typical to the region. Long term modeling for the 2040-2060 climate projection period found that the Wet/Cool and Dry/Cool scenarios result in lower estimates of total water demand above the baseline regional forecast for normal years and the Wet/Warm and Dry/Warm scenarios resulted in higher estimates of demand relative to the baseline regional forecast. These modeling results imply that there is a greater influence of temperatures relative to precipitation, at least for the scenarios selected. Additional details of this analysis and its methodology can be found in Section 2.4.4 of the Water Authority’s 2020 UWMP. OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP 5-1 Section 5 - Conservation Target Compliance The state Legislature passed Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session, referred to as SBX7-7, on November 10, 2009, which became effective February 3, 2010. This law was the water conservation component to the Delta legislation package, and the goal was to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020. The law requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent goal by 2020, and an interim water reduction target by 2015. For the 2020 UWMP, the District is required to use the baseline and target identified in its 2015 UWMP in order to determine whether it has met its per-capita water reduction obligation. Water use is typically discussed based on per capita use and is presented in gallons per capita daily (gpcd). The 2010 and 2015 UWMP’s described how the District calculated its baseline and targets, following the technical methods and methodologies described in DWR’s Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita Water Use for the Consistent Implementation of the Water Conservation Bill of 2009. Background information and the approach used to develop baselines and targets were also to be included. A description of each of these elements follows: • Baseline daily per capita water use — how much water is used within an urban water supplier’s distribution system area on a per capita basis. It is determined using water use and population estimates from a defined range of years. • Urban water use target — how much water is planned to be delivered in 2020 to each resident within an urban water supplier’s distribution system area, considering water conservation practices that currently are and plan to be implemented. • Interim urban water use target — the planned daily per capita water use in 2015, a value halfway between the baseline daily per capita water use and the urban water use target. 5.1 Baselines and Targets In the 2010 UWMP, the District was required to develop a baseline per capita water use. Per DWR requirements, the District estimated a 10-year (1999 to 2008) and a 5-year (2004 to 2008) baseline per capita water use. Table 5-1 presents the adjusted baseline per capita water using the adjusted 2010 Census population data. The District targets are based on Method 1. Since the District’s recycled water use is greater than 10 percent of 2008 retail water delivery, a 10 to 15-year baseline period that ends no earlier than December 31, 2004 was used. A 10-year period from 1999 to 2008 provided a baseline of 191 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and a 2020 target of 153 gpcd as shown in Table 5-1. No adjustment was required since the 10-year baseline target is less than 95 percent of the 5-year baseline. For reference purposes, the 2010 UWMP presented the 10-year and 5-year baseline per capita water use as 190 gpcd and 191 gpcd, respectively. SECTION 5 – CONSERVATION TARGET COMPLIANCE 5-2 Table 5-1 Baselines and Targets Summary Baseline Period Start Year End Year Average GPCD 2015 Interim Target Confirmed 2020 Target 10 year 1999 2008 191 172 153 5 Year 2004 2008 192 -- -- Notes: In 2015, the District’s per capita water use had been declining to the point where water use already met the 2020 target for Method 1. In 2015, water use within the District was 124 gpcd. The decline in per capita water use was largely due to water use restrictions, increased water costs, and poor economic conditions. The decline in water use has carried over into 2020 due to the District’s effective water use awareness campaign and the enhanced conservation mentality of its customers. Table 5-2 shows the District’s compliance with the 2015 and 2020 targets. Table 5-2 SBX 7-7 Compliance 2015 Actual GPCD 2015 Interim Target GPCD Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2015 2020 Actual GPCD 2020 Confirmed Target GPCD Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2020 124 172 Yes 108 153 Yes Notes: The baseline per capita water use estimates in the 2010 UWMP were based on preliminary 2010 Census population data. For the 2015 UWMP, DWR required that the baseline estimates be recalculated with the formal 2010 Census population data. SANDAG Series 13 forecast data incorporated the final 2010 Census data into its analysis. The District population data used to calculate the 2020 Actual GPCD is provided by SANDAG and uses the SANDAG Series 14 (Version 17) estimated population for the District’s service area. 6-1 Section 6 - Service Area Supplies 6.1 Water Resources This section discusses the water sources available to the District. 6.1.1 Potable Water The District currently meets all its potable demands with imported treated water from the Water Authority. The Water Authority, as a wholesale agency, imports both raw water and treated water for delivery to its member agencies in San Diego County. The Water Authority’s current and future supply portfolio is discussed in more detail in its draft 2020 UWMP. Existing potable water supply sources available to the District include purchases from the Water Authority, and back-up purchases from the City of San Diego’s Otay WTP on an as-needed and as- available basis. The supplies are further described below. 6.1.2 San Diego County Water Authority The District receives potable water from the Water Authority via Pipeline Number 4 (Pipeline No. 4) of the Second San Diego Aqueduct (Second Aqueduct), and from the Helix Flume Connection Pipeline. The latter pipeline was placed into operation in 2010, replacing the former La Mesa-Sweetwater Extension (LMSE) supply pipeline. Both conveyance facilities are owned and operated by the Water Authority. Pipeline No. 4 delivers potable water treated at one of three facilities: the Metropolitan Skinner WTP located in Riverside County, the Water Authority’s Twin Oaks Valley WTP in San Marcos, and the Water Authority’s Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Facility. The Helix Flume Connection Pipeline receives water treated at the Helix WD’s Levy Filtration Plant. The Water Authority does not have contractual agreements with its member agencies to guarantee flow rates or hydraulic gradients at its various flow control facility connections. Generally, if the Water Authority cannot obtain sufficient treated and/or raw water or has delivery limitations for the water requests of its 24 member agencies, the Water Authority will attempt to allocate the water delivery shortfall to its member agencies on a proportional basis. 6.1.3 City of San Diego Through a 1999 agreement with the City of San Diego, the District may obtain up to 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of supply from the City’s Otay WTP. The Otay WTP was originally constructed in 1940 and has a current rated capacity of 34.4 mgd. The City of San Diego’s typical demand for treated water from the Otay WTP is less than 20 mgd. Under the terms of the agreement, the City’s obligation to supply treated water to the District is contingent upon it having surplus capacity available, beyond what the City needs for its own area system. The agreement also provides the District with the option of funding an expansion of the Otay WTP in return for additional capacity rights. Although in the past the City has planned for expansion of the plant to a capacity of 60 mgd, the City currently has no committed plans or budget for expansion of the plant. The District does not currently have permanent facilities in place to take delivery of water from the Otay WTP; instead, a temporary “Lower Otay Pump Station (PS)” conveys flows from an Otay WD SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-2 Interconnect. The District has completed the design of a permanent Lower Otay PS (LOPS) but has deferred construction of the facility. The District considers the supply of water from the Otay WTP to be an alternative source for use in the South District area system when the Water Authority Pipeline No. 4 is out of service. The agreement with the City of San Diego for potable water from the Otay WTP is included in Appendix E. 6.1.4 Emergency Supplies The District has established a goal to sustain a 10-day outage of supply from the Water Authority Pipeline No. 4 at any time of the year without a reduction in service level. The District seeks to obtain this level of supply reliability through the development of alternative water supplies, through agreements with neighboring water districts, and through treated water storage. For emergency events longer than the 10-day aqueduct shutdowns noted previously, the District will utilize emergency supplies developed by the Water Authority’s Emergency Storage Project (ESP). The ESP is designed to provide treated water service to all Water Authority member agencies during a two- month interruption in service of imported water deliveries into San Diego County. The ESP is sized to deliver up to 75 percent of each agency’s peak two-month summer demand. The key facilities of the ESP include the Olivenhain Dam and Conveyance System, the Lake Hodges Interconnect, the San Vicente- Miramar Pipeline, and the expansion of San Vicente Reservoir. 6.2 Groundwater The District currently does not obtain any of it supply from groundwater. The District has studied possible local groundwater development projects, but none to date have advanced to development. Both the geology and the semi-arid hydrologic conditions of the region limit groundwater supplies within the service area. Narrow river valleys with shallow alluvial deposits are characteristic of some of the more productive groundwater basins. Additionally, irrigation with imported water and over- pumping has led to excessive salinity in many of the most promising basins. Outside of these alluvial basins, much of the geology consists of fractured crystalline bedrock and fine-grained sedimentary deposits that are generally capable of yielding only small amounts of groundwater to domestic wells. The District is continuing to investigate local groundwater opportunities as a means of reducing its dependence on imported water. Possible concept-level future groundwater projects are discussed in more detail in Section 6.8 (Future Water Supplies). 6.3 Surface Water The District does not have any local surface supplies of its own. 6.4 Stormwater The District does not currently utilize stormwater to augment its water supply. SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-3 6.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water 6.5.1 Recycled Water Coordination The District has two sources of recycled water supply: recycled water produced locally at the District’s Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF) and a recycled water supply produced at the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The RWCWRF is located near the intersection of Campo Road/Highway 94 and Singer Lane within the Middle Sweetwater River basin. The agencies that participate in recycled water planning for the District’s service area are as follows: • Otay Water District - Owns and operates RWCWRF and the recycled water distribution network. • City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department (MWWD) - Owns and operates regional interceptors, SBWRP, and Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). 6.5.2 Wastewater Collection & Treatment Wastewater flows treated by the District originate in the Middle Sweetwater River basin, also known as the Jamacha Basin. A majority of these flows are collected by the District, with the remainder being collected by the Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD), which is operated by the County of San Diego. Current wastewater collection system flows for both agencies total approximately 1.63 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF), of which approximately 1.3 mgd is diverted to the RWCWRF. Approximately 1.09 mgd is collected from District customers and 0.54 mgd is collected from SVSD customers. Wastewater collection and treatment within the District service area is summarized in Table 6-2: Table 6-2: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2020 Name of Wastewater Collection Agency Wastewater Volume Metered or Estimated? Volume of Wastewater Collected in 2020 Name of Wastewater Treatment Agency Receiving Collected Wastewater Treatment Plant Name Is WWTP Located Within UWMP Area? Otay Water District Metered 1,220 Otay Water District RWCWRF Yes San Diego County Spring Valley Sanitation District Metered 617 City of San Diego Point Loma WWTP No City of Chula Vista Estimated 12,600 City of San Diego Point Loma WWTP No City of San Diego Estimated 950 City of San Diego Point Loma WWTP No Total Wastewater Collected from Service Area in 2020: 15,387 The RWCWRF can produce approximately 1.3 mgd of recycled water meeting Title 22 requirements. The RWCWRF is a scalping treatment facility: wastewater that is not treated by the facility for beneficial reuse continues to flow in the Rancho San Diego Outfall Facilities to the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater System. Some of this wastewater is treated by MWWD at its SBWRP at the secondary level, and the remainder is sent to the Point Loma WWTP for treatment at the advanced primary level and SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-4 disposed through an ocean outfall. At RWCWRF, tertiary treatment of the 1.3 mgd can reliably produce approximately 1,100 AFY of recycled water. The RWCWRF provides tertiary treatment that meets the State of California’s Title 22 requirements for reuse. Effluent from the plant is pumped to lined and covered reservoirs in the District’s property located north of Proctor Valley Road adjacent to the Rolling Hills Ranch Development project. The annual treated flow for 2020 is shown in Table 6-3. Table 6-3 Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020 Wastewater Treatment Plant Treatment Level Volume Treated Volume Discharged Volume Recycled Water Served RWCWRF Tertiary 873 X 873 Notes: 6.5.3 Recycled Water System The District operates and maintains over 93 miles of recycled water transmission and distribution pipelines, pump stations and reservoirs, making it one of the largest recycled water systems in San Diego County. The District’s mandatory reuse ordinance, land development conditions, and public outreach has resulted in a stakeholder acceptance of recycled water as a viable local water supply for irrigation, especially during these recent drought conditions. The District continues to successfully serve recycled water to customers within its central service area, south of the Sweetwater Reservoir and west of the Otay Lakes Reservoirs. Most of the area represents the Otay Ranch GPD area within the City of Chula Vista. To serve the District’s existing demand for recycled water, the District entered into an agreement to purchase recycled water from the City of San Diego’s SBWRP. The SBWRP has a rated capacity of 15 mgd and is located at Monument and Dairy Mart Roads near the international border, adjacent to the Tijuana River. The SBWRP receives wastewater flow from the Grove Avenue Pump Station that scalps flow from the existing interceptor system that conveys flow northward to the Point Loma Treatment Plant for treatment and ocean outfall disposal. The existing interceptor system flows are thereby reduced, freeing up additional capacity for future growth in the South Bay region. The SBWRP in essence is a scalping plant and is designed for a relatively constant flow rate depending upon recycled water demands and interceptor capacity limitations. The agreement between the District and the City of San Diego for purchase of recycled water from the SBWRP was finalized on October 20, 2003. In accordance with the agreement, the City of San Diego will provide an annual amount of at least 6 mgd of recycled water to District. The term of the agreement is 20 years from January 1, 2007. The agreement with the City of San Diego for water from the SBWRP is included in Appendix F. The City of San Diego has agreed to meet all applicable federal, state, and local health and water quality requirements for recycled water produced at the SBWRP to the point of delivery. The point of delivery is located at the intersection of Dairy Mart Road and Camino de la Plaza. As part of the agreement, the District has constructed a 30-inch transmission main to deliver the recycled water from the point of delivery to the District. The City of San Diego has retained 1 mgd of capacity in this transmission pipeline that runs through the City of San Diego’s system. SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-5 6.5.4 Recycled Water Beneficial Uses The District’s service area is still experiencing growth and development in the geographic area where recycled water is approved for use. Expansion of the District’s recycled water system is critical to reducing demands on imported water. The area with the greatest potential for expansion is the existing Central service area. The District anticipates maximizing the use of recycled water by continuing to require new developments within the District to use recycled water, wherever feasible. The District’s 2015 Master Plan Update included an assessment of current and future demand for recycled water based on approved Subarea Master Plans or water studies. For areas without development plans, the projected water demand for the District at ultimate development was determined by applying irrigated area percentages and recycled water irrigation duty factors. Most of the currently identified uses are for outdoor irrigation. The District currently serves recycled water to approximately 700 customers. In 2020, approximately 3,333 AF of recycled water was supplied to recycled water users. Current uses consist primarily of commercial landscape irrigation, golf course irrigation, and irrigation of public places like parks, streetscapes, schools, highway medians, and open space areas. The District’s 2020 recycled water use, and future projections are presented in Table 6-4. Table 6-4. Current and Projected Recycled Water Use within Service Area Beneficial Use Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Landscape irrigation (excluding golf courses) 3,153 4,300 4,795 4,890 4,985 5,080 Golf Course Irrigation 180 200 205 210 215 220 Total 3,333 4,500 5,000 5,100 5,200 5,300 Notes: Recycled water use in FY2020 compared to the projections presented in the 2015 UWMP is shown in Table 6-5. Table 6-5. 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual Use Type 2015 Projection for 2020 2020 Actual Use Landscape irrigation (excluding golf courses) 4,400 3,153 Golf course irrigation 180 Total 4,400 3,333 6.5.5 Proposed Actions to Encourage Use of Recycled Water The District made the commitment and commenced its wastewater recycling efforts over 15 years ago. A major component of the commitment to recycle was to enact an ordinance that requires recycled SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-6 water be used for all appropriate and approved non-potable uses. The requirement continues today, with all new applications for water service being reviewed for opportunities to use recycled water. The District’s Code of Ordinance Section 26 (Appendix G) details the requirements for the use of recycled water whenever feasible. Table 6-6 Retail: Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use Name of Action Planned Implementation Year Expected Increase in Recycled Water Use Park and greenbelt irrigation 2020-2045 400 Multi-family common area landscape and streetscape irrigation 2020-2045 400 Total 800 6.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities A portion of the District’s existing potable supply from the Water Authority originates at the Water Authority’s Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Facility. During winter periods, supply from the facility may constitute more than 50 percent of the District’s supply. In addition, the District is also considering an option to enter into a water purchase agreement for supply from a seawater desalination facility that may be built in Rosarito, Mexico, as described further below. This information has been provided to the Water Authority as a conceptual future water supply project. 6.6.1 Rosarito Desalination Plant - Potential Water Purchase Agreement The District has investigated the feasibility of purchasing water from a seawater desalination plant that may be built in Rosarito Beach, Baja California, Mexico. The proposed Rosarito plant and the District’s Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project would provide a new drought-proof water supply to its customers. In May 2017, the U.S. Department of State granted a presidential permit to allow the Otay Water District to build a potable water pipeline to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. This permit authorized the District to “construct, connect, operate, and maintain cross-border water pipeline facilities for the importation of desalinated seawater at the International Boundary between the United States and Mexico in San Diego County, California.” Although purchasing and transporting water from Aguas de Rosarito’s desalination plant in Rosarito, Baja California, Mexico, has been a component of the District’s water supply diversification efforts, the project for the District has been halted. The District is interested in diversifying its water supplies by purchasing potential excess desalinated ocean water from a future Rosarito desalination plant, after the project has first satisfied and secured the water needs of its Mexican consumers in northern Baja California. If the project does move forward, the District’s project has already undergone environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act and has obtained a U.S. Fish and Wildlife biological permit. The District recognizes that such a project requires rigorous safeguards and review to ensure the protection of public health and a permit from the California Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water will be needed to ensure that SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-7 water imported from Mexico meets the same water quality drinking standards as water from regional lakes, from the Claude “Bud” Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant, and from the City of San Diego’s Pure Water Program. 6.7 Exchanges or Transfers At the wholesale level, the Water Authority has engaged in a transfer with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), and a portion of the District’s supply from the Water Authority derives from this transfer arrangement. Under this agreement, water conserved by IID will be transported by Metropolitan through the Colorado River Aqueduct and delivered to the Water Authority. Further information about this agreement can be found in the Water Authority’s UWMP. At the retail level, the District does not have any transfer or exchange supplies of its own. 6.8 Future Water Supplies In 2015, the District started the update of its Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) which examines potential, future supply options and its performance with regard to long-term, comprehensive water resource objectives. The 2015 IRP provides a comprehensive and defensible implementation strategy to meet the District’s water supply objectives, while allowing flexibility in adapting to anticipated changes in the water industry, market and regulatory conditions. The IRP proposes a phased implementation of projects from now to 2030 to meet growing future water demands, while making adjustments as necessary to respond to changing technology, supply levels, regulations, market conditions, costs, and partnership opportunities. The overall implementation strategy developed in the IRP is intended to assist the District in addressing uncertainties surrounding future water supply by reducing dependence on imported sources. The IRP concludes that implementation of the plan will support the District in attaining its multiple objectives of achieving reliability, maintaining affordability, increasing flexibility, increasing diversity, and addressing environmental and institutional constraints. The IRP identified six (6) supply options, including water conservation, groundwater development, additional imported water alternatives, ocean desalination, recycled water, and the expansion of treatment agreements with local agencies. Within these six (6) source categories, the IRP assessed 13 individual water supply project options in terms of costs and non-monetary factors. The District selected these options for an implementation path or roadmap to keep the District on track in accomplishing long-term goals, while strategically making investments only when necessary. In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, new development project proponents who anticipate a water demand that exceeds what was planned for that area are required to acquire a water supply source and/or participate in the development of alternative water supply projects to offset the anticipated additional demand. These new water supply projects are in response to the regional water supply issues related to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current ongoing western states drought conditions. They are in various states of the planning process and are intended to increase water supplies to serve new development project water supply needs. It is anticipated that future Water Management Plans prepared by the District, the Water Authority, and Metropolitan will include any increases in water demand associated with adopted changes in land use, as well as any new local water supply resources, and will provide the planning tools necessary to ensure a water supply plan to meet the needs of future planned development. However, until those plans are adopted, it is necessary to SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-8 address the current regional water supply shortage by offsetting projected increases in water demands with local water supply offset projects. The following future water supply projects summarized in Table 6-7 have been proposed and the status of each is described in the paragraphs below. Table 6-7: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs Name of Future Projects or Programs Description Status Planned Implementation Year Expected Increase in Water Supply to Agency Rancho del Rey GW Well Brackish Groundwater Additional Planned 2035 500 Middle Sweetwater River Basin GW Well Groundwater Recovery Conceptual 2035 1,000 Otay Mesa Lot 7 GW Well Groundwater Recovery Conceptual 2035 400 North District Recycled System Tertiary Conceptual 2035 4,400 Rosarito Desalination Plant Seawater Desalination Conceptual 2030 6,700 NOTES: 6.8.1 Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well In 1991, the McMillin Development Company drilled the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well to augment grading water supplies for its Rancho del Rey development projects. Although the well was considered a “good producer,” little was known regarding its water quality and sustainable yield because the water was used solely for earthwork (i.e., dust control and soil compaction). The well was drilled to 865 feet, with a finished depth of 830 feet and produced approximately 400 AFY of low-quality water for four years until its use was discontinued in April 1995 when the well was no longer needed. McMillin notified the District of its intent to sell off the groundwater well asset. In 1997, the District purchased the existing 7-inch well and the surrounding property on Rancho del Rey Parkway from the McMillin Company with the intent to develop it as a source of potable water. Treatment was required to remove salts and boron, among other constituents, using reverse osmosis membranes and ion exchange. In 2000, having received proposals for the design and construction of a reverse osmosis treatment facility that far exceeded the allocated budget, the Board of Directors instructed staff to suspend the project until such time as it became economically viable. In January 2010, citing the rising cost of imported water and the District's interest in securing its own water source for long-term supply reliability, the Board authorized Phase 1 for drilling and development of the Rancho del Rey Well. In September 2010, a new 12-inch production well was drilled to 900 feet through the groundwater formation and into fractured bedrock. Testing showed the long-term yield of the new well to be 450 gallons per minute (gpm), higher than previous studies had estimated. Separation Processes, Inc., a highly qualified membrane treatment firm, was hired to conduct a detailed economic feasibility study to confirm that the annualized unit cost of the new water source was economically competitive with other SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-9 sources. The economic study estimated the unit cost of water to be $1,510 per AF for an alternative that utilizes a seawater membrane for treating both salts and boron. When compared with the current imported treated water rate from the Water Authority, and with the knowledge that this rate will continually increase as Metropolitan and the Water Authority raise their rates, the Rancho del Rey Well project appears to be economically viable. The District is continuing to pursue the Rancho del Rey groundwater well opportunity with due consideration of the recommendations of the existing reports and plans to develop a groundwater well production facility to extract approximately 500 AFY. For water planning purposes, production of groundwater from the Rancho del Rey well is considered “additional planned” for local supplies. The District contracted for the design of the wellhead treatment facilities and has prepared the project environmental analysis. At the present time, the project is on hold until the economics are more favorable. 6.8.1.1 San Diego Groundwater Basin Description The Rancho Del Rey well is located within the Lower Sweetwater Hydrologic Area (HA 909.10) and develops supply from what is believed to be the eastern edge of the San Diego Formation. The San Diego Formation is comprised of thick semi-consolidated and unconsolidated older sediments that underlie a large portion of San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista. The Formation extends to depths of 1000 feet or more and is characterized by complex geology with extreme vertical and horizontal non- uniformity. The San Diego Formation extends eastward to the Rose Canyon and La Naçion faults, but the western, northern, and southern boundaries of the aquifer are less well documented. Little is known about the recharge sources of the San Diego Formation, and overdraft and seawater intrusion implications are yet to be assessed. In 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey, City of San Diego, the District, Sweetwater Authority, and San Diego County Water Authority engaged in a long-term, multi- phase study of the San Diego Formation aimed at: (1) achieving better understanding of the San Diego Formation hydrogeology; and (2) assessing the potential for additional groundwater extraction and recharge. Both the Sweetwater Hydrologic Area and the San Diego Formation are unadjudicated and neither has an adopted groundwater management plan. Sweetwater Authority in 2001, however, adopted an interim groundwater management plan for the San Diego Formation that limits groundwater production to prevent seawater intrusion and land subsidence. 6.8.2 Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Project The Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well is an additional water supply project that was thoroughly studied and documented in the 1990s. The Middle Sweetwater River Basin is located within the Sweetwater River watershed and that reach of the river extends from Sweetwater Reservoir to the upstream Loveland Reservoir. The next step in development of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well is the implementation of a pilot well project. The ultimate objective of the District is to develop a groundwater well production system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of potable water as a local supply. The purpose of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot project is to identify the feasibility of developing a groundwater resource production system and then determine and assess any limitations or constraints that may arise. The Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot Project will accomplish six primary goals: SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-10 • Update project setting. • Update applicable project alternatives analysis. • Prepare a groundwater well pilot project implementation plan. • Construct and test pilot monitoring and extraction wells. • Provide recommendations regarding costs and feasibility to develop a groundwater well production system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of potable water. • Prepare a groundwater well production project implementation plan and scope of work. The groundwater conjunctive use concept is described as the extraction of the quantity of water from the groundwater basin that was placed there by customers of the District, Helix WD, and Padre Dam Municipal Water District by means of its use of imported treated water that contributed to the overall volume of groundwater within the basin. An estimated quantity was developed to be approximately 12.5 percent of the total consumption of the District customers within that basin, as measured by water meters. In the 1994-1995 period, the quantity of water that was returned to the groundwater basin by District customers was estimated to be 810 AFY. Currently, that 12.5 percent quantity could be on the order of 1,000 AFY. A scope of work addresses this concept while further development of the groundwater basin as an additional supply resource is appropriately considered. If it is deemed that a Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Production Project is viable then the consultant will develop and provide a groundwater well production project implementation plan, cost estimate, and related scope of work. Further development of the groundwater basin to enhance the total groundwater production could be accomplished by the District by means of additional extraction of water from the basin that is placed there by means of either injection and/or spreading basins using imported untreated water as the resource supply. The existing LMSE Pipeline, owned by the Water Authority, once converted to an untreated water delivery system, could be the conveyance system to transport untreated water for groundwater recharge in support of this conjunctive use concept. These two distinct water resource supply conjunctive use concepts will be addressed so they may coexist and to allow development in separate phases. 6.8.3 Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well In early 2001 the District was approached by a landowner representative about possible interest in purchasing an existing well or alternatively, acquiring groundwater supplied from the well located on Otay Mesa. The then-landowner, National Enterprises, Inc., reportedly stated that the well could produce 3,200 AFY with little or no treatment required prior to introducing the water into the District potable water system or alternatively, the recycled water system. In March 2001 authorization to proceed with testing of the Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well was obtained and the District proceeded with the investigation of this potential groundwater supply opportunity. In May 2001, an investigation was conducted to assess the Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well. The scope of work included a geohydrologic evaluation of the well, analyses of the water quality samples, management and review of the well video log, and documentation of well pump testing. The primary findings, as documented in the “Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well Investigation” report, formed the basis of the following recommendations: • For the existing well to be used as a potable water supply resource, a sanitary seal must be installed in accordance with the California Department of Health guidelines. SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-11 • Drawdown in the well must be limited to avoid the possibility of collapsing the casing. • Recovery from pumping drawdown is slow and extraction would need to be terminated for up to 2 days to allow for groundwater level recovery. • The well water would need to be treated and/or blended with potable water prior to introduction into the potable water distribution system. The existing Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well, based upon the above findings was determined not to be a reliable municipal supply of potable water and that better water quality and quantity could be discovered deeper or at an alternative location within the San Diego Formation. The District may continue to pursue the Otay Mesa groundwater well opportunity with due consideration of the recommendations of the existing report. Based on the recommendations of the investigation report, a groundwater well production facility at Otay Mesa Lot 7 could realistically extract approximately 400 AFY. 6.8.4 North District Recycled Water Concept Project Under this project, the District would serve up to 1.3 mgd of recycled water demands in the North System via the RWCWRF. Effluent from the RWCWRF is currently pumped by the District to irrigate golf courses, parks, and open space in Eastern Chula Vista, which is in the Central Area System and at a higher elevation than the North System. This project would reduce the conveyance costs that are currently incurred in pumping recycled water from the RWCWRF to Eastern Chula Vista. Existing recycled water users in Chula Vista would have to be provided with an alternate supply. Infrastructure required for this project includes conveyance to the North System as well as retrofits to the RWCWRF chlorine contact basin, effluent pump station, and data collection and logging systems, per the North District Recycled Water System Phase I Concept Study. Inter-agency coordination will be required for this project with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Sweetwater Authority. Additionally, coordination with the City of Chula Vista would be required. 6.9 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water The District’s total current and planned supplies are shown in Table 6-8 and Table 6-9. Actual 2020 supplies are based on Water Authority sales and recycled water sales. Projected supplies are based on growth projections (with near-term annexations) in the District’s service area. Table 6-8: Water Supplies — Actual 2020 Water Supply 2020 Actual Volume Water Quality Purchased or Imported Water 27,448 Drinking Recycled Water 3,333 Recycled Total 30,781 NOTES: SECTION 6 – SERVICE AREA SUPPLIES 6-12 Table 6-9: Water Supplies — Projected Water Supply Additional Detail on Water Supply Projected Water Supply 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Purchased or Imported Water 1 33,465 35,736 38,536 41,767 45,265 Recycled Water 1 4,500 5,000 5,100 5,200 5,300 Total Verifiable Water Supplies 2 37,965 40,736 43,636 45,967 50,565 City of San Diego Otay WTP 3 Backup potable supply 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total Verifiable and Available Water Supplies 47,965 50,736 53,636 55,967 60,565 Rancho Del Rey GW Well Planned 500 500 500 Middle Sweetwater River Basin GW Well Conceptual 1,000 1,000 1,000 Otay Mesa Lot 7 GW Well Conceptual 400 400 400 North District Recycled System Conceptual 4,400 4,400 4,400 Rosarito Desalination Plant Conceptual 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700 Total Planned and Conceptual Water Supplies 6,700 13,000 13,000 13,000 Total Water Supplies 47,965 57,436 66,636 68,967 73,565 NOTES: 1. Amounts for Purchased/Imported and Recycled are those the District anticipates using to meet projected demands. Additional supply capacity may exist. 2. Total supplies includes water savings from active and passive conservation efforts. 3. Otay WTP availability is a District estimate, subject to the terms of the District’s agreement with the City of San Diego. OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP 7-1 Section 7 - Water Service Reliability & Drought Risk Assessment 7.1 Reliability of Supply The UWMP Act requires every UWMP to include an assessment of water supply reliability. The assessment must compare total projected water supply and demands over at least the next 20 years in 5-year increments for a normal year, a single dry water year and multiple dry water years. For this 2020 UWMP, the assessment evaluates reliability through the next 25 years. The District currently obtains 100 percent of its potable water supply as imported water from the Water Authority. Historically, the Water Authority has relied on imported water supplies purchased from Metropolitan to meet the needs of its member agencies. Metropolitan’s supplies come from two primary sources, the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River. However, after experiencing severe shortages from Metropolitan during the 1987–1992 drought, the Water Authority began aggressively pursuing actions to diversify the region’s supply sources and has been able to do so through comprehensive supply and facility planning. The reliability of the District’s potable supply is dependent on these wholesale agencies. The District is committed to investing in alternative water sources, such as groundwater or desalination that would reduce its dependence on imported water. Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP includes a discussion of supply reliability. Metropolitan used a computer model to evaluate 96 years of historic hydrology and develop estimates of water surplus or shortage. From 1922 through 2017, the driest year on record was 1977, and the driest three-year period was 1988-92. The analysis determined that Metropolitan could maintain reliable supplies during normal or dry-year conditions during the period 2020 through 2050, even through multiple dry year periods. The Water Authority’s 2020 UWMP includes a discussion of supply reliability. While the Water Authority continues to rely on Metropolitan to help meet water demands, additional planned resources by the Water Authority and its member agencies have also been identified. Additional planned projects can further reduce the region’s reliance on sources of supply from Metropolitan, such as the Bay-Delta. The Water Authority prepared analyses of its water supply reliability during a normal water year, a single dry-year and multiple dry-years. Results from the Water Authority’s reliability assessment demonstrate that the region’s existing and projected water resource mix is drought resilient. The District continues to work closely with the Water Authority and Metropolitan for future water supply planning. These wholesale agencies [Water Authority and Metropolitan] have determined that they will be able to meet its projected demands through 2045, which include potable water demands for the District. The District has concluded that these wholesale agencies will be able to provide water to meet the District’s projected demands. Based on the information provided by Metropolitan and the Water Authority, the water supply available to the District is considered to be reliable and drought resilient. Individual components of the supply, such as the Colorado River and State Water Project, may experience dry years or extended droughts; however, this is a natural hydrological occurrence in California. The diversified improvements put in place by Metropolitan and the Water Authority have led these agencies to state that they will be able to meet demands of their respective member agencies for the next 25 years. The District currently relies on the Water Authority for its potable supply and has worked with the Water Authority to prepare consistent demand projections for the District’s service area. To maintain consistency in planning efforts, the District has shown future supplies meeting future demands. If the District’s future demands are slightly more or less than currently projected, it is anticipated that the SECTION 7 – WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY & DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT 7-2 supply portfolio maintained by the Water Authority and Metropolitan will be flexible enough to continue to meet the District’s demands. Recycled water demands are to be met with recycled water from the District’s RWCWRF and the City of San Diego’s SBWRP. During dry periods, many conservation measures are focused on reducing outdoor water use, which does not contribute to wastewater flow. In addition, because both recycled water facilities are scalping plants, the recycled water output is limited by treatment capacity and not by the supply of raw wastewater. Therefore, the District’s recycled supply is not expected to be subject to reduction during dry periods. Throughout this section, projected supplies are shown to match projected demands. This level of reliability is based on the documentation in the UWMPs prepared by Metropolitan and the Water Authority, as listed in Appendix G. These agencies have determined that they will be able to meet the District’s potable demands, during normal, single dry and multiple dry year conditions through 2045, as shown in Tables 9-1 through 9-7 of the Water Authority’s 2020 UWMP. Section 9 of the Water Authority’s 2020 UWMP describes how the planned regional resource mix will meet future demands during both normal and dry years. However, the Water Authority recognizes that consistent monitoring of supply and demand and making necessary modifications to core and dry year resources, as identified in the normal and dry year resource mixes, is key to long-term water supply reliability. The District’s future water supply projects, as described in Section 6, will contribute to the Water Authority’s regional resource mix. Although, a single project may not be available at a consistent level of use due to a number of factors, the unavailability of any one source will be buffered by the planned diversity of supply in the region covered by the Water Authority. Because the Water Authority has determined that they will be able to meet the District’s potable demands, during normal, single dry and multiple dry year conditions through 2045, this 2020 UWMP assumes potable supplies will remain unchanged under all hydrologic conditions. Water supply reliability based on an average water year is summarized in Table 7-1. Table 7-1: Basis of Water Year Data Year Type Base Year Available supplies if year type repeats (% of avg supply) Average Year 1986-2018 100% Single-Dry Year 2015 100% Consecutive Dry Years 1st Year 2011 100% Consecutive Dry Years 2nd Year 2012 100% Consecutive Dry Years 3rd Year 2013 100% Consecutive Dry Years 4th Year 2014 100% Consecutive Dry Years 5th Year 2015 100% NOTES: SECTION 7 – WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY & DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT 7-3 7.2 Projected Normal Water Year Assessment The District’s potable water supply is expected to continue to be supplied by the Water Authority during normal water year scenarios. As stated previously, the Water Authority has determined that it will be able to meet the District’s potable demands, during normal water year conditions through 2045. The projected supply and demand comparison under normal water year conditions is shown in Table 7- 2. To meet its projected conservation targets, the District will continue to encourage water conservation and implement the measures outlined in its Drought Response Conservation Program (District Code of Ordinance Section 39), which is included as Appendix I of this UWMP. Table 7-2: Normal Year Supply and Demand Assessment 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Supply totals 1 37,965 40,736 43,636 46,967 50,565 Demand totals 2 37,965 40,736 43,636 46,967 50,565 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: 1 Water Authority UWMP analysis shows 100 percent supply reliability for these conditions so total supplies are set equal to District projected demands. 2 District demand totals with additional conservation 7.3 Projected Single Dry Year Assessment The UWMP Act requires that the District to assess water supply reliability under a single dry year over the next 20 years, at a minimum, in five-year increments. Table 7-3 shows the District’s single dry-year assessment through 2045. The District’s potable water supply is expected to continue to be supplied by the Water Authority during a single dry year scenario. The Water Authority has determined that it will be able to meet the District’s potable demands, during single dry year conditions through 2045. The supplies available from Water Authority member agency projected recycling, potable reuse, and groundwater recovery projects are assumed to experience little, if any, reduction in a single dry year. The Water Authority’s existing and planned supplies from seawater desalination and San Luis Rey water transfer supplies are based on contractual levels. For this single dry-year assessment, it was conservatively assumed that Metropolitan would allocate limited supplies to its member agencies. Because the Water Authority has determined that it will be able to meet the District’s potable demands, during normal, single dry and multiple dry year conditions through 2045, this UWMP assumes potable supplies will be sufficient under this single year hydrologic condition and extend over the planning horizon. Recycled water supply is also expected to increase in 5-year increments as demand for recycled water increases relative to increasing irrigation demand. The District’s recycled water is assumed to be “drought-resistant” and not subject to reduction during dry periods. The dry-year demand analysis from the Water Authority reflects long-term water use efficiency but does not incorporate potential savings due to extraordinary conservation occurring during droughts. This approach allows for a more comprehensive shortage analysis and drought response planning. SECTION 7 – WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY & DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT 7-4 Based on the information provided by the Water Authority, no shortages are anticipated in the Water Authority’s service area under a projected single dry year. The projected single dry year supplies and demands are compared in Table 7-3. Table 7-3: Single Dry-Year Supply and Demand Assessment 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Supply totals 1 40,780 43,599 46,613 50,088 53,816 Demand totals 2 40,780 43,599 46,613 50,088 53,816 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: 1 Water Authority UWMP analysis shows 100 percent supply reliability for these conditions so total supplies are set equal to District projected demands. 2 District demand totals with additional conservation and proportional adjustment for dry year demands per Water Authority CWA-MAIN model during period of record. 7.4 Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison Lastly, the UWMP requires water agencies to project demands and supplies during multiple dry years in five-year increments. Projections were prepared for five time-frames: five-year periods ending in 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045. The District’s potable water supply is expected to continue to be supplied by the Water Authority during the multiple dry-year scenarios. The Water Authority has determined that it will be able to meet all member agency potable demands, including the District, during multiple dry-year conditions through 2045. Under the multiple dry-year scenario, the Water Authority’s existing and planned supplies from seawater desalination and San Luis Rey water transfer supplies are based on contractual levels and the supplies available from Water Authority member agency projected recycling, potable reuse, and groundwater recovery projects are based on member agency projected growth in these verifiable supplies. Additionally, it was conservatively assumed by the Water Authority that Metropolitan would allocate supplies to its member agencies, including the Water Authority. By assuming allocations in this reliability assessment, it allows the Water Authority to analyze how storage supplies could potentially be utilized and the likelihood of shortages. Currently, Metropolitan allocates supplies through its Water Supply Allocation Plan. Because it is uncertain in the future how Metropolitan will allocate supplies to its member agencies, the analysis in the tables assumes they are allocated based on preferential right to Metropolitan supplies. By assuming these allocations in their reliability assessment, the Water Authority evaluates if draws from regional storage supplies are required and whether there may be any shortages. The Water Authority has invested in carryover storage supply capacity, which it can utilize in dry years to improve reliability of supply. In years where shortages may still occur, after utilization of carryover storage, additional regional shortage management measures, consistent with the Water Authority’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, will be taken to fill the supply shortfall. These measures could include extraordinary conservation, achieved through voluntary or mandatory water-use restrictions. The SECTION 7 – WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY & DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT 7-5 District will also implement additional water conservation measures, as determined in their Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Because the Water Authority has determined that it will be able to meet the District’s potable demands, during multiple dry year conditions through 2045, this UWMP assumes potable supplies will increase and be sufficient to meet demand under these multiple dry-year hydrologic conditions and extend over the planning horizon, as shown below in Tables 7-4. Because the Water Authority has determined that it will be able to meet the District’s potable demands, during multiple dry year conditions through 2040, this UWMP assumes potable supplies will increase under this multiple dry year hydrologic conditions and extend over the planning horizon. Table 7-4: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2021-2025 2030 2026-2030 2035 2031-2035 2040 2036-2040 2045 2041-2045 First year Supply totals 1 39,664 42,475 45,575 49,373 53,037 Demand totals 2 39,664 42,475 45,575 49,373 53,037 Surplus/(Shortage) 0 0 0 0 0 Second year Supply totals 1 40,060 42,900 46,031 49,867 53,567 Demand totals 2 40,060 42,900 46,031 49,867 53,567 Surplus/(Shortage) 0 0 0 0 0 Third year Supply totals 1 40,461 43,329 46,491 50,366 54,103 Demand totals 2 40,461 43,329 46,491 50,366 54,103 Surplus/(Shortage) 0 0 0 0 0 Fourth Year Supply totals 1 40,866 43,762 46,956 50,869 54,644 Demand totals 2 40,866 43,762 46,956 50,869 54,644 Surplus/(Shortage) 0 0 0 0 0 Fifth Year Supply totals 1 41,274 44,200 47,426 51,378 55,190 Demand totals 2 41,274 44,200 47,426 51,378 55,190 Surplus/(Shortage) 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: 1 Water Authority UWMP analysis shows 100 percent supply reliability for these conditions so total supplies are set equal to District projected demands. 2 District demand totals with additional conservation and proportional adjustment for dry year demands per Water Authority CWA-MAIN model during period of record. SECTION 7 – WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY & DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT 7-6 7.5 Drought Risk Assessment The Water Code Section 10635(b) requires a water supplier to include a drought risk assessment (DRA) in its 2020 UWMP. The DRA must be conducted for a drought period of five years and include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for the shortage conditions. The District’s DRA reflects the DRA prepared by the Water Authority. The Water Authority’s DRA assesses a projected drought over the next five-year period from 2021 – 2025. The historical period used in the analysis to represent the Water Authority’s driest consecutive five-year period are years 2014 – 2018. Those years represent the five-year period with the lowest local water supply production from surface water and groundwater, the two local water supplies that are most susceptible to variation due to weather. The District does not use local surface water or groundwater. The Water Authority showed no reduction in availability over the five-year period for regional supplies and Metropolitan supplies. The District’s supply of recycled water is not expected to have a reduction in availability during the five-year period. The projected demands for the five-year dry period were estimated by starting with 2020 demands and escalating them using the percentages shown in Table 7-5. This table is based on Table 9-8 in the Water Authority’s UWMP. The multipliers were based on a weather index developed to assess the impact of dry/hot weather on water demands. The dry/hot index was derived by combining historical observations on average maximum daily temperature and precipitation into a single indicator where higher values represent hotter-drier conditions. Specifically, the index was constructed from weather parameters of the water demand forecasting models and used to determine the multipliers for consecutive dry/hot weather. Table 7-5: 2021 – 2025 Demand Projection Multipliers Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Multiplier 108% 112% 116% 120% 125% The anticipated supplies and demands are shown in Table 7-6. Based on the analysis, the District is not expected to have a shortage in the five-year period, and actions under the WSCP would not be required. SECTION 7 – WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY & DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT 7-7 Table 7-6: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment 2021 Total Total Water Use 34,173 Total Supplies 34,173 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 2022 Total Total Water Use 35,559 Total Supplies 35,559 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 2023 Total Total Water Use 36,596 Total Supplies 36,596 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 2024 Total Total Water Use 37,907 Total Supplies 37,907 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 2025 Total Total Water Use 39,680 Total Supplies 39,680 Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 0 OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP 8-1 Section 8 - Water Shortage Contingency Plan The District has prepared a separate stand-alone Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) which is included in this document as Appendix H. The WSCP was adopted by the District Board of Directors on June 2, 2021. This section contains a summary of the WSCP. 8.1 Purpose of the WSCP The District has developed a WSCP to provide guidance if triggering events occur such as reduced supply, increased demand, or an emergency declaration. The WSCP identifies the actions to be taken during various stages of a water shortage. The plan includes voluntary and mandatory stages which are intended to be fair to all water customers and users while having the least impact on business, employment, and quality of life for residents in the District’s service area. 8.2 Annual Assessment The Water Code Section 10632.1 requires that an urban water supplier such as the District, conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment on or before July 1 of each year, to be submitted to DWR. This annual assessment will provide an analysis of the likelihood of a water shortage occurring during the next 12 months. Section 2 of the District’s WSCP identifies the timeline, staff and outside agency coordination, and other actions necessary to conduct the Annual Assessment. 8.3 Shortage Stages The WSCP describes six water shortage stages corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent water shortages and greater than 50 percent water shortage. 8.4 Water Shortage Response Actions The following water shortage response actions are identified in the WSCP: • Customer communication • Public outreach • Supply augmentation • Operational changes • Customer demand reduction measures and mandatory use restrictions OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP 9-1 Section 9 - Demand Management Measures Demand management, or water-use efficiency, is a critical part of the District’s 2020 UWMP and an important part of its long-term strategy for meeting the water needs of the District. The goals of the District’s water-efficiency measures and programs are to reduce the demand for more expensive, imported water, and ensure a reliable water supply. The San Diego region, including the District, was affected by California’s long-term drought that lasted from 2014 through 2018. This extended drought resulted in unprecedented implementation of statewide mandatory water demand restrictions. These restrictions caused a significant reduction in demand in the District and this water conservation mentality has endured even after the drought was over. Although water supply conditions have improved, California legislative efforts are now focused on long-term water efficiency targets. Two bills, Senate Bill 606 and House Bill 1668, were adopted in May 2018 and direct DWR and SWRCB to develop long term water efficiency targets. These targets will apply to every retail supplier in the state and each retail agency will have to meet their individual water efficiency target. The targets are currently being developed and are projected to be adopted by 2022 with retail suppliers required to meet their demand targets by 2027. These new water use efficiency targets emphasize the importance of continued water conservation programs and education. Although it is difficult to predict the impact of long-term targets on the District’s water efficiency, the District is continually working to reduce per-capita potable water use with its many water conservation programs and education. The District is currently a member of the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CWEP) as part of its effort to continue upholding its long-term commitment in reducing the state’s water demands, diversifying local water supply, and encouraging its customer to make conservation a way of life. In addition to meeting customer demands during a drought, the District consistently advocates for state policies and legislation that include supply development and water-use efficiency. 9.1 Water Conservation Programs and Water Efficiency Practices The District has long been a leader in the field of water conservation. Since the early 1990’s, water conservation programs have been developed and conducted on the premise that water conservation increases the water supply by reducing the demand on available supply, which is vital to the optimal operation of the District. As a member agency of the Water Authority, the District participates in many of the water conservation programs designed and conducted as a shared-cost participation program among the member agencies, the Water Authority and Metropolitan. In addition, the District has developed and manages several its own programs. 9.1.1 Participation in Regional Partnership Water Conservation Programs The District was an active participant in the Water Authority’s two turf replacement programs, the Water Smart Turf Replacement (2011-2016) and Sustainable Landscapes Incentive Program (2016-2018). Currently, the District is participating in Metropolitan Water District’s SoCal Water Smart of Southern California’s Turf Replacement Program which offers $2.00 per square foot to qualified residents and businesses who replace their turf with water-efficient landscaping features. Other programs under SoCal Water Smart include the residential program which offers rebates for qualifying indoor and outdoor products such as high-efficiency clothes washers and toilets, weather-based irrigation controllers, and SECTION 9 – DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 9-2 rotating sprinkler nozzles. The commercial, industrial, and institutional programs under SoCal Water Smart offer rebates for these customers to remove turf grass and replace it with water-efficient landscaping. Additional rebates are available for replacement of older, inefficient devices with water- efficient devices both inside and outside commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings. The District also promotes the Water Smart Contractor Incentive Program (WSCIP) which is co-funded by Metropolitan and the Water Authority. WSCIP is a large landscape and technology-focused program, which targets qualified landscape contractors and self-managed sites. WSCIP offers four incentivized water-efficient devices, that when installed in combination, are among the irrigation industry’s best management practices. The four devices include smart irrigation controllers, high-efficiency sprinkler nozzles, flow sensors, and drip irrigation. Bundling these four items leads to the greatest water efficiency, but at least two items must be installed to participate in the rebate program. 9.1.2 District Developed Water Conservation and Water Efficiency Programs The District has implemented several programs and practices to promote water-use efficiencies and water conservation as described below. 9.1.2.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinance The District’s Code of Ordinances includes Section 39, Drought Response Conservation Program, which establishes water management requirements that, in addition to any permanent water waste prohibitions, are necessary to conserve water, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, and prevent unreasonable use of water within the District to always ensure adequate supplies of water. At all times, the following practices remain in effect in the District, per the Program: • Please prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. This includes topping water flows onto non-targeted areas such as adjacent property, sidewalks, driveways, roadways, or structures. • Restaurants and other food service establishments should continue to serve and refill water in only upon request. • Hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments must offer guests the option of not laundering towels and linens daily. • Fountains or other decorative water features must re-circulated water. • When washing automobiles, motorhomes, boats or recreational vehicles, a hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle is required. • Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians can only be performed using recycled water. The “median” is the center strip of land in the roadway. • Repair all water leaks within 48 hours of notification by the District. • Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm, or for 48 hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field. • No washing down of paved surfaces including sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when necessary, to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. During periods of shortages, other more stringent requirements to conserve water are detailed in the Program. These requirements are also presented in the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan which is attached as Appendix H. SECTION 9 – DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 9-3 9.1.2.2 Metering The District requires meters on all connections within its service area. An Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Program was begun in 2005 and to date, 99.9% of the meters in the District have AMR devices installed. The District’s AMR program is ongoing with upgrades of meters to newer technologies on a regular basis. In Fiscal Year 2022, the District will begin a pilot study of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) technology to determine if such a system would be beneficial for the District during the next phase of meter change outs beginning in fiscal year 2025. 9.1.2.3 Tiered Pricing The District uses a tiered rate structure for residential and multi-residential customers whereby the bill is based on a fixed monthly system fee, a fixed CWA/MWD pass-through fee, plus a tiered fee based on the amount of water used. For the District’s non-residential customers, a non-tiered rate structure is used whereby the bill is also based on a fixed monthly system, a fixed CWA/MWD pass-through fee plus a non-tiered fee based on the amount of water used. 9.1.2.4 SCADA The District has implemented and operated a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system for many years. This system controls, monitors, and collects data regarding the operation of the water system. The major facilities that have SCADA capabilities are the water-flow control supply sources, transmission network, pumping stations, and water storage reservoirs. The SCADA system allows for many and varied useful functions. Examples of some of the functions it provides for operating personnel are the ability to monitor the water supply source flow rates, reservoir levels, and tum on or off pumping units. The SCADA system also aids in the prevention of water reservoir overflow events, helps detect distribution pipeline breaks and increases energy efficiency. 9.1.2.5 Water Loss Reductions The District’s has an ongoing leak detection program for its potable and recycled distribution system. The District contracts with a professional leak detection company that surveys approximately 20% of the District’s potable and recycled distribution system on an annual basis. This approach allows for the District’s entire distribution system to be surveyed at least once every 5 years. The leak detection companies chosen for the contract utilize the latest acoustic technology available to detect leaks. When leaks are found or suspected, District staff validates the location of the leak and completes any repairs within days of being notified. District staff regularly looks into new and upcoming leak detection technologies to determine if they would enhance the District’s current program. 9.1.2.6 Public Education & Outreach The District promotes its conservation programs through outreach at community and business events, bill inserts, articles in the District’s quarterly customer Pipeline newsletter, direct mailings to District customers, and the District’s webpage and social media platforms. The District has had a school education program for many years. Some of the current programs include funding of up to 35 school tours of the Water Conservation Garden per year and funding of school assemblies in conjunction with the Water Authority, and an annual “Water is Life” student poster contest for students in grades K-12 within the District’s service area. In addition, District staff has assembled a Water Conservation Education packet that is available to teachers within the District. A new program for education is the Hydro Station. In a partnership with the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Authority, the Otay Water District launched the Hydro Station, at Sweetwater Authority’s Richard A. Reynold Groundwater Desalination Facility, where fifth-grade students learn SECTION 9 – DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 9-4 about the ecological cycle of water, water quality, and conservation. The program exposes students to careers in the water industry and helps encourage a new generation of water industry professionals. The District participates in a Joint Powers Authority with the Helix WD, Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, the Water Authority, the City of San Diego, and the Padre Dam Municipal Water District to operate the nearly five-acre Water Conservation Demonstration Garden. The Garden’s mission is to, “promote water conservation in the southern California landscape through excellent exhibits and programs that educate and inspire the public.” The Garden educates customers about reducing landscape water use using water-efficient landscapes. Additional water conservation outreach programs include the following: • Water-wise Landscape Contest for homeowners in the District’s service area. • Water Smart check-ups for homeowners in the District’s service area. • Commercial Landscape Irrigation Surveys. • Participation in San Diego County’s Watershed Protection Ordinance program that identifies dry weather runoff coming from overirrigation from residences in the District’s service area. 9.1.2.7 Water Conservation Staffing Water Conservation is handled by two District staff that work in the District’s General Manager’s Office. These staff members are responsible for communications, public outreach, and water conservation. The staff participate in outreach events throughout the community and promote a variety of incentive and other programs available to District customers. Staff also promotes water-use efficiency through educating the District’s customers about available rebates, water conservation programs, and the Water Conservation Garden. The office also works with other departments to coordinate the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan as well as its water waste reporting program. OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2020 UWMP 10-1 Section 10 - Plan Adoption, Submittal and Implementation 10.1 Notice of Public Hearing As mentioned in Section 2 of this Plan, the District has coordinated the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers, water management agencies, and public agencies (Table 2-4). In accordance with the Act, the District provided a 60-day notice to the Water Authority (its wholesale water supplier) and the San Diego Association of Governments, the City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of El Cajon, County of San Diego, and San Diego LAFCO that they were reviewing and considering amendments or changes to the UWMP and that they would be holding a public hearing prior to the adoption of the UWMP. A copy of the 60-day notice is included in Appendix B. Also, in accordance with the Act, the District notified the land use jurisdictions (City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego) within its service area that it was preparing the 2020 UWMP. Prior to adoption, the District has made available its Draft 2020 UWMP to stakeholders including the Water Authority, the City of Chula Vista, the County of San Diego, and the City of San Diego. The notice and instructions for downloading the Draft 2020 UWMP from the District’s website was also made available to interested parties as listed in Table 2-5. The Draft 2020 UWMP was first presented at a Water Resources Committee Meeting of the District’s Board of Directors. A Public Hearing regarding the 2020 UWMP will held on June 2, 2021. Notices of the Public Hearing will be published in the San Diego Union-Tribune (May 5 and May 12, 2021), The Star News (May 7, 2021), The East County Californian (May 7, 2021), and The Alpine Sun (May 7, 2021). These coordination efforts are summarized in Table 2-5 and copies of the public notices are included in Appendix B. Table 10-1: Notification to Cities and Counties City Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing City of San Diego ✓ ✓ City of Chula Vista ✓ ✓ County Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing San Diego County ✓ ✓ NOTES: SECTION 10 – PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL & IMPLEMENTATION 10-2 10.2 Plan Submittal The District’s 2020 UWMP will be submitted to DWR within 30 days of adoption and by July 1, 2021. The UWMP submittal will also be completed electronically through DWR’s online submittal tool, WUEdata. Appendices Appendix A Urban Water Management Plan Act Text PART 2.6. URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING CHAPTER 1. General Declaration and Policy [10610 – 10610.4] 10610. This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Urban Water Management Planning Act." 10610.2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) The waters of the state are a limited and renewable resource subject to ever-increasing demands. (2) The conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies are of statewide concern; however, the planning for that use and the implementation of those plans can best be accomplished at the local level. (3) A long-term, reliable supply of water is essential to protect the productivity of California’s businesses and economic climate, and increasing long-term water conservation among Californians, improving water use efficiency within the state’s communities and agricultural production, and strengthening local and regional drought planning are critical to California’s resilience to drought and climate change. (4) As part of its long-range planning activities, every urban water supplier should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years now and into the foreseeable future, and every urban water supplier should collaborate closely with local land-use authorities to ensure water demand forecasts are consistent with current land-use planning. (5) Public health issues have been raised over a number of contaminants that have been identified in certain local and imported water supplies. (6) Implementing effective water management strategies, including groundwater storage projects and recycled water projects, may require specific water quality and salinity targets for meeting groundwater basins water quality objectives and promoting beneficial use of recycled water. (7) Water quality regulations are becoming an increasingly important factor in water agencies’ selection of raw water sources, treatment alternatives, and modifications to existing treatment facilities. (8) Changes in drinking water quality standards may also impact the usefulness of water supplies and may ultimately impact supply reliability. (9) The quality of source supplies can have a significant impact on water management strategies and supply reliability. (b) This part is intended to provide assistance to water agencies in carrying out their long-term resource planning responsibilities to ensure adequate water supplies to meet existing and future demands for water. 10610.4. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state as follows: (a) The management of urban water demands and efficient use of water shall be actively pursued to protect both the people of the state and their water resources. (b) The management of urban water demands and efficient use of urban water supplies shall be a guiding criterion in public decisions. (c) Urban water suppliers shall be required to develop water management plans to achieve the efficient use of available supplies and strengthen local drought planning. CHAPTER 2. Definitions [10611 – 10618] 10611. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions of this chapter govern the construction of this part. 10611.3. “Customer” means a purchaser of water from a water supplier who uses the water for municipal purposes, including residential, commercial, governmental, and industrial uses. 10611.5. “Demand management” means those water conservation measures, programs, and incentives that prevent the waste of water and promote the reasonable and efficient use and reuse of available supplies. 10612. “Drought risk assessment” means a method that examines water shortage risks based on the driest five-year historic sequence for the agency’s water supply, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 10635. 10613. "Efficient use" means those management measures that result in the most effective use of water so as to prevent its waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use. 10614. "Person" means any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, company, public agency, or any agency of such an entity. 10615. "Plan" means an urban water management plan prepared pursuant to this part. A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities. The components of the plan may vary according to an individual community or area's characteristics and its capabilities to efficiently use and conserve water. The plan shall address measures for residential, commercial, governmental, and industrial water demand management as set forth in Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630) of Chapter 3. In addition, a strategy and time schedule for implementation shall be included in the plan. 10616. "Public agency" means any board, commission, county, city and county, city, regional agency, district, or other public entity. 10616.5. "Recycled water" means the reclamation and reuse of wastewater for beneficial use. 10617. "Urban water supplier" means a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. An urban water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right, which distributes or sells for ultimate resale to customers. This part applies only to water supplied from public water systems subject to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 116275) of Part 12 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code. 10617.5. “Water shortage contingency plan” means a document that incorporates the provisions detailed in subdivision (a) of Section 10632 and is subsequently adopted by an urban water supplier pursuant to this article. 10618. “Water supply and demand assessment” means a method that looks at current year and one or more dry year supplies and demands for determining water shortage risks, as described in Section 10632.1. CHAPTER 3. Urban Water Management Plans ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [10620 – 10621] 10620. (a) Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt an urban water management plan in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640). (b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier. (c) An urban water supplier indirectly providing water shall not include planning elements in its water management plan as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630) that would be applicable to urban water suppliers or public agencies directly providing water, or to their customers, without the consent of those suppliers or public agencies. (d) (1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirements of this part by participation in areawide, regional, watershed, or basinwide urban water management planning where those plans will reduce preparation costs and contribute to the achievement of conservation, efficient water use, and improved local drought resilience. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), each urban water supplier shall develop its own water shortage contingency plan, but an urban water supplier may incorporate, collaborate, and otherwise share information with other urban water suppliers or other governing entities participating in an areawide, regional, watershed, or basinwide urban water management plan, an agricultural management plan, or groundwater sustainability plan development. (3) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable. (e) The urban water supplier may prepare the plan with its own staff, by contract, or in cooperation with other governmental agencies. (f) An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water management tools and options used by that entity that will maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions. 10621. (a) Each urban water supplier shall update its plan at least once every five years on or before July 1, in years ending in six and one, incorporating updated and new information from the five years preceding each update. (b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall, at least 60 days before the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. The urban water supplier may consult with, and obtain comments from, any city or county that receives notice pursuant to this subdivision. (c) An urban water supplier regulated by the Public Utilities Commission shall include its most recent plan and water shortage contingency plan as part of the supplier’s general rate case filings. (d) The amendments to, or changes in, the plan shall be adopted and filed in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640). (e) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2015 plan to the department by July 1, 2016. (f) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021. CHAPTER 3. Urban Water Management Plans ARTICLE 2. Contents of Plans [10630 – 10634] 10630. It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning commensurate with the numbers of customers served and the volume of water supplied, while accounting for impacts from climate change. 10630.5. Each plan shall include a simple lay description of how much water the agency has on a reliable basis, how much it needs for the foreseeable future, what the agency’s strategy is for meeting its water needs, the challenges facing the agency, and any other information necessary to provide a general understanding of the agency’s plan. 10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter that shall do all of the following: (a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five- year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The description shall include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning. Urban water suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land use information, including, where appropriate, land use information obtained from local or regional land use authorities, as developed pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. (b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), providing supporting and related information, including all of the following: (1) A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment. For each source of water supply, consider any information pertinent to the reliability analysis conducted pursuant to Section 10635, including changes in supply due to climate change. (2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, a description of the management of each supply in correlation with the other identified supplies. (3) For any planned sources of water supply, a description of the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. (4) If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information: (A) The current version of any groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720), any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management for basins underlying the urban water supplier’s service area. (B) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For basins that a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For a basin that has not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin as a high- or medium-priority basin in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to coordinate with groundwater sustainability agencies or groundwater management agencies listed in subdivision (c) of Section 10723 to maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater conditions in accordance with a groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720). (C) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (D) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (c) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis. (d) (1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following: (A) Single-family residential. (B) Multifamily. (C) Commercial. (D) Industrial. (E) Institutional and governmental. (F) Landscape. (G) Sales to other agencies. (H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof. (I) Agricultural. (J) Distribution system water loss. (2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a). (3) (A) The distribution system water loss shall be quantified for each of the five years preceding the plan update, in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to Section 10608.34. (B) The distribution system water loss quantification shall be reported in accordance with a worksheet approved or developed by the department through a public process. The water loss quantification worksheet shall be based on the water system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association. (C) In the plan due July 1, 2021, and in each update thereafter, data shall be included to show whether the urban retail water supplier met the distribution loss standards enacted by the board pursuant to Section 10608.34. (4) (A) Water use projections, where available, shall display and account for the water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as applicable to the service area. (B) To the extent that an urban water supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water supplier shall do both of the following: (i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans utilized in making the projections. (ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact. (e) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: (1) (A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water demand management measures that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20. (B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures: (i) Water waste prevention ordinances. (ii) Metering. (iii) Conservation pricing. (iv) Public education and outreach. (v) Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss. (vi) Water conservation program coordination and staffing support. (vii) Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented. (2) For an urban wholesale water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description of the items in clauses (ii), (iv), (vi), and (vii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), and a narrative description of its distribution system asset management and wholesale supplier assistance programs. (f) Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use, as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in normal and single-dry water years and for a period of drought lasting five consecutive water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program. (g) Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply. (h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same fiveyear increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision (f). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f). 10631.1. (a) The water use projections required by Section 10631 shall include projected water use for single-family and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as identified in the housing element of any city, county, or city and county in the service area of the supplier. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the identification of projected water use for single-family and multifamily residential housing for lower income households will assist a supplier in complying with the requirement under Section 65589.7 of the Government Code to grant a priority for the provision of service to housing units affordable to lower income households. 10631.2. (a) In addition to the requirements of Section 10631, an urban water management plan shall include any of the following information that the urban water supplier can readily obtain: (1) An estimate of the amount of energy used to extract or divert water supplies. (2) An estimate of the amount of energy used to convey water supplies to the water treatment plants or distribution systems. (3) An estimate of the amount of energy used to treat water supplies. (4) An estimate of the amount of energy used to distribute water supplies through its distribution systems. (5) An estimate of the amount of energy used for treated water supplies in comparison to the amount used for nontreated water supplies. (6) An estimate of the amount of energy used to place water into or withdraw from storage. (7) Any other energy-related information the urban water supplier deems appropriate. (b) The department shall include in its guidance for the preparation of urban water management plans a methodology for the voluntary calculation or estimation of the energy intensity of urban water systems. The department may consider studies and calculations conducted by the Public Utilities Commission in developing the methodology. (c) The Legislature finds and declares that energy use is only one factor in water supply planning and shall not be considered independently of other factors. 10632. (a) Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt a water shortage contingency plan as part of its urban water management plan that consists of each of the following elements: (1) The analysis of water supply reliability conducted pursuant to Section 10635. (2) The procedures used in conducting an annual water supply and demand assessment that include, at a minimum, both of the following: (A) The written decision making process that an urban water supplier will use each year to determine its water supply reliability. (B) The key data inputs and assessment methodology used to evaluate the urban water supplier’s water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year, including all of the following: (i) Current year unconstrained demand, considering weather, growth, and other influencing factors, such as policies to manage current supplies to meet demand objectives in future years, as applicable. (ii) Current year available supply, considering hydrological and regulatory conditions in the current year and one dry year. The annual supply and demand assessment may consider more than one dry year solely at the discretion of the urban water supplier. (iii)Existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints. (iv)A defined set of locally applicable evaluation criteria that are consistently relied upon for each annual water supply and demand assessment. (v) A description and quantification of each source of water supply. (3) (A) Six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent shortages and greater than 50 percent shortage. Urban water suppliers shall define these shortage levels based on the suppliers’ water supply conditions, including percentage reductions in water supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation or level of subsidence, or other changes in hydrological or other local conditions indicative of the water supply available for use. Shortage levels shall also apply to catastrophic interruption of water supplies, including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, and other potential emergency events. (B) An urban water supplier with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels may comply with the requirement in subparagraph (A) by developing and including a crossreference relating its existing categories to the six standard water shortage levels. (4) Shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels and include, at a minimum, all of the following: (A) Locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. (B) Locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. (C) Locally appropriate operational changes. (D) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to statemandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local conditions. (E) For each action, an estimate of the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action. (5) Communication protocols and procedures to inform customers, the public, interested parties, and local, regional, and state governments, regarding, at a minimum, all of the following: (A) Any current or predicted shortages as determined by the annual water supply and demand assessment described pursuant to Section 10632.1. (B) Any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered by the annual water supply and demand assessment described pursuant to Section 10632.1. (C) Any other relevant communications. (6) For an urban retail water supplier, customer compliance, enforcement, appeal, and exemption procedures for triggered shortage response actions as determined pursuant to Section 10632.2. (7) (A) A description of the legal authorities that empower the urban water supplier to implement and enforce its shortage response actions specified in paragraph (4) that may include, but are not limited to, statutory authorities, ordinances, resolutions, and contract provisions. (A) A statement that an urban water supplier shall declare a water shortage emergency in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 350) of Division 1. (B) A statement that an urban water supplier shall coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water supply services for the possible proclamation of a local emergency, as defined in Section 8558 of the Government Code. (8) A description of the financial consequences of, and responses for, drought conditions, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (A) A description of potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions described in paragraph (4). (B) A description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions described in paragraph (4). (C) A description of the cost of compliance with Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 365) of Division 1. (9) For an urban retail water supplier, monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance and to meet state reporting requirements. (10) Reevaluation and improvement procedures for systematically monitoring and evaluating the functionality of the water shortage contingency plan in order to ensure shortage risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented as needed. (b) For purposes of developing the water shortage contingency plan pursuant to subdivision (a), an urban water supplier shall analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 115921 of the Health and Safety Code. (c) The urban water supplier shall make available the water shortage contingency plan prepared pursuant to this article to its customers and any city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than 30 days after adoption of the water shortage contingency plan. 10632.1. An urban water supplier shall conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10632 and, on or before July 1 of each year, submit an annual water shortage assessment report to the department with information for anticipated shortage, triggered shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and communication actions consistent with the supplier’s water shortage contingency plan. An urban water supplier that relies on imported water from the State Water Project or the Bureau of Reclamation shall submit its annual water supply and demand assessment within 14 days of receiving its final allocations, or by July 1 of each year, whichever is later. 10632.2. An urban water supplier shall follow, where feasible and appropriate, the prescribed procedures and implement determined shortage response actions in its water shortage contingency plan, as identified in subdivision (a) of Section 10632, or reasonable alternative actions, provided that descriptions of the alternative actions are submitted with the annual water shortage assessment report pursuant to Section 10632.1. Nothing in this section prohibits an urban water supplier from taking actions not specified in its water shortage contingency plan, if needed, without having to formally amend its urban water management plan or water shortage contingency plan. 10632.3. It is the intent of the Legislature that, upon proclamation by the Governor of a state of emergency under the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code) based on drought conditions, the board defer to implementation of locally adopted water shortage contingency plans to the extent practicable. 10632.5. (a) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 10632, beginning January 1, 2020, the plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan to assess the vulnerability of each of the various facilities of a water system and mitigate those vulnerabilities. (b) An urban water supplier shall update the seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan when updating its urban water management plan as required by Section 10621. (c) An urban water supplier may comply with this section by submitting, pursuant to Section 10644, a copy of the most recent adopted local hazard mitigation plan or multihazard mitigation plan under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) if the local hazard mitigation plan or multihazard mitigation plan addresses seismic risk. 10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area, and shall include all of the following: (a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal. (b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. (c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area, including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use. (d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses. (e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision. (f) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year. (g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased use. 10634. The plan shall include information, to the extent practicable, relating to the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a) of Section 10631, and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability. CHAPTER 3. Urban Water Management Plans ARTICLE 2.5. Water Service Reliability [10635] 10635. (a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier. (b) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service to its customers as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects and programs to be included in the urban water management plan. The urban water supplier may conduct an interim update or updates to this drought risk assessment within the five-year cycle of its urban water management plan update. The drought risk assessment shall include each of the following: (1) A description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years, starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted. (2) A determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions. This may include a determination that a particular source of water supply is fully reliable under most, if not all, conditions. (3) A comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. (4) Considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. (d) The urban water supplier shall provide that portion of its urban water management plan prepared pursuant to this article to any city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than 60 days after the submission of its urban water management plan. (e) Nothing in this article is intended to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service. (f) Nothing in this article is intended to change existing law concerning an urban water supplier’s obligation to provide water service to its existing customers or to any potential future customers. CHAPTER 3. Urban Water Management Plans ARTICLE 3. Adoption and Implementation of Plans [10640 – 10645] 10640. (a) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall prepare its plan pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630). The supplier shall likewise periodically review the plan as required by Section 10621, and any amendments or changes required as a result of that review shall be adopted pursuant to this article. (b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a water shortage contingency plan shall prepare a water shortage contingency plan pursuant to Section 10632. The supplier shall likewise periodically review the water shortage contingency plan as required by paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 10632 and any amendments or changes required as a result of that review shall be adopted pursuant to this article. 10641. An urban water supplier required to prepare a plan or a water shortage contingency plan may consult with, and obtain comments from, any public agency or state agency or any person who has special expertise with respect to water demand management methods and techniques. 10642. Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of both the plan and the water shortage contingency plan. Prior to adopting either, the urban water supplier shall make both the plan and the water shortage contingency plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing or hearings thereon. Prior to any of these hearings, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be published within the jurisdiction of the publicly owned water supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code. The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of a hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies. Notices by a local public agency pursuant to this section shall be provided pursuant to Chapter 17.5 (commencing with Section 7290) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. A privately owned water supplier shall provide an equivalent notice within its service area. After the hearing or hearings, the plan or water shortage contingency plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing or hearings. 10643. An urban water supplier shall implement its plan adopted pursuant to this chapter in accordance with the schedule set forth in its plan. 10644. (a) (1) An urban water supplier shall submit to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies a copy of its plan no later than 30 days after adoption. Copies of amendments or changes to the plans shall be submitted to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies within 30 days after adoption. (2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be submitted electronically and shall include any standardized forms, tables, or displays specified by the department. (b) If an urban water supplier revises its water shortage contingency plan, the supplier shall submit to the department a copy of its water shortage contingency plan prepared pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10632 no later than 30 days after adoption, in accordance with protocols for submission and using electronic reporting tools developed by the department. (c) (1) (A) Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, the department shall prepare and submit to the Legislature, on or before July 1, in the years ending in seven and two, a report summarizing the status of the plans and water shortage contingency plans adopted pursuant to this part. The report prepared by the department shall identify the exemplary elements of the individual plans and water shortage contingency plans. The department shall provide a copy of the report to each urban water supplier that has submitted its plan and water shortage contingency plan to the department. The department shall also prepare reports and provide data for any legislative hearings designed to consider the effectiveness of plans and water shortage contingency plans submitted pursuant to this part. (B) The department shall prepare and submit to the board, on or before September 30 of each year, a report summarizing the submitted water supply and demand assessment results along with appropriate reported water shortage conditions and the regional and statewide analysis of water supply conditions developed by the department. As part of the report, the department shall provide a summary and, as appropriate, urban water supplier specific information regarding various shortage response actions implemented as a result of annual supplier-specific water supply and demand assessments performed pursuant to Section 10632.1. (C) The department shall submit the report to the Legislature for the 2015 plans by July 1, 2017, and the report to the Legislature for the 2020 plans and water shortage contingency plans by July 1, 2022. (2) A report to be submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. (d) The department shall make available to the public the standard the department will use to identify exemplary water demand management measures. 10645. (a) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. (b) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. CHAPTER 4. Miscellaneous Provisions [10650 – 10657] 10650. Any actions or proceedings, other than actions by the board, to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of an urban water supplier on the grounds of noncompliance with this part shall be commenced as follows: (a) An action or proceeding alleging failure to adopt a plan or a water shortage contingency plan shall be commenced within 18 months after that adoption is required by this part. (b) Any action or proceeding alleging that a plan or water shortage contingency plan, or action taken pursuant to either, does not comply with this part shall be commenced within 90 days after filing of the plan or water shortage contingency plan or an amendment to either pursuant to Section 10644 or the taking of that action. 10651. In any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul a plan or a water shortage contingency plan, or an action taken pursuant to either by an urban water supplier on the grounds of noncompliance with this part, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the supplier has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the action by the water supplier is not supported by substantial evidence. 10652. The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does not apply to the preparation and adoption of plans pursuant to this part or to the implementation of actions taken pursuant to Section 10632. Nothing in this part shall be interpreted as exempting from the California Environmental Quality Act any project that would significantly affect water supplies for fish and wildlife, or any project for implementation of the plan, other than projects implementing Section 10632, or any project for expanded or additional water supplies. 10653. The adoption of a plan shall satisfy any requirements of state law, regulation, or order, including those of the board and the Public Utilities Commission, for the preparation of water management plans, water shortage contingency plans, or conservation plans; provided, that if the board or the Public Utilities Commission requires additional information concerning water conservation, drought response measures, or financial conditions to implement its existing authority, nothing in this part shall be deemed to limit the board or the commission in obtaining that information. The requirements of this part shall be satisfied by any urban water demand management plan that complies with analogous federal laws or regulations after the effective date of this part, and which substantially meets the requirements of this part, or by any existing urban water management plan which includes the contents of a plan required under this part. 10654. An urban water supplier may recover in its rates the costs incurred in preparing its urban water management plan, its drought risk assessment, its water supply and demand assessment, and its water shortage contingency plan and implementing the reasonable water conservation measures included in either of the plans. 10655. If any provision of this part or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this part which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application thereof, and to this end the provisions of this part are severable. 10656. An urban water supplier is not eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the state unless the urban water supplier complies with this part. 10657. The department may adopt regulations regarding the definitions of water, water use, and reporting periods, and may adopt any other regulations deemed necessary or desirable to implement this part. In developing regulations pursuant to this section, the department shall solicit broad public participation from stakeholders and other interested persons. Appendix B Adoption Resolution and Related Documentation Documents will be added after completion of the Noticing Period and Public Hearing. Appendix C DWR 2020 UWMP Checklist Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMP Subject 2020 UWMP Location 10630.5 Each plan shall include a simple description of the supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Summary Section 1, page 1-1 10620(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier. Plan Preparation Section 1. page 1-1 10620(d)(2) Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable. Plan Preparation Section 2.3.2 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan and contingency plan. Plan Preparation Section 1, page 1-1 10631(h) Retail suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) - if any - with water use projections from that source. System Supplies Section 2-2 10631(a) Describe the water supplier service area. System Description Section 3.1 10631(a) Describe the climate of the service area of the supplier. System Description Section 3.4 10631(a) Provide population projections for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045. System Description Section 3-2 10631(a) Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning. System Description Section 3.1 - 3.2 10631(a) Indicate the current population of the service area. System Description and Baselines and Targets Section 3.2 10631(a) Describe the land uses within the service area. System Description Section 3.1 10631(d)(1) Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors. System Water Use Section 4.1 10631(d)(3)(C) Retail suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met. System Water Use Section 4.3 10631(d)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for each of the 5 years preceding the plan update. System Water Use Section 4.3 10631.1(a) Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the supplier. System Water Use Section 4.5 10635(b) Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment. System Water Use Section 7-1 10608.20(e) Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data. Baselines and Targets Section 5.1 10608.24(a) Retail suppliers shall meet their water use target by December 31, 2020. Baselines and Targets Section 5.1 10608.24(d)(2) If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance GPCD using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment. Baselines and Targets NA 10608.22 Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100. Baselines and Targets Section 5.1 10608.4 Retail suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. The data shall be reported using a standardized form in the SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form. Baselines and Targets Section 5.1 10631(b)(1) Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought. System Supplies Section 7.1 - 7.5 10631(b)(1) Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply due to climate change. System Supplies Section 7.1 - 7.5 10631(b)(3) Describe measures taken to acquire and develop planned sources of water. System Supplies Section 6.8 10631(b) Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045. System Supplies Section 6.9 10631(c) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. System Supplies Section 6.7 10633(b) Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5 10633(c) Describe the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.3 10633(d) Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.4 10633(e) Describe the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Table 6-4 and 6-5 10633(f) Describe the actions which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.5 10633(g) Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.5 10631(g) Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long- term supply. System Supplies Section 6.6 10633(a) Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area with quantified amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.3 10631(f) Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting 5 consecutive water years. System Supplies Section 6.8 - 6.9 10631.2(a) The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a supplier can readily obtain. System Suppliers, Energy Intensity Appendix J 10634 Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.1 10620(f) Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.1 10635(a) Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.4 10635(b) Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.5 10635(b)(1) Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts 5 consecutive years. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.5 10635(b)(2) Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.1 10635(b)(3) Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.1 - 7.4 10635(b)(4) Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.1 - 7.4 10632(a) Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H 10632(a)(1) Provide the analysis of water supply reliability (from Chapter 7 of Guidebook) in the WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 1.0 10632(a)(10) Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the water shortage contingency plan to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 2.0 10632(a)(2)(A) Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the supplier will use each year to determine its water reliability. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 2.0 10632(a)(2)(B) Provide data and methodology to evaluate the supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one dry year pursuant to factors in the code. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H 10632(a)(3)(A) Define six standard water shortage levels of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent shortage and greater than 50 percent shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 3.0 10632(a)(4)(A) Suppliers with water shortage contingency plans that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 4.0 10632(a)(4)(B) Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 4.0 10632(a)(4)(C) Specify locally appropriate operational changes. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 4.0 10632(a)(4)(D) Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 4.0 10632(a)(4)(E) Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 4.0 10632.5 The plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Appendix H, Appendix 3 10632(a)(5)(A) Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or predicted water shortages. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 5.0 10632(a)(5)(B) 10632(a)(5)(C) Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 5.0 10632(a)(6) Retail supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSCP. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 6.0 10632(a)(7)(A) Describe the legal authority that empowers the supplier to enforce shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 7.0 10632(a)(7)(B) Provide a statement that the supplier will declare a water shortage emergency Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 7.0 10632(a)(7)(C) Provide a statement that the supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 7.0 10632(a)(8)(A) Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 8.0 10632(a)(8)(B) Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 8.0 10632(a)(8)(C) Retail suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3.3: Excessive Residential Water Use During Drought Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 6.0 10632(a)(9) Retail suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 9.0 10632(b) Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H, Section 4.0 10635(c) Provide supporting documentation that Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, or will be, provided to any city or county within which it provides water, no later than 30 days after the submission of the plan to DWR. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Appendix H & Appendix B 10632(c) Make available the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 after adopted the plan. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix H 10631(e)(1) Retail suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code. Demand Management Measures Section 9.1 10608.26(a) Retail suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance). Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10..1 10621(b) Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. Reported in Table 10-1. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 2.3.2, Table 2-5 10621(f) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 1 and 10.2 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier made the plan and contingency plan available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan and contingency plan. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Appendix B 10642 The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10.1 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the plan and contingency plan has been adopted as prepared or modified. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Appendix B 10644(a) Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to the California State Library. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Appendix B 10644(a)(1) Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to any city or county within which the supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Appendix B 10644(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department shall be submitted electronically. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10.2 10645(a) Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Appendix B 10645(b) Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Appendix B 10644(b) If revised, submit a copy of the water shortage contingency plan to DWR within 30 days of adoption. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Appendix H Appendix D AWWA Water Loss Worksheets Water Audit Report for: Reporting Year: All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt:Value: Volume from own sources:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr 4 -1.00%acre-ft/yr Water imported:7 27,022.100 acre-ft/yr 8 acre-ft/yr Water exported:3 20.000 acre-ft/yr 1 acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED:27,002.100 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed metered:7 25,754.460 acre-ft/yr Billed unmetered:10 1.000 acre-ft/yr Unbilled metered:8 44.130 acre-ft/yr Pcnt:Value: Unbilled unmetered:5 67.505 acre-ft/yr 1.25%acre-ft/yr24061 AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:25,867.095 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption)1,135.005 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt:Value: Unauthorized consumption:67.505 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Customer metering inaccuracies:7 129.641 acre-ft/yr 0.50%acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors:64.386 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses:261.533 acre-ft/yr Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses:873.472 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES:1,135.005 acre-ft/yr NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER:1,246.640 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA Length of mains:9 727.0 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections:9 49,308 Service connection density:68 conn./mile main Yes Average length of customer service line:ft Average operating pressure:5 117.7 psi COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system:10 $27,981,000 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):10 $4.11 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):7 $1,768.18 $/acre-ft WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: 1: Water imported 2: Billed metered 3: Unauthorized consumption Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 75 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? 0.000 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet 67.505 2017 7/2016 - 6/2017 Otay Water District (3710034) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> ? ? ? ? ? ?Click to access definition ? ? ? ? ? ? Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ? ? ? ? ? ? (length of service line, beyond the property boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility) Use buttons to select percentage of water suppliedORvalue ?Click here: for help using option buttons below ? ? ? ? + +Click to add a comment WAS v5.0 + + + + + + American Water Works Association.Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. ? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + +Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses ? To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for: Reporting Year: All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt:Value: Volume from own sources:n/a acre-ft/yr 2.58%acre-ft/yr Water imported:7 29,762.700 acre-ft/yr 8 acre-ft/yr Water exported:3 124.800 acre-ft/yr n/a acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED:29,607.750 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed metered:7 28,070.200 acre-ft/yr Billed unmetered:10 1.000 acre-ft/yr Unbilled metered:8 199.380 acre-ft/yr Pcnt:Value: Unbilled unmetered:8 95.330 acre-ft/yr 1.25%acre-ft/yr24061 AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:28,365.910 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption)1,241.840 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt:Value: Unauthorized consumption:74.019 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Customer metering inaccuracies:7 213.624 acre-ft/yr 0.75%acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors:70.176 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses:357.819 acre-ft/yr Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses:884.021 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES:1,241.840 acre-ft/yr NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER:1,536.550 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA Length of mains:9 727.0 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections:9 49,596 Service connection density:68 conn./mile main Yes Average length of customer service line:ft Average operating pressure:5 116.1 psi COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system:10 $30,322,400 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):10 $4.44 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):7 $1,725.44 $/acre-ft WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: 1: Water imported 2: Billed metered 3: Unauthorized consumption AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet 95.330 2018 7/2017 - 6/2018 Otay Water District (3710034) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> 30.150 30.150 Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed 1,918.560 *** YOUR SCORE IS: 76 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? ? ? ? ? ? ?Click to access definition ? ? ? ? ? ? Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ? ? ? ? ? ? (length of service line, beyond the property boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility) Use buttons to select percentage of water suppliedORvalue ?Click here: for help using option buttons below ? ? ? ? + +Click to add a comment WAS v5.0 + + + + + + American Water Works Association.Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. ? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + +Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses ? To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for: Reporting Year: All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt:Value: Volume from own sources:n/a acre-ft/yr 2.58%acre-ft/yr Water imported:7 27,816.000 acre-ft/yr 8 acre-ft/yr Water exported:4 431.200 acre-ft/yr n/a acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED:27,386.060 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed metered:7 25,941.630 acre-ft/yr Billed unmetered:10 1.000 acre-ft/yr Unbilled metered:8 70.860 acre-ft/yr Pcnt:Value: Unbilled unmetered:10 119.720 acre-ft/yr 1.25%acre-ft/yr24061 AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:26,133.210 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption)1,252.850 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt:Value: Unauthorized consumption:68.465 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Customer metering inaccuracies:7 196.568 acre-ft/yr 0.75%acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors:64.854 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses:329.887 acre-ft/yr Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses:922.963 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES:1,252.850 acre-ft/yr NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER:1,443.430 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA Length of mains:10 745.0 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections:9 51,959 Service connection density:70 conn./mile main Yes Average length of customer service line:ft Average operating pressure:6 116.1 psi COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system:10 $31,617,200 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):10 $4.21 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):7 $1,774.51 $/acre-ft WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: 1: Water imported 2: Billed metered 3: Unauthorized consumption AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet 119.720 2019 7/2018 - 6/2019 Otay Water District (3710034) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> -1.260 -1.260 Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed 1,918.560 *** YOUR SCORE IS: 76 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? ? ? ? ? ? ?Click to access definition ? ? ? ? ? ? Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ? ? ? ? ? ? (length of service line, beyond the property boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility) Use buttons to select percentage of water suppliedORvalue ?Click here: for help using option buttons below ? ? ? ? + +Click to add a comment WAS v5.0 + + + + + + American Water Works Association.Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. ? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + +Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses ? To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for: Reporting Year: All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt:Value: Volume from own sources:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr 2.58%acre-ft/yr Water imported:7 29,103.500 acre-ft/yr 8 acre-ft/yr Water exported:7 1,564.800 acre-ft/yr n/a acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED:27,447.940 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed metered:7 26,156.200 acre-ft/yr Billed unmetered:10 17.180 acre-ft/yr Unbilled metered:8 52.650 acre-ft/yr Pcnt:Value: Unbilled unmetered:10 110.440 acre-ft/yr 1.25%acre-ft/yr24061 AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:26,336.470 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption)1,111.470 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt:Value: Unauthorized consumption:68.620 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Customer metering inaccuracies:7 198.052 acre-ft/yr 0.75%acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors:65.391 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses:332.062 acre-ft/yr Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses:779.408 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES:1,111.470 acre-ft/yr NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER:1,274.560 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA Length of mains:10 757.6 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections:9 52,680 Service connection density:70 conn./mile main Yes Average length of customer service line:ft Average operating pressure:6 116.1 psi COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system:10 $39,210,448 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):10 $4.40 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):7 $1,802.99 $/acre-ft WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: 1: Water imported 2: Billed metered 3: Unauthorized consumption AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet 110.440 2020 7/2019 - 6/2020 Otay Water District (3710034) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> -90.760 90.760 Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed 1,918.560 *** YOUR SCORE IS: 76 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? ? ? ? ? ? ?Click to access definition ? ? ? ? ? ? Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ? ? ? ? ? ? (length of service line, beyond the property boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility) Use buttons to select percentage of water suppliedORvalue ?Click here: for help using option buttons below ? ? ? ? + +Click to add a comment WAS v5.0 + + + + + + American Water Works Association.Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. ? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + +Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses ? To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Appendix E City of San Diego Agreement for Otay WTP Appendix F City of San Diego Agreement for SBWRP Appendix G Water Authority Documentation of Supply Reliability San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-1 SECTION 5 MEMBER AGENCY SUPPLIES Introduction Local water resources developed and managed by the Water Authority’s member agencies are critical to securing a diverse and reliable water supply for the region. Local projects reduce demands for imported water and provide member agencies with a drought-resilient supply. This section provides general information about local water resources being developed and managed by the Water Authority’s member agencies. These supplies include surface water, groundwater, recycled water, potable water for reuse, desalinated seawater, and water transfers. The Water Authority, working closely with its member agencies, took the following steps to update yields anticipated from member agencies’ local supplies: 1. Provided member agencies with projected supply numbers included in the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP. The Water Authority asked member agencies to update the figures for their specific project(s) and separate these projects into three project categories: verifiable, additional planned, and conceptual. These categories are based on the stages of development defined in Section 4 Water Authority Supplies. 2. Prepared revised projections based on input from member agencies. 3. Presented revised supply numbers to member agencies at several meetings and continued working with member agencies ensure these figures accurately reflected member agency project implementation efforts. 4. Distributed the administrative draft of the 2020 UWMP to member agencies for review, which gave member agencies another opportunity to review/revise updated local supply figures prior to Water Authority Board approval. Before 1947, the San Diego region relied on local surface water runoff in normal and wet weather years and on groundwater pumped from local aquifers during dry years when stream flows were reduced. As the economy and population grew, local resources became insufficient to meet the region’s water supply needs. From the 1950s onward, the region became increasingly reliant on imported water supplies. Since 1980, a range of 5% to 36% of the water used in the Water Authority’s service area has come from local sources, primarily from surface water reservoirs with yields that vary directly with annual rainfall. A growing share of local supply comes from recycled water, groundwater recovery, potable reuse, and seawater desalination projects. Yield from these projects is considered drought-resilient since the projects are primarily independent of precipitation. Additionally, local supplies include water transfers with implementation of the San Luis Rey Water Transfer. In fiscal year 2020, total local water sources provided 28% of the water used in the Water Authority’s service area. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-2 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Surface Water Supply 5.2.1 Surface Water Description The regional surface water yield is supported by 24 surface reservoirs with a combined capacity of 722,793 AF (see Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1). These reservoirs are located in seven of San Diego County’s nine coastal watersheds. Runoff in these watersheds occurs at the crest of the county’s Peninsular Range and drains into the Pacific Ocean. The oldest of these reservoirs, Cuyamaca, was constructed in 1887. Table 5-1 lists the 24 reservoirs together with their associated operating agency and storage capacity. Olivenhain Reservoir, completed in 2003, is the region’s newest reservoir. It is part of the Water Authority’s ESP and has a storage capacity of 24,774 AF. The ESP adds 90,100 AF of additional storage capacity and is designed to protect the region from disruptions in the water delivery system. In addition, the 2002 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan identified an opportunity to augment the ESP with a carryover storage component at San Vicente Reservoir. The Water Authority completed the ESP and CSP portion of the San Vicente Dam Raise in mid-2014, which provides an additional 157,100 AF of water storage capacity. Refer to Section 11.2.2 Emergency Storage Project and Section 11.4.1 Water Authority Carryover Storage Program for additional information on the Water Authority’s emergency and carryover storage. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-3 Table 5-1. Major San Diego County Reservoirs Agency (Owner) Reservoir Capacity (AF) Carlsbad Municipal Water District Maerkle 600 Escondido, City of Dixon 2,606 Escondido, City of Wohlforda 2,783 Fallbrook Public Utility District Red Mountain 1,335 Helix Water District Cuyamaca 8,195 Helix Water District Jennings 9,790 Poway, City of Poway 3,432 Rainbow Municipal Water District Morro Hill 465 Ramona Municipal Water District Ramona 12,000 San Diego, City of Barrett 34,806 San Diego, City of El Capitan 112,807 San Diego, City of Hodgesb 13,401 San Diego, City of Lower Otay 47,067 San Diego, City of Miramar 6,682 San Diego, City of Morena 50,694 San Diego, City of Murray 4,684 San Diego, City of San Vicentec 249,358 San Diego, City of Sutherland 29,508 San Dieguito Water District/Santa Fe Irrigation District San Dieguito 883 San Diego County Water Authority Olivenhain 24,774 Sweetwater Authority Loveland 25,400 Sweetwater Authority Sweetwater 28,079 Valley Center Municipal Water District Turner 1,612 Vista Irrigation District Henshaw 51,832 Total Capacity 722,793 = Connected to Water Authority aqueduct system. aThe capacity volume accounts for lowered reservoir level at Lake Wohlford due to DWR Division of Safety of Dams safety issues. bThe capacity volume accounts for lowered reservoir level at Lake Hodges due to DWR Division of Safety of Dams safety issues and is in accordance with the 1998 Emergency Storage Project Agreement for the Joint Use of Lake Hodges Dam and Reservoir. cThe Water Authority has storage rights to 157,100 AF of capacity in San Vicente Reservoir (105,000 AF is designated as carryover storage; 52,100 AF is designated as emergency storage). San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-4 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5.2.2 Surface Water Issues Surface Water Management The Water Authority’s member agencies manage most of the region’s reservoirs. The San Vicente Dam Raise was completed in mid-2014 and Carryover Storage Project water began to be stored a year later. Together with the city of San Diego, the Water Authority coordinates San Vicente operations to optimize the use of their respective storage pools. The Water Authority also coordinates storage in Lake Hodges with the City of San Diego in order to manage its pumped storage project. The Lake Hodges Pumped Storage Project delivers water uphill to Olivenhain Reservoir in off-peak hours, generating electricity during peak demand periods through a coordinated release schedule. Also, in coordination with its member agencies, the Water Authority manages the imported conveyance system to achieve the optimal use of local and imported water resources, which include the local reservoirs. To reduce the need for imported water purchases, the reservoirs are operated to maximize the use of this local supply. Local surface water supplies can also offset dry-year shortfalls in imported water. Maximizing local yield reduces losses due to evaporation and spills, but it also results in increased demands for imported water during dry years when imported water is more likely in short supply. Most member agencies maintain some portion of their storage capacity for emergency storage. To optimize the use of local storage, the Water Authority works with its member agencies through periodic storage agreements and through its annual Aqueduct Operating Plan, last published in June 2020 (Water Authority, 2020). Storage agreements allow for carryover storage to be placed in member agency reservoirs and to provide increased local storage capacity, which can be used during peaks on the aqueduct system. The aqueduct operating plans coordinate imported water deliveries and optimize reservoir fill opportunities. Local yield is maximized by the member agencies that operate the reservoirs. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-5 Figure 5-1. Major San Diego County Reservoirs San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-6 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Water Quality See Section 7 Water Quality, for discussion of water quality issues related to the region’s water supply. 5.2.3 Projected Surface Water Supplies Surface water supplies can represent the largest single local resource in the Water Authority’s service area. However, annual surface water yields can vary substantially due to fluctuating hydrologic cycles. Since 1990, annual surface water yields have ranged from a low of 4,100 AF in fiscal year 2015 to a high of 140,300 AF in fiscal year 1984. Water Authority member agencies’ projected average annual surface water use is anticipated to increase slightly, from 44,237 AF in 2020 to 44,659 AF in 2045. Appendix F, Table F-1 lists the individual reservoirs, expected yields, and basis for the water supply. Table 5-2 shows the projected average surface water supply in the Water Authority’s service area; yields are used in the reliability analysis in Section 9 Water Supply Reliability. Member agencies expect to include specific information on the projected yields from local reservoirs in their respective 2020 UWMPs. Table 5-2. Projected Surface Water Supply (Normal Year, AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 44,237 43,957 43,957 44,659 44,659 44,659 Groundwater Supply Groundwater accounts for a small percentage of the San Diego region’s water supply portfolio. Although small, it is still an important resource that can contribute to reducing the region’s future water demands. While the Water Authority does not currently hold groundwater basin rights, it does provide financial and technical assistance to member agencies that are evaluating, planning and implementing groundwater recovery projects. While some places like the South Bay rely heavily on their groundwater basins for a large portion of their water supply, other member agencies like Olivenhain Municipal Water District continue to study the potential for brackish groundwater recovery and treatment in their service areas. This section describes municipal groundwater development in the Water Authority’s service area, regulatory requirements associated with groundwater production, and projected member agency yields. Inclusion of specific information required under the UWMP Act on groundwater basins and projects is expected in member agency 2020 UWMPs. 5.3.1 Groundwater Supply Description Within the past five years, water supply agencies in the Water Authority’s service area have utilized an annual average of approximately 22,300 AF of potable water supplies from groundwater. This total represents production from both brackish groundwater desalination facilities and municipal wells producing groundwater not requiring desalination. It does not San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-7 include production from privately owned water wells used for irrigation and domestic purposes, or several thousand AF of groundwater produced annually in the Warner Basin by the Vista Irrigation District. This groundwater is discharged into Lake Henshaw and is reported as local surface water supply by the City of Escondido and Vista Irrigation District. In addition to providing a local supply to water agencies, groundwater is also a source of supply for numerous private well owners who draw on groundwater to help meet their domestic and agriculture water needs. In the Ramona area alone, over 1,000 privately owned wells provide a supplementary source of water for Ramona MWD customers. Similar domestic uses occur throughout the Water Authority’s service area. These domestic supplies help offset demand for imported water provided by the Water Authority and its member agencies. Although significant, the amount of groundwater pumped by private wells cannot be accurately quantified or estimated in the Water Authority’s service area. One agency, the Yuima MWD, did begin to report yield from its mutual water companies located within their service area in 2015, which totaled approximately 6,000 AF in normal year deliveries. Groundwater production in the Water Authority’s service area is limited by a number of factors, including the limited geographic extent of the more productive sand and gravel (i.e., alluvial) aquifers; the relatively shallow nature of most of the alluvial aquifers; lack of rainfall and groundwater recharge; and degraded water quality resulting from human activities, such as septic tank use. Shallow and narrow river valleys filled with alluvial sand and gravel deposits are characteristic of the more productive groundwater basins in the San Diego region. Outside of these more productive aquifers, groundwater is developed from fractured crystalline bedrock and semi- consolidated sedimentary deposits that occur throughout the region. However, these aquifers have limited yield and storage and are best suited for meeting domestic water needs that do not require higher flow rates. Figure 5-2 shows the locations of the principal alluvial groundwater basins in the Water Authority’s service area. Although groundwater supplies are less plentiful in the San Diego region than in some other areas of California, such as the Los Angeles Basin in Southern California and the Central Valley in Northern California, the Water Authority believes that sufficient undeveloped brackish groundwater supplies exist that could help meet a greater portion of the region’s future water demand. Several agencies in the Water Authority’s service area have identified potential projects that may provide several thousand AF of additional groundwater production in the coming years. These projects are summarized below. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-8 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Figure 5-2. Alluvial Groundwater Basins San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-9 Groundwater Extraction and Disinfection Projects Groundwater that can be extracted and used as a potable water supply with little more than disinfection generally occurs outside the influence of human activities and within the upper reaches of the region’s east-west trending watersheds. Wells producing higher-quality water are operated by MCB Camp Pendleton (i.e., the Santa Margarita River watershed) and the Sweetwater Water Authority (i.e., the San Diego Formation aquifer). The Vista Irrigation District also operates numerous high-quality extraction wells in the Warner Basin, located in the upper San Luis Rey River watershed. The water from these wells is discharged to Lake Henshaw and eventually to the San Luis Rey River where it is then diverted farther downstream for use in Escondido and elsewhere. The unit cost of water produced from simple groundwater extraction and disinfection projects is low and generally well below the cost of imported water. Although a substantial amount of higher-quality groundwater in the Water Authority’s service area is already used by its member agencies, the primary focus for future local groundwater development is brackish groundwater recovery and recharge projects. Brackish Groundwater Recovery Projects Groundwater high in salts, total dissolved solids (TDS) and other contaminants, which requires advanced treatment prior to potable use, is typically found in shallow basins in the downstream portions of watersheds. Brackish groundwater recovery projects use membrane technology, and principally reverse osmosis, to treat extracted groundwater to potable water standards. The City of Oceanside’s 6.4-MGD capacity Mission Basin Desalter and the Sweetwater Authority's existing 10-MGD Richard A. Reynolds Groundwater Desalination Facility are the only currently operating brackish groundwater recovery and treatment facilities in the Water Authority’s service area. The Richard A. Reynolds Groundwater Desalination Facility expansion was completed in 2017 and doubled the facility’s pre-existing production capability. The facility expansion provides potable water to the Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego. Several member agencies are also considering the feasibility of new groundwater recovery and treatment facilities. Unit costs for brackish groundwater recovery projects are considerably higher than those for simple groundwater extraction and disinfection projects due to the additional treatment requirements and the cost of concentrate (i.e., brine) disposal. However, where economical options exist for disposal of brine, this type of groundwater project has proven to be an economically sound water-supply option. Groundwater Recharge and Recovery Projects Artificial recharge and recovery projects, also referred to as conjunctive-use projects, can increase groundwater basin yields by supplementing the natural recharge process. Conjunctive- use projects divert water supplies to percolation basins or injection wells to supplement natural rainfall runoff recharge. Captured rainfall runoff, recycled water, imported water, or a combination these sources can be used to recharge groundwater basins when water levels have been lowered sufficiently by pumping. Groundwater basins can be operated similarly to surface San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-10 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies water reservoirs, and can supply stored water if imported deliveries are limited due to high demand, supply and facility constraints, or some combination of these constraints. The Fallbrook Public Utility District and the MCB Camp Pendleton are undertaking a joint conjunctive use project that will increase the sustainable yield of the Lower Santa Margarita River Basin. Another example of a planned groundwater recharge project is the City of Oceanside’s Pure Water Program. Phase I of this project will recharge up to 3,360 AFY of full advanced treated water into the Mission Basin Aquifer. This groundwater will be treated at the existing Mission Groundwater Purification Facility to supplement the City of Oceanside’s potable water supply. 5.3.2 Groundwater Issues Local water agencies often need to consider a multitude of issues during the planning, permitting, design, construction and operation of a groundwater project. The issues can include dealing with hydrogeological uncertainties, high upfront study and subsurface investigation costs, higher unit costs association with brackish groundwater recovery and treatment, project funding considerations, water rights, regulatory and environmental concerns, and possible contamination of groundwater that might occur after the project is constructed and facilities are brought online. Although these issues in the past have discouraged decision makers and have limited groundwater development in the County, state-wide drought conditions and water supply reliability concerns are prompting renewed consideration of the viability of local groundwater development and cleanup projects for the region. Hydrogeological and Environmental Impact Uncertainty Significant resources must be expended prior to determining the feasibility of a project in groundwater basins not recently used as a source of a municipal water supply by an agency. There may be a general lack of information regarding issues such as the nature of aquifer materials, whether there are existing wells and groundwater production, water quality, and potential impact of pumping to riparian habitat. Subsurface exploration and field investigations can be costly and time consuming. In addition, data management and use generally require developing costly large-scale numerical models. These issues, in conjunction with financial considerations, often dictate how groundwater projects are developed, and how production is increased incrementally in a planned and managed fashion. Economic and Financial Considerations Because of the saline nature of the water and the presence of other contaminants in many of the groundwater basins in the County, the cost of groundwater development often requires demineralization and brine disposal facilities, which can be costly to construct and operate. Institutional, Legal, and Regulatory Issues Institutional and legal issues can also impact project development. Because groundwater basins often involve multiple water agencies and/or numerous private wells and water-right holders, San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-11 water rights and management authority should be addressed before a project progresses beyond the planning stage. Agencies are often reluctant to initiate groundwater development projects that go beyond the feasibility study stage unless jurisdiction and water rights issues are resolved beforehand. As challenging as those issues may be, recent drought conditions have prompted local agencies to attempt to resolve or overcome those barriers to groundwater development and proceed to groundwater project implementation. Environmental Regulatory Constraints Issues related to the environmental impacts that could potentially result from the fluctuation of groundwater levels when large quantities of groundwater are extracted are common to many of the groundwater projects proposed in the principal alluvial aquifers in the Water Authority’s service area. These issues include potential impacts on endangered species habitat and groundwater-dependent vegetation. Impacts may occur if a project results in seasonal or long- term decreases in the depth of the groundwater. Although potential environmental impacts can generally be mitigated, mitigation costs can reduce the cost-effectiveness of a project. Water Quality Remediation of groundwater contamination presents a significant, ongoing operations and maintenance cost that presents barriers to project implementation. See Section 7.6 Groundwater, for additional information about water quality for groundwater supplies. Funding Grant funding for groundwater development has been steadily increasing. Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, initially authorized the federal government to fund up to 25% of the capital cost of authorized water recycling projects. Public Law 104-266, the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996, also authorized two additional projects. One of those projects included funding for the City of Oceanside’s Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration Project (more funding information is in Section 5.4.3 Encouraging Recycled Water Development). Since 1994, the City of Oceanside’s Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration Project, along with the Sweetwater Authority’s groundwater desalination facility, also benefitted from receiving Groundwater Recovery Program Funding from Metropolitan. To date, over $13.9 million has been received from Title XVI for both the City of Oceanside’s and Sweetwater Authority’s projects. Proposition 68, also known as the Natural Resources Bond or the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018, was passed by California voters in June 2018. The bond measure authorized $4.1 billion in funding for parks, environmental projects, water infrastructure projects and flood protections measure throughout California. The SWRCB will administer $74 million from Chapter 11.1 for groundwater projects. Of the $74 million, $16 million will be set aside for project serving San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-12 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies severely disadvantaged communities (DACs). The Proposition 68 Guidelines were adopted by the SWRCB in August 2019. Along with local and federal funding sources, in 2007, the San Diego Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program submitted a grant proposal to DWR for Proposition 50 funds. As a result of this grant award, the Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project was awarded grant funding to enhance groundwater basin recharge and recovery to provide water supplies for both MCB Camp Pendleton and Fallbrook Public Utility District, which also resolved a long-standing water rights dispute. The project will provide approximately 3,100 AFY of new local supply from the Santa Margarita River by conjunctively managing the groundwater basin. Additionally, 1,380 acres of sensitive habitat will also be preserved along the river as a result of this project. In Southern California, wastewater, brackish water and urban runoff are high in TDS and other impurities, requiring advanced treatment to allow beneficial reuse. The North San Diego County Cooperative Demineralization Project, funded under a Proposition 84 Round 1 Implementation Grant in 2011, focuses on developing new local water supplies and managing water quality issues by constructing an advanced water treatment facility (i.e., the San Elijo Water Reclamation Facility) to mitigate high-TDS water sources, increase beneficial reuse, and study the feasibility of brackish to potable water desalination in north San Diego County. In 2014, also with Proposition 84 grant funding awarded through the San Diego IRWM Program, the Sweetwater Authority increased their production of potable water from desalinated brackish groundwater through the expansion of the Richard A. Reynolds Groundwater Desalination Facility for an additional 5,200 AFY. The project involved drilling five new wells in the San Diego Formation, construction of an additional 20,000 linear feet of conveyance and potable pipelines, and facility modifications. The desalinated groundwater produced by the project is added directly into the potable water supply, which will offset imported water purchases. Brine discharge from this project also helps maintain the brackish quality in the Sweetwater River estuary, protecting against incursion of non-native freshwater species. The project was implemented by the Sweetwater Authority, in partnership with the City of San Diego and was completed in 2017. In 2017, the San Diego IRWM Program submitted a grant proposal in tandem with the Upper Santa Margarita Watershed and South Orange County IRWM region, for Proposition 1 DAC Involvement funds. This proposal included planning activities that involve DACs, economically distressed areas, and underrepresented communities in regional planning efforts to lay the groundwork for future implementation projects. One groundwater project in the San Diego region was funded as part of the proposal and it supports groundwater planning for Pauma Valley DACs and Tribes. The project involves forming a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) for the San Luis Rey Groundwater Basin and consolidating the Lazy H Mutual Water Company to provide reliable water infrastructure to Lazy H’s retail customers. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-13 5.3.3 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act In 2014, the California Legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), making California the last state in the West to regulate groundwater. SGMA provides local agencies with a framework for managing groundwater basins in a manner that ensures basin resiliency, recognizing that groundwater is most effectively managed at the local level, and empowers local agencies to achieve basin sustainability within 20 years. Further, SGMA respects regional differences and provides for a tailored approach to planning. Other goals of SGMA include the following: • Establish minimum standards for sustainable groundwater management • Improve coordination between land use and groundwater planning • Provide state technical assistance • Create a mechanism for state intervention if, and only if, a local agency was not managing its groundwater sustainably • Protect water rights DWR’s Bulletin 118 Interim Update 2016, California’s Groundwater—Working Toward Sustainability, identified 515 alluvial groundwater basins in California (DWR, 2016). DWR conducted an initial prioritization of the identified 515 basins into four categories: high, medium, low, or very low. SGMA requires medium- and high- priority basins to develop groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSP) and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. The three SGMA-mandated basins in the County are San Luis Rey Valley (medium priority), San Pasqual Valley (medium priority), and Borrego Valley (high priority). A SGMA GSA can be a local agency, a combination of local agencies, or a county. It is the GSA’s responsibility to develop and implement a GSP that considers all beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin. Figure 5-3 is a map of groundwater basins in the Water Authority service area with their designated SGMA priority levels. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-14 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Figure 5-3. San Diego Groundwater Basins SGMA Priority Map San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-15 5.3.4 Projected Groundwater Supply Yield The Water Authority has worked closely with its member agencies to develop groundwater yield projections. The most reliable projections have been developed by considering only existing (i.e., verifiable) groundwater projects, which include planned expansions to existing projects. Table 5-3 shows the projected annual yield from verifiable groundwater projects in five-year increments, based on projections and implementation schedules or existing projects and planned expansions provided by the member agencies. These are included in the reliability analysis found in Section 9 Water Supply Reliability. Table F-2 in Appendix F lists the projects and their projected supplies. Table 5-3. Projected Groundwater Supply (Normal Year, AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 25,950 30,300 31,500 31,500 28,800 28,000 An overall projected increase in groundwater production from 2020 and beyond is due primarily from increased production from MCB Camp Pendleton’s groundwater production wells in the Lower Santa Margarita, Las Flores, San Mateo and San Onofre Basins. Additional Planned Projects—Groundwater Maximizing groundwater development is critical to diversifying the region’s water supply portfolio. Beyond the projections of the more reliable and verifiable projects included in Table 5-3, member agencies have also identified two additional planned projects, with an estimated total of 1,620 AFY of additional yield in 2045. The Otay Water District Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project is expected to yield 500 AFY by 2035. The San Dieguito River Basin Brackish Groundwater Recovery and Treatment led by Olivenhain Municipal Water District anticipates groundwater production of 1,120 AFY by 2025. These additional yields are considered additional planned supplies and are reflected in Section 10 Scenario Planning—Managing an Uncertain Future, as potential strategies to manage future uncertainty planning scenarios. These additional planned projects, as well as the conceptual projects provided by the member agencies, are also included in Appendix F in Table F-2. Recycled Water Supply Recycled water has been a growing water resource in San Diego County for decades providing a local, drought-resilient supply that reduces our region’s dependence on imported water. Every gallon of recycled water used within the region reduces the need to import or develop other water supplies. Of the Water Authority’s 24 member agencies, 17 have developed recycled water supplies for their retail customers. Member agencies are continuing to expand their recycled water treatment and distribution systems and it is predicted that member agencies San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-16 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies will produce approximately 46,800 AF annually by 2045. While the Water Authority does not produce recycled water, it supports the development of recycled water by providing member agency technical support and through regulatory and policy advocacy at the local, state and federal levels. Water Authority staff convene recycled water member agencies, on an as- needed basis, to foster data-sharing and partnerships to support recycled water development in the region. This section provides an overview of recycled water development in the Water Authority’s service area, potential fiscal and regulatory constraints to protect development, project funding opportunities, and projected regional yield. Documentation about specific existing and future recycling projects is expected to be part of the 2020 UWMPs for those agencies that include water recycling as a supply. The Water Authority coordinated preparing this section with its member agencies and those wastewater agencies operating water recycling facilities in the Water Authority’s service area. 5.4.1 Recycled Water Description Water may be recycled for non-potable or potable purposes. This section is about non-potable water recycling. Non-potable water recycling entails the treatment and disinfection of municipal wastewater to provide a water supply suitable for non-drinking uses. Non-potable water recycling in the San Diego region started in the 1960s when Padre Dam Municipal Water District began recycling water for use in Santee Lakes. Water recycling as a process started to increase significantly in the 1990s. Today, agencies in the County use recycled water to fill lakes, ponds, and ornamental fountains; to irrigate parks, campgrounds, golf courses, freeway medians, community greenbelts, school athletic fields, food crops, and nursery stock; and to control dust at construction sites. Recycled water can also be used in certain industrial processes, in cooling towers, and for flushing toilets and urinals in non-residential buildings. Recycled water is also used for street sweeping and firefighting purposes. Local agencies must consider a number of issues when developing recycled water projects, including economic and financial considerations; regulatory, institutional, and public acceptance issues; and water quality concerns related to unknown or perceived health and environmental risks. These issues, if unresolved, can limit the amount of recycled water use in the County. The following sections discuss some of the specific challenges associated with recycled water development. With additional water treatment, recycled water can also be treated to drinking (i.e., potable) water standards. Additional information about advanced water purification (or potable reuse) is found in Section 5.5 Potable Reuse Supply. Economic and Financial Considerations The capital-intensive cost of constructing recycled water infrastructure and managing a dual distribution system has traditionally been a barrier to project implementation. The upfront San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-17 capital costs for construction of treatment facilities and recycled water distribution systems can be high while full market implementation is usually phased over a number of years, resulting in very high initial unit costs that affect cash flow in the early project years. Some local agencies have been successful in expanding recycled water by requiring developers to install dual- plumbed systems as new development infrastructure is built. Otay Water District, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, and the City of San Diego have all been successful using this approach. The high costs associated with converting existing water customers to non-potable recycled water use have also been challenging. This situation is compounded by the seasonal nature of recycled water demands, a lack of seasonal storage and the lack of large industrial water users in San Diego County that can use recycled water. Projects that serve a large portion of irrigation demands, which are the majority of the projects in the Water Authority’s service area, often use only half of their annual production capacity due to these seasonal demand patterns. The unit costs associated with these projects are generally higher than those of projects that serve year-round demands, since the project facilities must be sized to accommodate seasonal peaking. Projects that serve mostly irrigation demands also tend to have less stable revenue bases because irrigation demands are heavily influenced by hydrologic conditions. Recycled water is typically stored in storage tanks and ponds. Availability of seasonal and operational storage can help ensure a continuous demand and production of recycled water throughout the year, thus making projects more cost-effective. To be economically feasible, a project’s benefits must offset or exceed its associated costs. Project benefits can take the form of: • Revenues from the sale of recycled water • Increased supply reliability • Increased control over the cost of future water supplies • Avoided water and wastewater treatment, storage, and conveyance costs Agencies developing recycled water projects must be able to quantify these benefits to determine the economic feasibility of a project. In addition, financial incentives and grant funding from local, federal and state agencies are critical to offsetting project costs and project implementation. Regulatory Two state agencies have primary responsibility for regulating the application and use of recycled water: the SWRCB under its Division of Drinking Water (DDW) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards). The administration of the Drinking Water Program was transferred from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to the SWRCB on July 1, 2014. DDW was formed as part of that reorganization. This transfer of responsibility aligned the State’s drinking water and water quality programs in an integrated organizational structure that positioned the State to both protect water quality and the public San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-18 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies health as related to water quality, while meeting current needs and future demands on water supplies. Planning and implementing water recycling projects entail numerous interactions with these regulatory agencies prior to project approval. DDW is responsible for establishing statewide criteria for recycled water uses in Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. Under Title 22, the standards are established for each general type of use based on the potential for human contact with recycled water. The highest degree of standards for recycled water is for unrestricted body contact. The San Diego RWQCB, one of nine California Water Boards, is charged with issuing permits and enforcing requirements for the application and use of recycled water, which ensures compliance with the objectives of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan; San Diego RWQCB, 1994) and incorporates recommendations from DDW. As part of the permit application process, applicants must demonstrate that the proposed recycled water operation will meet the ground and surface water quality objectives in the Basin Plan and will comply with Title 22 requirements. With the consent of the recycled water supplier, the San Diego RWQCB and DDW may delegate review of individual non-potable use sites to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH). Under a delegation agreement with the State Department of Public Health, the DEH regulates the use of recycled water to prevent potential health risks from direct contact with recycled water and cross-connections of recycled water and drinking water supplies. Coordination between the regulatory agencies responsible for monitoring development of recycled water is important, along with the development of a reasonable and consistent application of regulations. Project proponents need to work closely and cooperatively with regulatory agencies in their efforts to satisfy the regulations and still be able to develop much needed, cost-effective water recycling projects. The Water Authority participates in regulatory advocacy on behalf of recycled water member agencies through direct participation at the state, local, and federal level, and in partnership with industry associations such as the WateReuse Association and the Association of California Water Agencies. Water Authority staff work closely with member agencies on proposed recycled water policy and regulations to ensure that the region’s recycled water priorities are considered in the development of recycled water policy and regulations. The Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water (Recycled Water Policy; SWRCB, 2018) is an important statewide policy first adopted by the SWRCB in 2009 to encourage the safe use of recycled water while protecting public health and the environment. The Recycled Water Policy was updated by the SWRCB in 2013 and in 2018. Water Authority staff advocated throughout the SWRCB’s public process for reasonable regulations that support local projects while protecting public health and the environment. Staff worked closely with member agencies to analyze proposed changes to the Recycled Water Policy, and met with SWRCB staff, developed comment letters, provided public testimony to the SWRCB on behalf of the San Diego region. The Recycled Water Policy includes the following elements: San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-19 • A goal of increasing statewide water recycling • Requirements for salt and nutrient management plans for groundwater basins • Requirements for annual reporting to the SWRCB on wastewater produced and discharged and recycled water used • Requirements for monitoring chemicals of emerging concern in recycled water, including water for potable reuse Institutional The primary institutional issue related to the development of water recycling in the County is interagency coordination, such as when the wastewater agency that produces recycled water is not the purveyor of that water purveyor in the reuse area. Providing service to the water customer is vital; at those times, effective communication and cooperation should take place early in the process between both agencies regarding distribution of recycled water. Institutional arrangements for distribution of recycled water require contracts or agreements among the parties or agencies involved, the terms of which must be established on a case-by- case basis. These agreements usually define the reporting and compliance responsibilities, the amount of recycled water deliveries, water pricing, and a financing plan that identifies which agency will receive financial incentives. Many local entities in the San Diego region have responsibilities to provide both water and wastewater services. In locations where water and wastewater agencies are not the same purveyor, close collaboration takes place for planning, permitting and operating recycled water facilities. These close relationships have helped to advance recycled water use in the San Diego region. Public Acceptance Public acceptance is critical to successful siting, financing, constructing, and operating a water recycling project. Concerns from the public about general water quality and safety are often due to a lack of understanding regarding the water recycling treatment process. The most successful means to obtaining public acceptance is through education and involvement. The Water Authority regularly engages residents about recycled water through community outreach, social media and other forms of communication, and conducts periodic surveys and focus groups to receive feedback. Recent focus groups indicate that the public is now more accepting of the safety and beneficial use of recycled water for non-potable uses, particularly during drought events. The Water Authority’s Water Issues Survey (2019) showed that expanding recycled water for agriculture and irrigation is the most supported water reliability project, followed by recycling water and purifying it to drinking water standards using advanced water treatment technologies. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-20 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5.4.2 Wastewater Generation, Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Multiple Water Authority member agencies provide wastewater services wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Approximately 225 MGD of wastewater is currently generated, collected, treated, and disposed of within the Water Authority’s service area and provides significant potential for recycled water use. Most of the large wastewater treatment plants are located along the coast for easy and convenient access to an ocean outfall. These plants serve most of the San Diego region’s highly urbanized areas. Figure 5-4 shows the location of wastewater treatment plants in San Diego County (both within and outside of the Water Authority’s service area), and the associated outfall systems. The coastal location of the plants is not always conducive to development of recycled water. Most of the market for recycled water is located at higher elevations, making distribution systems costly. However, recycled water costs can be offset by possible savings on wastewater treatment costs where those savings are available. Table F-3, Appendix F shows a detailed list of the wastewater treatment plants within the county, their capacities at various levels of treatment, and the type of disposal. In unincorporated communities of San Diego County outside of the Water Authority service area, wastewater districts provide sewage treatment and disposal through percolation of effluent into the soil and/or reuse through irrigation of vegetation or agricultural crops. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-21 Figure 5-4. Wastewater Treatment and Water Recycling Facilities San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-22 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5.4.3 Encouraging Recycled Water Development The UWMP Act requires agencies to describe the actions, including financial incentives, that agencies may take to encourage the use of recycled water in their UWMPs. Local Water Supply Development Program The Water Authority administers the Local Water Supply Development Program (formerly the Recycled Water Development Fund Program, adopted by the Board in April 1991), which is designed to ensure the financial feasibility of local water recycling projects during their initial years of operation and to incentivize recycled water development in the Water Authority service area. To date, the Water Authority has entered into Local Water Supply Development Program agreements with 12 water and wastewater agencies for a combined project yield of over 46,000 AFY. Over $55 million in Water Authority incentive funding has been awarded to program participants. In fiscal year 2020, the Water Authority provided local agencies with $3 million in Local Water Supply Development Program incentives for agencies with existing executed agreements for recycled water projects. Funding Programs An important component of a successful recycling project is securing diversified funding and establishing funding partnerships. Table 5-4 summarizes existing funding programs used by the Water Authority’s member agencies. While some of the programs have been developed by water agencies, others are funded and implemented by local, state or federal agencies. Table 5-4. Programs or Efforts to Encourage Recycled Water Use Incentive Programs ▪ Local Water Supply Development (Water Authority) ▪ Local Resources Program (Metropolitan) ▪ On-Site Retrofit Program (Metropolitan) Grants ▪ Title XVI Funding Program (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) ▪ Proposition 50 the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 (California Department of Water Resources) ▪ Proposition 84 Planning Grants and Implementation (California Department of Water Resources) ▪ Proposition 1 (California Department of Water Resources) ▪ Proposition 68 (State Water Resources Control Board) ▪ Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) Low-Interest Loans ▪ Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (State of California) ▪ Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Regional Planning and Regulatory Assistance ▪ Regional coordination with member agencies and regulatory agencies on recycled water issues ▪ Initiate, review and comment on regulatory developments and legislation to support local projects ▪ Lead regional planning and grant funding through San Diego IRWM Program San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-23 The Water Authority has focused on providing and facilitating acquisition of outside funding for water recycling projects. Financial assistance programs used by County agencies include the following: • Metropolitan’s Local Resources Program • Reclamation’s Title XVI Grant Program • SWRCB low-interest loan programs • IRWM Grant Program Together, these programs offer funding assistance for all project phases, from initial planning and design, to construction and operation. Financial assistance programs administered by the Water Authority and Metropolitan provided $8.3 million to County agencies during fiscal year 2019. Metropolitan’s Local Resources Program The Local Resources Program (LRP), administered by Metropolitan, provides funding for the development of water recycling, groundwater recovery, and seawater desalination supplies that replace an existing demand or prevent a new demand on Metropolitan’s imported water deliveries. There are currently twelve active LRP Agreements between Water Authority member agencies and Metropolitan for recycled water projects. Reclamation’s Title XVI Grant Program Since 1995, the Title XVI Grant Program has been a significant source of funding for San Diego region’s water recycling projects. Projects funded by Title XVI provide communities with new and local sources of water that increase water management flexibility and reduce dependence on imported water. Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, authorized the federal government to fund up to 25% of the capital cost of authorized recycling projects, including the San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program, an inter-connected system of recycling projects serving the Metropolitan Sewage System service area. Public Law 104-266, the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996, authorized two additional projects in northern San Diego County: the North San Diego County Area Water Recycling Project and the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration Project. The North San Diego County project received its final federal funding in 2008 when it reached its maximum federal funding limit of $20 million. The City of Oceanside’s Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration Project was also completed and received final funding totaling $3,484,000. To date, San Diego region agencies have received more than $113 million under the Title XVI grant program. The funding mechanism for the San Diego region projects (and all other authorized Title XVI projects) was changed from direct appropriations to a competitive process that requires applications to be submitted in response to an annual Funding Opportunity Announcement. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-24 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Table 5-5 lists recycled water projects in the San Diego region that were authorized for Title XVI funding. Table 5-5. Authorized Title XVI Project Funding—San Diego Region Fiscal Year Authorization Applicant, Project Description or Program Funding 2016 City of San Diego San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program Pure Water San Diego Program $5,000,000 Padre Dam Municipal Water District San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program Padre Dam Water Recycling Facilities – Phase I Expansion $4,500,000 Sweetwater Authority San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program Sweetwater Authority Water Reclamation Project $3,700,000 2017 City of San Diego San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program Pure Water San Diego Program $4,200,000 Padre Dam Municipal Water District San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program Padre Dam Water Recycling Facilities—Phase I Expansion $3,900,000 2018 City of San Diego San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program Pure Water San Diego Program $9,000,000 Padre Dam Municipal Water District San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program East County Advanced Water Purification Program $7,392,351 City of Escondido San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program Membrane Filtration Reverse Osmosis Facility Project $5,000,000 2019 City of Escondido Membrane Filtration Reverse Osmosis Facility $3,069,303 City of San Diego Pure Water San Diego Program $1,160,139 Padre Dam Municipal Water District East County Advanced Water Purification Program $4,000,000 SWRCB Low-interest Loan Program The SWRCB, through its Division of Financial Assistance, offers low-interest financing agreements for water quality projects and water reclamation facilities. For fiscal years 2018 and 2019, the SWRCB made 153 binding commitments totaling over $1.5 billion in low-cost financing to eligible projects (SWRCB, 2020). The Clean Water State Revolving Fund offers agencies a below-market interest rate that can result in substantial savings on debt service. Approximately $114 million was allotted to the SWRCB in fiscal year 2019 for funding water recycling projects (SWRCB, 2020). Padre Dam MWD was awarded a $101.2 million funding San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-25 commitment from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a SWRCB managed low-interest loan program. The loan amount will support the expansion of Padre Dam Municipal Water District’s water reclamation facility, advanced water treatment, and brine line connection. Additional construction funding can be obtained through the Water Recycling Funding Program, which provides grants up to 35% of eligible construction costs incurred, including construction allowances. Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Grant Funding— Propositions 50,84 and 1 In 2007, the San Diego IRWM Program submitted a grant proposal to DWR for Proposition 50 grant funds and was awarded $25 million in grant funding. Section 8 Integrated Regional Water Management Planning describes the IRWM Program in more detail. Operation of the Recycled Water Retrofit Assistance Program, managed and administered by Water Authority staff on behalf of its member agencies, continues to provide Proposition 50 grant funding to the Water Authority’s member agencies and their customers. Project grant funding facilitated the retrofitting of user sites to receive recycled water and provided direct funding to water and wastewater agencies to make the required alterations and distribution system expansions to bring recycled water to their respective customer bases. In 2011, the San Diego IRWM Program was awarded $7.9 million in Proposition 84 Round 1 grant funds. One of the projects funded through this source was Phase I of the North San Diego County Regional Recycled Water Project. This project is an effort by North San Diego County water and wastewater agencies to regionalize recycled water systems by identifying new agency interconnections, seasonal storage opportunities, and indirect potable water use that would maximize supplies, reduce wastewater discharges to the ocean, reduce energy consumption due to diminished delivery of imported water, and allow recycled water to play an even more significant role in meeting the region’s future water needs. This project involved the support of many partners, including the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Vallecitos Water District, Santa Fe Irrigation District, City of Oceanside, Vista Irrigation District, Leucadia Water District, City of Vista/Buena Sanitation District, San Elijo Joint Powers Authority, City of Escondido, and Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District. In 2014, the San Diego IRWM Program was awarded approximately $10.5 million in grant funds made available through Proposition 84 Round 2. One of the selected projects helped to implement the 10 priority sub-projects identified in Phase I of the North San Diego County Regional Recycled Water Project. Phase II of the North San Diego County Regional Recycled Water Project helped to increase connectivity between recycled water facilities in north San Diego County. This effort increased the use of recycled water by allowing it to be distributed across the North County region and produced an estimated 6,790 AFY of recycled water. Project benefits included reducing imported water dependency, reducing discharge of recycled water to the ocean, reducing energy consumption from pumping imported water, and San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-26 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies providing more recycled water for future water needs. The agencies involved with this effort were the Leucadia Wastewater District, Vallecitos Water District, Vista Irrigation District, Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Santa Fe Irrigation District, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, the City of Escondido, the City of Oceanside, and the San Elijo Joint Powers Authority. In 2015, the San Diego region received $15 million to implement seven priority, drought-related projects by public agencies in the San Diego IRWM region. The funding was made available through the DWR’s Proposition 84 Drought Round (Round 3). In this round, two recycled water projects were funded: the Fallbrook Plant Nurseries Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Project and Carlsbad Recycled Water Plant and Distribution System Expansion Project. Fallbrook’s project aimed to deliver 642 AF of additional recycled water to users while Carlsbad’s project increased treatment capacity at the Carlsbad Water Recycled Facility from 4 to 6 MGD. In 2016, the San Diego region was awarded $31.1 million in grant money for the final round of Proposition 84 for a variety of projects in the region that aimed to increase local water supplies, decrease water demands, improve water quality, manage stormwater, restore habitat and enhance species. A total of 13 geographically representative projects were selected; two of them were recycled water projects. The Escondido Advanced Water Treatment for Agriculture project, in the North County region, will construct a new microfiltration and reverse osmosis advanced treatment facility to produce advanced treated water, which will then be blended with water from an existing recycled water plant for agricultural use. Also funded through this round of IRWM funding was the Padre Dam Advanced Water Treatment, Phase I Expansion which received a total of $6 million for the expansion of the Ray Stoyer Water Reclamation Facility by 4 MGD. In 2020, the San Diego IRWM Program was awarded $15.3 million for Proposition Round 1 for a total of eight regional projects. Two of the eight projects have the primary benefit of providing water supply through non-potable water recycling, the North County Recycled Water Project and the San Elijo Stormwater Capture and Reuse Project. The North County Recycled Water Project will produce 265 AFY and allow four member agencies to expand their recycled water deliveries. In total, the San Diego region has received more than $111 million in IRWM funding, which has supported 74 priority projects and development of the 2019 IRWM Plan update. Below, Table 5-6 lists the recycled water projects that have received grant funds through the San Diego IRWM Program. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-27 Table 5-6. Recycled Water Grant Sources Funding Proposition Project Lead Agency Grant Award Proposition 50 Ray Stoyer Water Recycling Facility Demonstration Plant for Advanced Water Treatment Padre Dam Municipal Water District $3,000,000 Recycled Water Retrofit Assistance Program Water Authority $800,000 Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion City of San Diego $4,765,146 Proposition 84 Round 1 North San Diego County Regional Recycled Water Project Olivenhain Municipal Water District $1,455,000 North San Diego County Demineralization Project San Elijo Joint Powers Authority $1,018,500 Proposition 84 Round 2 North San Diego County Regional Recycled Water Project Phase II Olivenhain Municipal Water District $3,452,000 Failsafe Potable Reuse at the Advanced Water Purification Facility WateReuse Research Foundation $2,113,000 Rural Disadvantaged Community Partnership, Phase II Rural Community Assistance Corporation $350,300 Proposition 84 Drought Round Fallbrook Plant Nurseries Recycled Water System Expansion Fallbrook Public Utility District $772,000 Carlsbad Recycled Water Plant and Distribution System Carlsbad Municipal Water District $4,000,000 Proposition 84 Final Round Padre Dam Advanced Water Treatment Phase I Expansion Padre Dam Municipal Water District $6,000,000 $2,900,000 Safari Park Drought Response and Outreach Zoological Society of San Diego $2,500,000 Integrated Water Resource Solutions for the Carlsbad Watershed San Elijo Joint Powers Authority $2,000,000 Escondido Advanced Water Treatment for Agriculture City of Escondido $2,000,000 UC San Diego Water Conservation and Watershed Protection Project University of California, San Diego $1,435,000 Rural Disadvantaged Community Partnership, Phase III Rural Community Assistance Corporation $462,654 Proposition 1 Disadvantaged Community Involvement Grant Alternative Non-Potable Water Supplies, Xeriscape Design University of California, San Diego $1,987,954 Proposition 1 Round 1 North County Recycled Water Project San Elijo Joint Powers Authority $2,820,000 San Elijo Stormwater Capture and Reuse San Elijo Joint Powers Authority $1,195,000 Total $39,011,554 San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-28 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Optimizing the Use of Recycled Water—Regional Coordination In addition to disseminating funding opportunities and providing technical assistance to apply for funding, Water Authority staff also provide regional coordination on planning and regulatory issues to help reduce costs associated with development of recycled water. In support of the SWRCB call for salinity and nutrient management planning, the Water Authority, in cooperation with the Southern California Salinity Coalition (SCSC), worked in partnership with the San Diego RWQCB staff to develop Guidelines for Salinity/Nutrient Management Planning in the San Diego Region (Water Authority et al, 2010). The Recycled Water Policy encouraged a stakeholder-driven process for the development of salt and nutrient management plans (SNMPs) on a basin-wide basis, as opposed to an individual discharge permit level. The San Diego region was unique in that the planning process encompassed 17 fairly small groundwater basins with varying levels of use and variable water quality. Consistent with the Recycled Water Policy, the Southern California Salinity Coalition and the Water Authority worked with local stakeholders and San Diego RWQCB staff to develop a standardized framework and approach for development of salt and nutrient management plans in the region. The Guidelines for Salinity/Nutrient Management Planning were endorsed by the San Diego RWQCB in November 2010. The Guidelines for Salinity/Nutrient Management Planning establish priorities based on each basin’s characteristics and importance within the region. The guidelines provide technical approaches and strategies for managing salt and nutrients. Guidelines provide regulatory certainty for stakeholders, and helped to expedite the development of the first SNMPs in the region. IRWM grant funding was secured in 2011 with support from the San Diego RWQCB to help fund the development of the first five SNMPs in the San Diego region through Proposition 84 grant funding. A total of eight SNMPs have been or are in the process of being developed in the San Diego region. Implementation of the SNMPs will improve overall water quality and use of groundwater resources in the San Diego region. The Guidelines for Salinity/Nutrient Management Planning were highlighted as an example of a regional basin prioritization system during the SWRCB’s 2018 amendment to the Recycled Water Policy. The amendment supports region-specific basin evaluations to provide a more accurate water quality assessment compared to relying on statewide systems. The policy also acknowledges that the most effective salt and nutrient management is likely to be achieved through local SNMPs rather than imposing requirements solely on individual projects or sources of salts and nutrients. The Recycled Water Policy requires each Water Board to evaluate basins in its region before April 8, 2021 and identify where salts and nutrients are a threat to water quality and need salt and nutrient management planning. California WateReuse Action Plan The California WateReuse Action Plan (WateReuse, 2019) provides a clear and concise strategy to advance water reuse in California over 30 years. It was released in July 2019 by WateReuse San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-29 California in collaboration with Water Authority staff and water agency representatives across California. The plan identifies four strategic areas for action: research, regulations, regional planning, and funding. These actions and 20 specific recommendations will more than double the use of water recycling in California and prepare the state for the impacts of climate change. Increasing water recycling is a key component of Governor Newsom’s comprehensive 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio (California Natural Resources Agency et al., 2020) to address the state’s water challenges. The Water Resilience Portfolio features many recommendations contained in the California WateReuse Action Plan. National Water Reuse Action Plan The National Water Reuse Action Plan (WRAP; USEPA, 2020) is a plan to advance water reuse across the nation in a coordinated and collaborative effort to ensure water security, sustainability, and resilience. The USEPA and its federal partners released the WRAP in February 2020 following a public process that engaged other federal, state, and local water leaders. The WateReuse Association also led a coalition of partner water associations including the Water Authority to provide input into the plan. The WRAP identifies 10 strategic objectives and 46 actions to be implemented by federal, state, local and private sector partners. Water Authority staff is participating in implementation of the WRAP through WateReuse and participation in federal workgroups. 5.4.4 Projected Recycled Water Use The Water Authority worked closely with its member agencies to determine the projected yield from existing and planned recycled water projects. Table 5-7 shows the estimated annual yield from the projects in five-year increments based on the implementation schedules provided by the member agencies and the likelihood of development. These projected supply yields will be included in the reliability analysis found in Section 9 Water Supply Reliability. Table F-4 in Appendix F contains a detailed list of these projects and projected supplies. Table 5-7. Projected Recycled Water Use (Normal Year, AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 37,372 42,993 46,493 46,593 46,693 46,793 As shown in Table 5-7 above, the projected normal year yield for 2020 is 37,372 AFY. The increase in projected recycled water use shown in Table 5-7 in 2025 and beyond is primarily from the expansion of existing facilities. For example, the City of Oceanside is in the process of expanding their current recycled water system via the Upper and Lower Recycled Water System Expansion Project. These expansions entail constructing the upper conveyance system in the northeastern portion of the city and the lower conveyance system in the southeastern region of the system. The upper conveyance system will construct approximately 60,700 feet of recycled water pipeline, a 3-million gallon storage reservoir, and a pump station. The lower system will construct 28,500 linear feet of recycled water pipeline, a 2.2-million gallon reservoir, a pump San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-30 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies station and connections to existing recycled water pipeline. The Upper and Lower Recycled Water System Expansion Project will provide up to 2,640 AFY to agricultural, landscape and urban irrigation customers. The first year of operation is scheduled for 2021. Additionally, the City of Escondido’s Advanced Water Treatment for Agriculture project, funded under Proposition 84, will construct a new microfiltration/reverse osmosis advanced treatment facility with a total production capacity of 3,280 AFY upon completion in 2021. Water treated at the microfiltration/reverse osmosis facility will be blended with tertiary treated water from an existing recycled water plant and distributed to agricultural customers in the northern and eastern areas of Escondido. The City of Escondido has partnered with Escondido Growers for Agricultural Preservation, the City of San Diego, and Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District to implement this project. This project supports the San Diego region’s goals of supply reliability and sustainability and protects water quality while supporting local agriculture and the economy. Additional Planned Projects—Recycled Water Maximizing recycled water development is critical to diversifying the region’s water supply portfolio. Beyond the verifiable project yields included in Table 5-7 above, member agencies have also identified additional planned projects. Carlsbad Municipal Water District, MCB Camp Pendleton, and Olivenhain Municipal Water District have identified additional planned projects that are projected to yield an additional 4,765 AFY by 2025. These yields are considered additional planned supplies and are used in Section 10 Scenario Planning—Managing an Uncertain Future. These additional planned projects, as well as the conceptual projects provided by the member agencies, are also included in Table F-4 in Appendix F. Potable Reuse Supply Numerous drivers make potable reuse an attractive option for the San Diego region and throughout California. Climate change is creating unpredictable weather patterns, which may result in recurring droughts and cause scarcity of water supply. Potable reuse is a renewable resource that is drought resilient and locally controlled. Maximizing the use of recycled water can also reduce impacts and costs associated with discharging wastewater to the ocean. Potable reuse can provide a cost-effective, sustainable, and high-quality drinking water supply for the region. 5.5.1 Potable Reuse Background and Description Recycled water can be further treated for potable reuse through the use of multi-barrier advanced purification treatment processes, which may include technologies such as reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation. Potable reuse is considered indirect when a groundwater basin or surface water reservoir is incorporated to provide additional treatment for potable purposes. Recycled water may be percolated into the groundwater, or highly treated water can be directly injected into the groundwater basin. Recycled water may also be added to a raw San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-31 water reservoir used as drinking water supply in which it blends with imported water or other local supply. Projects that deliver advanced treated water directly to a raw or treated water pipeline are considered direct potable reuse. In raw water augmentation, recycled water is added to a raw water supply immediately upstream of a water treatment plant. In treated drinking water augmentation, recycled water is placed directly into the water distribution system. Several Water Authority member agencies are planning potable reuse projects in San Diego County. As part of these efforts, agencies have participated in research studies, implemented pilot projects to determine project viability, and conducted extensive public outreach programs. The City of San Diego and Padre Dam MWD are pursuing reservoir augmentation projects, also referred to as surface water augmentation. The City of Oceanside is constructing a groundwater augmentation project, which will be the first potable reuse project in San Diego County. In addition, a large coalition of member agencies in North County are evaluating indirect and direct potable reuse as part of a plan to optimize water recycling efforts. Detailed member agency project information can be found in Section 5.5.3 Project Supply through Potable Reuse. De facto or incidental reuse has taken place for many years as wastes are discharged to rivers and collected and treated for potable water supplies downstream. Clean Water Act standards placed on waste discharges and treatment requirements for water suppliers through the Safe Drinking Water Act have been designed to avoid waterborne disease outbreaks and to ensure a safe and reliable potable water supply for customers. These requirements protect the public from waterborne disease outbreaks and health impacts from chemical constituents and emerging compounds. The longest standing groundwater recharge project in California has been in existence since 1962. Locally, potable reuse was first considered in the early and mid-1990s. The Water Authority and the City of San Diego proposed a potable reuse project that would deliver advanced treated water from the North City Water Reclamation Plant and convey it to San Vicente Reservoir where it would be blended with imported and local surface water prior to being treated at a surface water treatment plant. The Water Authority created a citizens advisory group to advise the Water Authority on the suitability of potable reuse as a water supply for San Diego County. In 1994, the Repurified Water Review Committee recommended pursuit of potable reuse part of a diversified mix of water supplies. The Water Authority sponsored the work of an Independent Advisory Panel of experts for indirect potable reuse and, along with the City of San Diego, conducted detailed studies that were submitted to state health authorities to determine regulatory guidelines for an indirect potable reuse project blending advanced treated recycled water in San Vicente Reservoir. The Drinking Water Program at California Department of Public Health, now the DDW under the SWRCB, approved this concept of reservoir augmentation in 1996. In 1998, the Water Authority co-funded a report by the National Research Council titled Issues in Potable Reuse: The Viability of Augmenting Drinking Water Supplies with Reclaimed San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-32 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Water (National Research Council, 1998), which concluded that planned indirect potable reuse was a viable water supply option. In 2006, the City of San Diego again began planning for a potable reuse project and, in 2012, DDW and the San Diego RWQCB conceptually approved the City of San Diego’s proposed indirect potable reuse project for surface water augmentation. In May 2020, the San Diego RWQCB adopted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to allow the City of San Diego to add purified water to the Miramar Reservoir for the Pure Water San Diego Program. This is the first NPDES permit approved for a reservoir augmentation project in California. Although there aren’t yet any DPR projects approved yet in California, there has been significant progress in California and across the nation. The first permanent DPR project in the nation began operation in Texas in response to extreme drought conditions. Since that time, there has been many years of advanced research concerning potable reuse in California and elsewhere that demonstrates reliable technology is available for agencies to safely implement DPR as a potentially viable treatment option. DDW has the authority to permit direct potable reuse projects and is moving forward with developing uniform criteria (regulations). Uniform DPR regulations will permit water suppliers in San Diego to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and produce a new, safe, and viable potable water supply for the San Diego region. As water supplies become increasingly scarce, particularly in the arid west, more potable reuse such projects are likely to be proposed. Economic and Financial Considerations Potable reuse projects are being considered when they are deemed cost-effective and feasible compared with non-potable recycled water projects. Potable reuse projects have an advantage as they do not require construction of a dual distribution system, and once treatment and conveyance facilities have been constructed, the full amount of water produced can be immediately available to augment local water supplies. Costs for potable reuse are in range with other locally developed supplies. An added cost advantage may result as a potable reuse project may also contribute to meeting waste discharge requirements. Cost of conveyance to move advanced treated water to a local reservoir can be a significant component of a project cost. Advanced treated water delivered to a reservoir closer to the point of production can significantly reduce project costs. Regulatory requirements can have a significant impact on overall project costs. Institutional The institutional arrangements between wastewater agencies and water suppliers for potable reuse projects in the region are similar to those for recycled water, as described in Section 5.4.1 Recycled Water Description. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-33 However, there are additional factors to consider with potable reuse related to treatment technologies, regulatory requirements, and increased coordination needed between operators of advanced treatment facilities and local surface water treatment facilities for projects with a downstream surface water treatment plant. The importance of operator certification was identified by water supply agencies and by the SWRCB’s expert panel on direct potable reuse in their 2016 report. In response to this need, the California-Nevada Section of the American Water Works Association (CA-NV AWWA) and the California Water Environment Association (CWEA) jointly developed an advanced water treatment operator certification program. After four years of development with input from diverse stakeholders and experts, the certification program launched in July 2020. Support for the program including funding was provided by the Water Authority, WateReuse California, and other water utilities throughout California. The certification program for advanced water treatment operators will support the increased knowledge and coordination required to ensure a safe reliable drinking water supply. Public Acceptance Like recycled water, public acceptance for potable reuse projects is critical for the success of the project. Potable reuse projects are under a high level of public scrutiny to ensure the safety of the drinking water supply. While the technology for potable reuse projects has been proven, these projects must garner public acceptance. In the San Diego region, project proponents have done a significant level of public outreach for potable reuse projects. Tours of demonstration facilities, such as those constructed by the City of San Diego and Padre Dam Municipal Water District, have proven highly successful in educating the public on the safety of the product water. Agencies have further developed informational videos, conducted in-person tours, and have made virtual tours of their projects available at any time to the public. Polls in the San Diego region have demonstrated increasing public acceptance of potable reuse as a safe water supply. The Water Authority has worked with the member agencies through the Potable Reuse Coordination Committee to develop common language and messaging throughout the region. This ad hoc committee, consisting of regional agencies interested in developing and promoting potable reuse projects, meets on an as needed basis to engage and keep the member agencies informed on the latest potable reuse regulatory, legislative, and stakeholder outreach efforts at the local and state levels. In addition, the Water Authority participates on the WateReuse California Communications Collaborative Group formed in October 2018 to provide a forum to discuss and collaborate on potable water reuse communications. In October 2019, the group released an Updated Terminology Document approved by WateReuse California and ACWA. It provides outreach professionals with a framework to discuss water reuse with the public and a glossary of commonly encountered technical reuse terms. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-34 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Legislative and Regulatory Legislative Requirements to Develop Potable Reuse Regulations Potable reuse projects undergo a high level of regulatory oversight. Historically, projects were approved on a case-by-case basis, and an expert panel was convened to look at project specifics and provide recommendations to the project proponent and DDW. The California Legislature has passed several pieces of legislation to support development of potable reuse regulations in the state. SB 918 in 2010 and SB 322 in 2013, legislation sponsored and actively supported by the Water Authority, expedited the development of regulations for surface water augmentation. Specifically, the bills directed the state to: • Adopt regulations for indirect potable reuse through groundwater recharge by December 31, 2013 (later moved to July 1, 2014). • Form an expert panel to provide recommendations to DDW on the surface water augmentation regulations and feasibility of direct potable reuse. • Form a public advisory group representing diverse water supply, environmental, and business interests to provide input to the expert panel on issues related to direct potable reuse, with all of the public advisory group meetings to be open and transparent public meetings. • Adopt regulations for surface water (reservoir) augmentation by December 31, 2016. • Report to the legislature by December 31, 2016 on the ability to adopt regulations for direct potable reuse. The California Legislature also passed AB 574 in 2017. This legislation, co-sponsored by the WateReuse California and California Coastkeeper Alliance, further expedited development of regulations for DPR, and required: • Requires the SWRCB to adopt uniform water recycling criteria for direct potable reuse through raw water augmentation by December 31, 2023, with an option to extend by June 30, 2023 the deadline by up to 18 months. • Requires the SWRCB to form an expert panel to review draft regulations. • The SWRCB should establish a framework for the regulation of potable reuse projects by June 1, 2018. • Defined direct potable reuse to include raw water augmentation, placement of recycled water into a raw water supply immediately upstream of a water treatment plant, and treated drinking water augmentation, placement of recycled water into the water distribution system. • Redefined surface water augmentation to reservoir water augmentation to mean the planned placement of recycled water into a raw surface water reservoir used as drinking supply. Both terms are commonly used interchangeably. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-35 0BDevelopment of Potable Reuse Regulations Summary timeline: • June 2014 - CDPH adopted regulations for groundwater potable reuse projects • December 2016 – SWRCB reported to the California Legislature that it is feasible to develop regulations for direct potable reuse • March 2018 – SWRCB adopted surface water augmentation regulations • April 2018 - SRWCB released its first draft of the Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California • December 2020 - SWRCB initiated the process to reconvene the DPR Expert Panel • December 2023 – SWRCB is required to adopt regulations for DPR through raw water augmentation, with an option to extend up to 18 months In June 2014, CDPH adopted regulatory criteria for approval of groundwater recharge projects. In March 2018, the SWRCB adopted surface water augmentation regulations. SB 322 was critical in helping move the evaluation of direct potable reuse forward in California. Expert science panels and stakeholder advisory groups have provided important key support for the development of surface water augmentation and DPR regulations in California. In February 2014, CDPH formed the Public Advisory Group, which included the City of San Diego and Padre Dam MWD, as well as other San Diego interests. The Public Advisory Group provided recommendations to DDW on the formation of an expert panel to provide recommendations on technical issues related to surface water augmentation criteria and the feasibility of adopting regulations for potable reuse. The Public Advisory Group weighed in on developing common terminology to describe potable reuse and the need for having certified and qualified operators for advanced treatment facilities. The Advisory Group also expressed interest in economic impacts and viability of implementing potable reuse as well as public health concerns, including emerging contaminants The Expert Panel convened in 2014 and was administered by the National Water Research Institute (NWRI). The panel was comprised of experts in the fields of toxicology, wastewater treatment, drinking water supplies treatment, drinking water standards, epidemiology, limnology, microbiology, and chemistry. The panel considered the proposed research agenda of the WateReuse Research Foundation and provided recommendations to DDW regarding possible research gaps. DDW presented for consideration a proposed framework for surface water augmentation, the focus of which will be on multiple treatment barriers for removal of pathogens and chemical constituents and approaches for ensuring the reliable monitoring and operation of the treatment processes. The Expert Panel completed its Final Report on Investigation on the Feasibility of Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse (SWRCB, 2016) in August 2016. The panel provided recommendations related to public health issues and the scientific and technical matters regarding the feasibility of developing uniform water recycling criteria for DPR. As required by law, the SWRCB considered the recommendations of the Expert Panel and Advisory San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-36 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Group in its report to the legislature. The Expert Panel found that it is technically feasible to develop uniform for DPR in California, with public health protection as good as or better than conventional drinking water supplies and indirect potable reuse. They found there was no need for additional research to establish criteria for DPR but provided six research recommendations to increase understanding of DPR further ensure that public health protections related to source control, final water quality monitoring, pathogen removal, and analytical methods to identify unknown contaminants. Significant progress in these research areas has been made since the panel’s recommendations. The SWRCB also convenes a science advisory panel on CECs in recycled water through the Recycled Water Policy. The policy includes a provision to reconvene a panel every five years to update monitoring recommendations for CECs. The panel provided its most recommendations in 2018 for monitoring for CECs in recycled water and potable reuse that are being incorporated into surface water augmentation projects. In addition, DDW released A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California (SWRCB, 2019) that provides a regulatory approach for direct potable reuse and consideration of drinking water treatment plants. In December 2020, the SWRCB initiated the process to reconvene the DPR Expert Panel to advise in the development of regulations, as required AB 574. DDW plans to develop criteria concurrently for both raw water and treated drinking water augmentation. Permitting of Potable Reuse Projects Potable reuse projects require close collaboration between the San Diego RWQCB and DDW. Local groundwater recharge projects are permitted by the San Diego RWQCB under reclamation criteria or waste discharge requirements, with requirements from DDW incorporated to ensure the protection of public health. Groundwater projects will conform to the groundwater recharge criteria. Local surface water augmentation projects are also permitted by the San Diego RWQCB for the discharge into local reservoirs. For any discharge to waters of the United States, a discharge permit meeting federal Clean Water Act requirements is required. The new advanced treated water supply is also regulated by DDW as a drinking water supply under the Safe Drinking Water Act. DDW’s requirements are incorporated into the NPDES permits. Importance of Science-Based Regulations The primary obligation of all drinking water suppliers is to protect public health, and the Water Authority promotes the importance of research in regulation development. To instill confidence that the public’s health is protected, drinking water suppliers are commit complying with all regulations to ensure drinking water is safe and to provide transparency so information about drinking water is broadly available to the public. Potable reuse projects will be required to achieve the same high standard of public health protection as any other drinking water supply. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-37 Because of the high standards required for protecting public health and the extensive use of treatment technology to meet drinking water standards for potable reuse, science-based research is essential to the regulatory development process and to instilling public confidence. The California WateReuse Action Plan (WateReuse, 2019) highlights research needed to ensure protection of public health as advanced forms of recycled water become widespread in the state. The 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio (California Natural Resources Agency et al., 2020) also calls for continuing research underway identified in the DPR criteria feasibility report to the Legislature and convene an expert panel to review the proposed criteria to assure they are adequately protective of public health. Funding of Potable Reuse Projects The primary sources of outside funding available for potable reuse projects include Title XVI, Clean Water State Revolving Funds, the Water Recycling Funding Program, and the State’s IRWM Grant Program. These funding sources are described in Section 5.4.3 Encouraging Recycled Water Development. Under the IRWM Grant Program, Propositions 50 and 84 have already provided support for potable reuse through the San Diego IRWM Program by funding the City of San Diego’s water purification demonstration project, the Padre Dam MWD’s potable reuse demonstration project, and the Failsafe Potable Reuse project. These projects provided the research necessary to move potable reuse forward in the San Diego region and in California. Proposition 84 also provided funding for the expansion of Padre Dam MWD’s Ray Stoyer Water Reclamation Facility, which will increase supply availability for potable reuse projects. In 2020, the IRWM Program announced a Proposition 1 grant award to the San Diego region for a suite of projects that include the City of San Diego Pure Water Program and Pure Water Oceanside. Proposition 1 will provide funding for key components of the City of San Diego’s Pure Water Program, which is the state’s first potable reuse project via surface water augmentation. It will also provide support to Oceanside Pure Water, an indirect potable reuse project that will recharge the Mission Groundwater Basin with highly treated recycled water via injection wells. 5.5.2 Water Authority Activities in Support of Potable Reuse For over 20 years, the Water Authority has been a staunch supporter and an active participant in advancing the goal of implementing potable reuse in the County. The Water Authority’s more recent focus on efforts to advance potable reuse have been through advocacy for legislation and regulations that move projects forward in the near term. Water Authority staff has been prominently involved through participation in the national WateReuse Association and WateReuse California legislative and regulatory committees, and though other regulatory advocacy venues, including attending and providing comments at Expert Panel meetings by serving on stakeholder committee meetings, and advocating and supporting member agency interests. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-38 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies The Water Authority has also been able to track trends in public acceptance of recycled water through its public opinion survey. This effort provides a foundation for member agency outreach and measures the effectiveness of those outreach efforts. In 2012, 71% of respondents believed that it was possible to further treat recycled water used for irrigation to make the water pure and safe for drinking. This was an increase over the 2011 survey findings where 66% of respondents felt that it is possible to further treat recycled water for drinking purposes. However, both the 2011 and 2012 survey results represent a substantial increase over the 2009 survey response where just 53% thought it was possible. Water Authority staff has been supporting member agencies in three key areas: public outreach and messaging, engaging with regulatory agencies and the Expert Panel, and helping secure funding for local projects. While member agencies will lead the development of their own specific projects, the need continues for regional coordination and collaboration on potable reuse issues. Water Authority staff will continue to engage with member agencies and DDW to ensure that the regulatory framework developed by DDW and reviewed by the Expert Panel considers the wide range of approaches expected as part of member agency projects. In addition, Water Authority staff has supported member agencies by actively engaging in public outreach in support of member agency projects. This support has included: • Coordinate with member agencies through the Joint Public Information Committee to develop common outreach messaging that will support potable reuse projects. • Coordinate with the member agencies through the Potable Reuse Coordination Committee and Recycled Water Workgroups. • Outreach to the general public to increase public acceptance of potable reuse through presentations, development of handout materials and videos for public outreach events and use by the member agencies, and sharing of information through the Water Authority’s website. • Communicate with regional, local, state, and federal elected officials on the importance of potable reuse for the San Diego region to gain support for potable reuse. • Communicate with SWRCB members and staff on the safety and importance of potable reuse. • Collaborate with other organizations that support potable reuse including WateReuse, the Water Reliability Coalition, and state and local environmental groups on common outreach to support potable reuse. • Advocate at the state and local level for reasonable regulations that will support the safe use of recycled water for local potable reuse projects. • Partner with the Southern California Water Coalition through its Recycled Water Task Force to develop public education and outreach videos on recycled water and potable reuse. San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-39 5.5.3 Projected Supply through Potable Reuse The Water Authority worked closely with its member agencies to determine the projected yield from existing and planned potable water reuse projects. Table 5-8 shows the estimated verifiable annual yield from the projects in five-year increments based on the implementation schedules provided by the member agencies and the likelihood of development. These projected supply yields are included in the reliability analysis in Section 9 Water Supply Reliability.” Table F-5 in Appendix F lists these projects and projected supplies. Table 5-8. Projected Potable Reuse Water Use (Normal Year, AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 -- 33,042 53,202 112,562 112,562 112,562 The significant projected increase in potable reuse shown in Table 5-8 is from new potable reuse projects and facilities for Pure Water Oceanside, Pure Water San Diego, and the East County Advanced Water Purification Program (East County AWP). The City of Oceanside began construction in 2020 to expand its existing recycled water system and develop an advanced water purification project known as Pure Water Oceanside. Pure Water Oceanside will purify recycled water from the San Luis Rey Water Reclamation Facility through advanced treatment to create a new local and high quality drinking water for the City. Water will be purified using filtration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light advanced oxidation, before it is injected into the Mission Basin Aquifer where it will blend with naturally occurring groundwater and recharge the aquifer. The water will be extracted and treated at the Mission Basin Groundwater Purification Facility before distribution to customers. Pure Water Oceanside is on track to be the first potable reuse project to deliver water in San Diego County, and will provide more than 30% of the City’s water supply. The City of San Diego’s Pure Water San Diego is a phased, multi-year program that will produce purified water to supplement San Diego's drinking water supply. Phase 1, categorized as verifiable, is scheduled to be operational by 2025 and will produce up to 33,600 AFY by 2035 to the Miramar Reservoir for surface water augmentation. Tertiary treated water from the North City Water Reclamation Plant will be treated by the North City Pure Water Facility for delivery to the Miramar Reservoir. The purified water will blend in the reservoir with the City’s local and imported supplies and be treated at the Miramar Water Treatment Plant before distribution to customers. Phase 2, also categorized as verifiable, is scheduled to be operational by 2035 and will produce up to 59,360 AFY. By the end of 2035, Phases 1 and 2 will provide an ultimate program production capacity of 83 MGD which would provide one-third of San Diego's water supply. Pure Water San Diego will also reduce the amount of treated wastewater that is discharged to the ocean by more than 50%. The East County AWP is a multi-phased surface water augmentation project that will purify East San Diego County’s recycled water to produce a new local and sustainable drinking water supply. The East County AWP was formed through a partnership between Padre Dam MWD, San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-40 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies Helix Water District, the County of San Diego, and the City of El Cajon. The project will be maintained and operated by Padre Dam MWD and owned by the East County AWP Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA consist of Padre Dam MWD, the City of El Cajon and the County of San Diego that and was formed in November 2019 to serve as the program’s governing body. The first phase is categorized as verifiable supply and will provide up to 12,880 AFY of purified water to Lake Jennings with an ultimate capacity of 15,680 AFY. It is scheduled to begin distributing water in 2025 and is expected to meet 30% of East County’s current drinking water demands. Conceptual Potable Reuse Projects There are several conceptual potable reuse projects in the San Diego region. The North County One Water Program is part of a regional project formed by the north San Diego Water Reuse Coalition, a nine-member coalition of water and wastewater agencies, to maximize reuse in northern San Diego County through non-potable and potable reuse. In July 2018, the Encina Wastewater Authority released a Water Reuse Feasibility Study (2018), to study opportunities to increase reuse of its effluent through potable reuse. The report considered a centralized location for largescale production of recycled water could capture economies of scale to benefit the region. The North County One Water Program would reuse treated effluent form the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility and San Elijo Water Reclamation Facility, accounting for up to 21,500 AFY by 2035. Conceptual potable reuse projects also include the City of Escondido’s potable reuse project, Olivenhain MWD’s San Dieguito River Basin Brackish Groundwater Recovery and Treatment project, and Vallecitos Water District’s Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility DPR project. Conceptual projects include subsequent phases of the East County AWP. Member Agency Seawater Desalination Supply 5.6.1 Carlsbad Desalination Plant In 2015 and 2016, Vallecitos Water District and Carlsbad Municipal Water District both entered into contracts with the Water Authority to purchase desalinated water. Vallecitos Water District and Carlsbad Municipal Water District currently purchase and plan to continue purchasing 3,500 and 2,500 AF per year respectively, representing a total 6,000 AF of water for member agency seawater desalination water supply annually. San Luis Rey Water Transfer Supply 5.7.1 Supply Description The San Luis Rey Water Transfer supply originated from the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, which was passed by Congress in 1988 to settle disputes between the Settlement Parties. The Settlement Parties are listed as follows: San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-41 • Indian Bands — The Indian Bands are comprised of the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians, and act through the governing bodies of each respective Band as recognized by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior • Local Entities — The Local Entities are the City of Escondido and Vista Irrigation District • San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority Through the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, the U.S. authorized up to 16,000 AF per calendar year of conserved water from projects like lining portions of the AA and CC Canals for the Settlement Parties to resolve water right disputes on the San Luis Rey River. Additionally, the Agreement for the Conveyance of Water Among the San Diego County Water Authority, the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties and the United States was entered into on October 10, 2003. This agreement established terms and conditions for the Supplemental Water Transfer deliveries that included obligation conditions, transportation rate, and creation of a delivery protocol document. On December 5, 2014, the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Implementing Agreement was entered into by the City of Escondido, Vista Irrigation District, the State of California, the San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, and the Bands for the purpose of resolving all claims, controversies and issues involved in all of the pending proceedings among the parties. The Water Authority is required to convey the supplemental water transfer supplied by the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority to the City of Escondido and the Vista Irrigation District. San Luis Rey Water Delivery In 2017, the City of Escondido and Vista Irrigation District (i.e., the Local Entities) began receiving wheeled water deliveries from the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority. Beginning September 2019, the San Pasqual Band began receiving a small portion of the supplemental water transfer wheeled through Valley Center Municipal Water District. Additionally, the Rincon Band recently exercised its exchange option as provided for in the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Implementing Agreement for exchange of City of Escondido and Vista Irrigation District local water supply for supplemental water provided to the Rincon Band. Total projected supplemental water transfers for the City of Escondido and Vista Irrigation District, under the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, are shown in Table 5-9. Table 5-9. Projected Water Transfers (Normal Year, AFY) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 15,800 15,800 15,800 15,800 15,800 15,800 References California Natural Resources Agency, California Environment Protection Agency, and California Department of Food & Agriculture. 2020. 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio: In Response to the Executive Order N-10-19. July 2020. Available: https://waterresilience.ca.gov/wp- San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft 5-42 Section 5 Member Agency Supplies content/uploads/2020/07/Final_California-Water-Resilience-Portfolio-2020_ADA3_v2_ay11- opt.pdf County of San Diego. 2010. General Plan Update – Final Program Environmental Impact Report. Available: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/gpupdate/environmental.html DWR. 2016. Bulletin 118 Interim Update 2016, California’s Groundwater—Working Toward Sustainability. Available: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin- 118 Encina Wastewater Authority. 2018. Water Reuse Feasibility Study. Final Report. July 2018. Available: https://www.encinajpa.com/images/EWA_Water_Reuse_Feasibility_Study_2018.pdf San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego RWQCB). 1994, as amended though May 2016. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ SWRCB. 2016. Investigation on the Feasibility of Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse. Report to the Legislature, December 2016, In Compliance with Water Code Section 13563. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/rw_dpr_cri teria/final_report.pdf SWRCB. 2018. Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/policy.html SWRCB. 2019. A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California. Second Edition, August 2019. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/direct_pot able_reuse/dprframewkseced.pdf SWRCB. 2020. Drinking Water SRF and Clean Water SRF FY 2020-2021 Intended Use Plan Workshop. May 20, 2020. Water Authority, Southern California Salinity Coalition, and Michael Welch. 2010. Guidelines for Salinity/Nutrient Management Planning in the San Diego Region. Available: https://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/files/water- management/recycled/salinity_management_guidelines.pdf Water Authority. 2019. Water Issues Survey: Summary Report. September 19, 2019. Available: https://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/SDCWA%20Water%20Issues%20Survey%202019%2 0Report%20v3R.pdf Water Authority. 2020. Aqueduct Operating Plan: July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020. Available: https://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/AOP_2020_Final_20190606.pdf San Diego County Water Authority March 2021 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Public Review Draft Section 5 Member Agency Supplies 5-43 WateReuse California. 2019. California WateReuse Action Plan. July 2019. Available: https://watereuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/WateReuse-CA-Action-Plan_July- 2019_r5-2.pdf USEPA. 2020. National Water Reuse Action Plan: Improving the Security, Sustainability, and Resilience of Our Nation’s Water Resources. February 2020. Available: https://www.epa.gov/waterreuse/water-reuse-action-plan National Research Council. 1998. Issues in Potable Reuse: The Viability of Augmenting Drinking Water Supplies with Reclaimed Water. Appendix H Water Shortage Contingency Plan Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan Prepared by WSC Inc. & Otay Water District 6/30/2021 i Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 Water Supply Reliability Analysis ...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures ........................................................... 2 2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Water Supply ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2.3 Unconstrained Customer Demand ........................................................................................... 2 2.2.4 Planned Water Use for Current Year Considering Dry Subsequent Year ................................. 3 2.2.5 Infrastructure Considerations ................................................................................................... 3 2.2.6 Other Factors ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Six Standard Water Shortage Stages ................................................................................................. 3 4.0 Shortage Response Actions ............................................................................................................... 4 5.0 Communication Protocols ............................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Compliance and Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 12 7.0 Legal Authorities ............................................................................................................................. 12 8.0 Financial Consequences of WSCP ................................................................................................... 13 9.0 Monitoring and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 14 10.0 WSCP Refinement Procedures ........................................................................................................ 14 11.0 Special Water Feature Distinction .................................................................................................. 14 12.0 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability ..................................................................................... 15 ii List of Tables Table 1. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels (DWR Table 8-1R) ......................................................... 4 Table 2. Supply Augmentation Actions (DWR Table 8-3) ............................................................................. 6 Table 3. Demand Reduction Actions (DWR Table 8-2) ................................................................................ 7 Table 4. Communication Plan Outline ....................................................................................................... 11 Table 5. City and County Coordination on Proclamation of Emergencies ................................................. 12 Abbreviation or Acronym Meaning Cal-Am California American Water District Otay Water District DMM Demand Management Measure DWR California Department of Water Resources ECRTWIP East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program ERP Emergency Response Plan ESP Emergency Storage Project mgd Million gallons per day MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition UWMP Urban Water Management Plan Water Authority San Diego County Water Authority WD Water District WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan WTP Water Treatment Plant Appendix 1 District Ordinance Section 39 Appendix 2 Board Resolution Adopting the WSCP Appendix 3 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 1 In 1988, the Otay Water District (WD) Board of Directors established a comprehensive water conservation program pursuant to California Water Code Sections 375 et seq., based upon the need to conserve water supplies and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future water supply shortage. The District’s water conservation ordinance specified that the conditions prevailing in the San Diego County area require that the available water resources be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented. This document represents the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) adopted by the Otay Water District (District). The document follows the structure recommended in guidance documents prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The numbering of Sections 1 through 12 corresponds with the numbered sections in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Guidebook. In 2018, new legislation expanded the required elements of a WSCP. The District has prepared this updated WSCP to meet these requirements and is adopting it alongside its 2020 UWMP. The WSCP is a separate document from the UWMP. The District will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this WSCP, and if the need arises to modify this plan, the District will follow the update procedures described in Section 12. This section provides a summary of the supply reliability analysis presented in the UWMP and highlights key issues that could create a shortage condition. The District’s supplies have a high degree of reliability. The District obtains 100 percent of its potable water supplies from the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority). The availability of sufficient imported and regional potable water supplies to serve existing and planned uses within the District is demonstrated in the UWMPs for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the Water Authority. The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.” The Water Authority and its member agencies continue to make great strides to develop a more drought-resilient mix of water resources, thereby increasing the region’s ability to manage and avoid shortage situations. The Water Authority has evaluated the reliability of its supplies and found that it will be able to meet projected demands during normal years, dry years, or multiple dry years. Chapter 7 of the District’s UWMP presents a supply reliability analysis for a five-year dry period. This analysis shows that the District could continue to meet demands with water supplied by the Water Authority. Although that analysis demonstrates that the District’s urban water supply is reliable, there are potential issues that could create a shortage condition. These include: • An extended drought more severe than historic events, possibly impacted by climate change. • An extended and wide-spread power outage caused by a natural disaster or malevolent acts. • Regulatory mandates to reduce water use. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2 Water shortage contingency planning provides a way to plan for these risks and anticipate actions that should be implemented to manage the impacts. This plan describes how the District intends to respond to such shortage events. The District will be required to prepare an Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment, referred to by DWR as the Annual Assessment, and submit it to DWR each year, beginning July 1, 2022. The Annual Assessment is intended to meet requirements of Water Code Section 10632.1 and present an assessment of the likelihood of a water shortage occurring during the next 12 months. This section of the WSCP outlines the procedures that the District will use to prepare the Annual Assessment. The procedures defined in this section will allow the District to follow a consistent annual procedure for making the determination of whether to activate the WSCP. Decision Making Process The District will coordinate its efforts with the Water Authority, which will also prepare an Annual Assessment each year. The District will use the following procedures in preparing the Annual Assessment. 1. In April of each year, District staff will coordinate with Water Authority staff to gather the necessary information to complete the assessment. This information will include the status of imported water supplies and recent demand data. 2. In May of each year, District staff will determine whether adoption of a shortage response level should be presented to the District’s Board of Directors for consideration. 3. In June of each year, District staff will complete the Annual Assessment and submit it to DWR. This timeline is preliminary and may be modified as new information becomes available. Data and Methodologies This section describes the data and methodologies that will be used by the District to evaluate water system reliability for the coming year, while considering that the year to follow could be dry. 2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria The District will rely on locally applicable criteria for each Annual Assessment. These criteria will primarily be based on coordination with the Water Authority and its assessment of water supply availability. 2.2.2 Water Supply The District’s anticipated supplies will be quantified for the near-term future, and descriptive text will be used to note any anticipated reductions in supply. 2.2.3 Unconstrained Customer Demand The District will prepare an estimate of unconstrained demand (as the term is used in Water Code Section 10632(a)(2)(B)(i)). The estimated demand will be calculated using the demand projection approach described in the UWMP, in combination with updated data for connections, climate, changes in land use, and recent water usage history. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 3 2.2.4 Planned Water Use for Current Year Considering Dry Subsequent Year The District will describe the anticipated use of water supplies for the coming year, with the anticipation that the following year will be dry. The supplies will be characterized in a manner consistent with the UWMP, in combination with updated data for climate and recent observations. 2.2.5 Infrastructure Considerations The District will describe any potential infrastructure constraints on the ability to deliver adequate supplies to meet expected customer demands in the coming year. The District will show that its system of pipelines, pump stations, and storage tanks have adequate capacity to deliver the anticipated demands. The District will describe any anticipated capital projects that are intended to address constraints in production, treatment, or distribution. 2.2.6 Other Factors The District will describe any specific locally applicable factors that could influence or disrupt supplies. The District will also describe unique local considerations that are considered as part of the annual assessment. Since the preparation of the 2015 UWMP, the Water Code has been amended to define six standard shortage levels. The six standard water shortage levels correspond to progressively increasing estimated shortage conditions (up to 10-, 20-, 30-, 40-, 50- percent, and greater than 50-percent shortage compared to the normal reliability condition). If an agency elects to retain an existing set of shortage levels from its previous WSCP, then the document must provide a crosswalk to relate the existing stages to the six standard stages. The District has elected to update its WSCP to include the six standard stages. The Water Authority’s 2020 WSCP also uses the six standard stages, allowing the agencies to align their response actions. All normal water efficiency programs and water conservation regulations shall remain in force during any stage unless the Board directs otherwise. Wholesale Shortage Levels The District is not a wholesale supplier, and therefore this section is not applicable. Retail Shortage Levels The District’s shortage levels are identified in Table 1. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 4 Table 1. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels (DWR Table 8-1R) Submittal Table 8-1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels Shortage Level Percent Shortage Range Shortage Response Actions 1 Up to 10% Voluntary measures described in Table 3 2 Up to 20% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 3 Up to 30% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 4 Up to 40% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 5 Up to 50% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 6 > 50% Emergency shortage measures described in Table 3 The existence of Level 1 may be declared by the District’s General Manager. The existence of Level 2, 3, 4, or 5 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board of Directors. These stages can be triggered when there is water deficiency caused by limitations on supply or by limitations on the District’s delivery system. The plan shall be implemented in case of a long or short- term water deficiency, or in case of an emergency water shortage. Higher stages will be implemented as shortages continue and/or if customer response does not bring about desired water savings. Each level represents an anticipated reduction in the supplies that would normally be available to the agency. These supply reductions could be the result of a variety of potential causes including natural forces, system component failure or interruption, regulatory actions, contamination, or any combination thereof. The stages involve voluntary and mandatory conservation measures and restrictions, depending on the causes, severity, and anticipated duration of the water supply shortage. The locally appropriate shortage response actions that would be taken at each level to address the resulting gap between supplies and demands are described in the following section. This section describes the shortage response actions that would be taken by the District at each shortage level. These actions have been grouped into categories including: • Supply Augmentation Actions • Demand Reduction Actions and Mandatory Use Restrictions • Operational Changes Supply Augmentation For long-range planning, the District continues to evaluate opportunities to increase supply reliability. These programs are described in detail in the water supply section of the UWMP. The District continues to pursue diversification of its water supply resources to increase reliability and flexibility. The District also continues to plan, design, and construct potable water system facilities to obtain these supplies and to distribute potable water to meet customer demands. The District has Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 5 successfully negotiated two water supply diversification agreements that enhance reliability and flexibility, which are briefly described as follows: • The District entered into an agreement with the City of San Diego, known as the Otay Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Agreement. The Otay WTP Agreement provides for raw water purchase from the Water Authority and treatment by the City of San Diego at their Otay WTP for delivery to Otay WD. The supply system link to implement the Otay WTP Agreement to access the regions raw water supply system and the local water treatment plant became fully operational in August 2005 and was improved in 2021. This supply link consists of the typical storage, transmission, pumping, flow measurement, and appurtenances to receive and transport the treated water to the District’s system. The City of San Diego obligation to supply 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated water under the Otay WTP Agreement is contingent upon there being available 10 mgd of surplus treatment capacity in the Otay WTP until such time as District pays the City of San Diego to expand the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. In the event that the City of San Diego’s surplus is projected to be less than 10 mgd the City of San Diego will consider and not unreasonably refuse the expansion of the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. The Otay WTP existing rated capacity is 40 mgd with an actual effective capacity of approximately 34 mgd. The City of San Diego’s typical demand for treated water from the Otay WTP is approximately 20 mgd. It is at the City of San Diego’s discretion to utilize either imported raw water delivered by the Water Authority Pipeline No. 3 or local water stored in Lower Otay Reservoir for treatment to supply the District’s demand. • The District entered into an agreement with the Water Authority, known as the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program (ECRTWIP Agreement). The ECRTWIP Agreement provides for transmission of raw water to the Helix WD R. M. Levy WTP for treatment and delivery to the District. The supply system link to implement the ECRTWIP Agreement is complete allowing access to the region’s raw water supply system and the local water treatment plant. This supply link consists of the typical transmission, pumping, storage, flow control, and appurtenances to receive and transport the potable water from the R. M. Levy WTP to the District. The District has also invested in emergency storage capacity. The District has established a goal to sustain a 10‐day outage of supply from the Water at any time of the year without a reduction in service level. The District seeks to obtain this level of supply reliability through the development of alternative water supplies, through agreements with neighboring water districts, and through treated water storage. For emergency events longer than the 10‐day aqueduct shutdowns noted previously, the District will utilize emergency supplies developed by Water Authority’s Emergency Storage Project (ESP). The ESP is designed to provide treated water service to all Water Authority member agencies during a two‐month interruption in service of imported water deliveries into San Diego County. The ESP is sized to deliver up to 75 percent of each agency’s peak two‐month summer demand. The key facilities of the ESP include the Olivenhain Dam and Conveyance System, the Lake Hodges Interconnect, the San Vicente‐Miramar Pipeline, the San Vicente Pump Station, and the expansion of San Vicente Reservoir capacity. Another supply diversification approach is interconnections with neighboring agencies. There are several existing emergency interconnections with neighboring agency systems that can provide relatively small quantities of water to benefit the District, the other agency or both. These connections are typically used when performing shutdowns within specific localized pressure zones for planned Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 6 operational circumstances or in the event of an emergency within an agency unrelated to Water Authority’s system operations. In many cases, the interconnections are at different operating pressures requiring the District to install temporary pumping facilities to fully utilize. The District has eight existing minor interconnections with the Helix WD, all eight of which are capable of supplying the District with water. The District has eight existing minor interconnections with Sweetwater Authority, one of which is capable of supplying the District with water. The District has one existing minor interconnection with Cal‐American (Cal‐Am) that is capable of supplying this private water company with water. The District has seven existing minor interconnections with the City of San Diego, six of which are capable of supplying the District with water. The supply augmentation actions are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Supply Augmentation Actions (DWR Table 8-3) Submittal Table 8-3: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions Shortage Level Supply Augmentation Methods and Other Actions by Water Supplier How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference All Other purchases Medium Water purchase from City of San Diego All Stored emergency supply Medium Otay WD storage and Water Authority ESP Demand Reduction Actions and Mandatory Use Restrictions The District offers various rebates and programs to encourage conservation. These measures are described in detail in Chapter 9 of the District’s UWMP, which describes Demand Management Measures (DMMs). The demand reduction actions that will be implemented at each shortage level are shown in Table 3. The format of Table 3 is based on the standard submittal table defined by DWR. The column titled, “Penalty, Charge, or Enforcement” is a Yes/No field to characterize whether there is a penalty, charge, or enforcement action associated with implementing the demand reduction action. This field is a required field in the standard submittal table defined by DWR. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 7 Table 3. Demand Reduction Actions (DWR Table 8-2) Submittal Table 8-2: Demand Reduction Actions Shortage Level Demand Reduction Actions How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? All Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape irrigation N/A Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. Similarly, stop water flows onto non-targeted areas, such as adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, or structures. Yes All CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request N/A Serve and refill water in restaurants and other food service establishments only upon request. Yes All CII - Lodging establishment must offer opt out of linen service N/A Offer guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments the option of not laundering towels and linens daily. Yes All Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains N/A Use only re-circulated water in fountains or other decorative water features. Yes All Other - Require automatic shut of hoses N/A Wash automobiles with a hose equipped only with a positive shut-off nozzle. Yes All Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation N/A Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians only with recycled water if available. Yes All Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner N/A Repair all water leaks within forty-eight (48) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the General Manager or designee. Yes All Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition N/A Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm or for forty-eight (48) hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field. Yes All Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces N/A No washing down of paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. Yes 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for 30 days. No 1 Other - Require automatic shut of hoses Low Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. No 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. No 1 Other Low Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. No 1 Other Medium Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. No 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for 30 days. Yes 2 Other - Require automatic shut of hoses Low Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. Yes 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. Yes 2 Other Low Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. Yes 2 Other Medium Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. Yes Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 8 Submittal Table 8-2: Demand Reduction Actions Shortage Level Demand Reduction Actions How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days Medium Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than three (3) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. Yes 2 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Limit lawn watering and landscape irrigation using sprinklers to no more than ten (10) minutes per watering station per day. Yes 2 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above by using a bucket, hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. Yes 2 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Low Stop operating fountains or similar decorative water features unless recycled water is used. Yes 3 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days Medium Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than two (2) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. Yes 3 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. Yes 3 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water Low Stop washing vehicles except at commercial carwashes that re-circulate water. Yes 3 Moratorium or Net Zero Demand Increase on New Connections Medium The District will suspend consideration of annexations to its service area. Yes 3 Implement or Modify Drought Rate Structure or Surcharge High The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District. Yes 4 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Low Stop filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life. Yes 5 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries, subject to some exceptions specified in the ordinance. Yes 5 Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner Medium Repair all water leaks within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the District. Yes 5 Moratorium or Net Zero Demand Increase on New Connections Medium No new potable water service shall be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) shall be issued, except under certain circumstances. Yes 6 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition High Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries, subject to some exceptions specified in the ordinance. Yes Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 9 Operational Changes The District has identified operational changes that could be made to help address a short-term gap between demands and available supplies. These include: • Improved monitoring and analysis of customer water usage. • Reductions in flushing of hydrants and dead-end lines. • Increased leak detection throughout the distribution system. • Expediting planned system improvement projects that include reduction in water loss (e.g., replacement of water mains that are experiencing higher rates of leaks and breaks). Additional Mandatory Restrictions The District has identified a series of restrictions that will be implemented at different shortage levels. These prohibitions are identified in Ordinance Section 39 and are included in the demand reduction actions in Table 3. Emergency Response Plan The Water Code requires that an agency’s WSCP address catastrophic water shortages and plans to address them. This information can be addressed in the agency’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Each agency’s ERP can contain sensitive information related to potential vulnerabilities or impacts of natural disasters or malevolent acts. Therefore, these documents are not typically made publicly available. Major hazards that can degrade the quality and/ or impact the quantity of water available to the District’s water system include regional power outages, earthquakes, chemical spills, and terrorist acts. Some of these hazards could also adversely impact the distribution systems, such as the major transmission mains or reservoirs. Interruptions to water supplies from any of the above-mentioned hazards may be limited to days or even months. The District’s ERP outlines measures to respond to such disasters. It could be activated whenever any of the following conditions exist: • Natural disasters such as earthquake, flood, etc. • Major loss of power • Loss of water transmission lines, main breaks, or other major facilities • Water quality issues involving a "boil water" order or other major public relations/communication issues • Emergency curtailment • Disturbance affecting nearby utilities • Hazardous spills • Terrorist activities The ERP will guide damage assessment, record keeping, prioritization of repairs, and coordination with other agencies. The goal is returning to normal operations as soon as practicable. The District has also established minor emergency interconnections with neighboring water agencies for use during short‐term outages. The District has eight minor interconnections with Helix Water District, eight with Sweetwater Authority, and five with the City of San Diego that are capable of supplying the District with water. These minor interconnections are intended primarily for short‐term repairs or Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 10 emergencies. During an extended outage or water shortage, these neighboring agencies may not have sufficient supply at these minor interconnections to share significant amounts with the District. Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Water Code Section 10632.5 requires agencies to assess seismic risk to water supplies as part of their WSCP. The code also requires a mitigation plan for managing seismic risks. In lieu of conducting their own seismic risk assessment, suppliers can comply with the Water Code requirement by submitting the relevant local hazard mitigation plan or multi-hazard mitigation plan. The District participated in the development of the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which addressed seismic risk. A copy of the plan is included as an appendix to this WSCP. Shortage Response Action Effectiveness The District has estimated the effectiveness of shortage response actions in terms of reducing the gap between expected supplies and demands. These estimates were developed using industry resources and observations from recent operating history at the agency. These estimates have been included in Table 3. To determine the specific actions that should be taken at each level, the District and the Water Authority and its member agencies will evaluate conditions specific to the timing, supply availability, and cost, along with other pertinent variables. Timely and effective communication is a key element of WSCP implementation. The District will need to inform customers, the general public, and other government entities of WSCP actions taken during a water shortage (either one derived from the Annual Assessment, or an emergency or catastrophic event). The District will coordinate its communication efforts with the Water Authority and its 24 member agencies as detailed in Section 9 Communication Plan in the Water Authority’s WSCP. The communication protocols that could be used by the District at each shortage level are summarized in Table 4. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 11 Table 4. Communication Plan Outline Normal Conditions Level 1 Up to 10% Voluntary Conservation Level 2 Up to 20% Mandatory Conservation Levels 3 and 4 Up to 30% or 40% Mandatory Conservation Levels 5 and 6 Up to 50% or Over 50% Mandatory Conservation Standard outreach efforts in effect (media relations, social media, website) Update message platform to reflect conditions, District response, and needed actions from public Update campaign and messages to generate immediate actions/behaviors by public Update campaign and messages to raise awareness for more severe water-saving actions/behaviors by public Update campaign and messages to reflect extreme or emergency condition and likely need to focus water use on health/safety needs Promote ongoing WUE programs and tools and partnerships designed to achieve long-term water management goals Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Standard coordination with Water Authority Include increased conservation messages on website and in standard outreach efforts; provide regular condition updates to stakeholders/media Supplement Level 1 activities with additional tactics as needed; provide regular condition updates to stakeholders/media Supplement Level 2 outreach with additional tactics as needed; provide regular updates to stakeholders/media on conditions Supplement Level 3-4 outreach with additional tactics as needed; provide regular condition updates to stakeholders/media on conditions Quarterly Board reports on public communication and water-use efficiency outreach activities Enhance promotion of ongoing WUE programs/tools; deploy targeted advertising Conduct issue briefings with elected officials, other key civic and business leaders Conduct specialized outreach to reduce discretionary outdoor use while minimizing landscape damage Suspend promotion of long-term WUE programs/ tools to focus on imminent needs Initiate regular Board reports on campaign efforts Continue promotion of ongoing WUE programs/tools Promote available water assistance resources for vulnerable populations; specialized outreach to impacted industries Continue enhanced coordination with member agencies as needed (daily or weekly briefings or email updates, etc.) Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 12 The District will enforce mandatory reduction programs as necessary to decrease consumption during a water shortage. The criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and remedies are specified in Section 72 of the District’s ordinance. Administrative fines may be levied for each violation. Violation of a provision of the ordinance is subject to enforcement through installation of a flow-restricting device in the meter. Each violation of the ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both. Willful violations of the mandatory conservation measures and water use restrictions applicable during a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be enforced by discontinuing service to the property at which the violation occurs. Appeals and Exemption Process This section describes the appeals and exemption processes. Where feasible, specific exemptions can be identified and defined. Where not feasible, the process to appeal or obtain an exemption should be detailed. The District’s ordinance Section 39 includes details of granting a Hardship Variance in certain circumstances. This section describes the legal authorities that the agency relies upon to implement the shortage response actions and the associated enforcement actions. The District’s Code of Ordinance Section 39 provides the District with authority to implement and enforce restrictions. A copy of the revised Section 39 is included as Appendix 1. In accordance with Water Code Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 350) of Division 1 general provisions regarding water shortage emergencies, the District shall declare a water shortage emergency in the event of a catastrophic interruption in supply. The District shall coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water supply services for the possible proclamation of a local emergency under California Government Code, California Emergency Services Act (Article 2, Section 8558). Including a list of and contacts for all cities or counties for which the Supplier provides service in the WSCP, along with developed coordination protocols, can facilitate compliance with this section of the Water Code in the event of a local emergency as defined in subpart (c) of Government Code Section 8558. The cities and counties in the District’s service area are shown in Table 5. Table 5. City and County Coordination on Proclamation of Emergencies City or County Contact San Diego County Office of Emergency Services, County of San Diego City of Chula Vista Office of Emergency Services, City of Chula Vista City of San Diego Office of Emergency Services, City of San Diego, and Director of Public Utilities Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 13 This section describes the anticipated financial consequences to the District of implementing the WSCP. The description includes potential reductions in revenue due to lower water sales and increased expenses associated with implementing the shortage response actions. Potential financial impacts could include: • Reduced revenue from reduced water use. • Reduced revenue from suspending new service connections and annexations. • Increased staff costs for tracking, reporting, patrolling, and enforcing restrictions. • Economic impacts associated with water-dependent businesses in the service area. Potential mitigation measures may include: • Using financial reserves. • Reducing operation and maintenance expenses. • Deferring capital improvement projects. • Reducing future projected operation and maintenance expenses. • Increasing fixed readiness-to-serve charge. • Increasing commodity charge and water adjustment rates to cover revenue shortfalls. • Other financial management mechanisms. An extended water shortage would reduce the amount of water sold by the District to its customers. Since water bills are based on water consumption, the revenue received by the District would also be reduced. Some of the District’s costs might be increased, such as additional staff time for monitoring water use, or enforcing conservation policies. However, these efforts will be achieved by temporarily re‐directing staff from other tasks. These changes in operation are not expected to cause a significant increase in the District’s total expenditures. If the reduction was due to a short‐term situation, the District could absorb a portion of the shortfall by drawing on its general fund reserves, which are maintained at a target or minimum level defined by the Board. After conditions returned to normal, the District would replenish its reserves. The District’s response would be more complex if the 50 percent reduction in consumption was expected to be permanent. The District could eventually need to raise rates. Two factors would mitigate the need for more immediate increases. First, the District’s general fund reserves could be used to temporarily fill the gap between expenditures and revenues. Second, the shortfall includes a significant portion that would go to the Water Authority as it raises its rates, assuming the reduction was occurring across the region. To the extent the Water Authority’s rate stabilization fund was adequate they would likely spread their rate increases over several years, allowing the District to do the same. A permanent 50 percent reduction in water consumption might allow the District to achieve cost savings in some areas. The need for additional pumping, storage, and pipeline capacity might be reduced. The District might not require as much equipment or staff to maintain its infrastructure. However, the District might see higher expenditures in other areas, such as water use monitoring or answering questions from customers. Overall, these changes are not expected to have a significant impact on District expenditures. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 14 This section describes how the agency will monitor and report on implementation of the WSCP. Mechanisms to determine reductions in water use include Water Authority water purchase invoices and records, which show prior use for comparison with District customer billing showing 36‐month prior consumption history for each customer, and its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The District has a SCADA system to control, monitor, and collect data regarding the operation of the water system. The major facilities that have SCADA capabilities are the water supply sources, transmission network, pumping stations, and water storage reservoirs. The SCADA system allows for many and varied useful functions. Some of these functions provide for operating personnel to monitor the water supply source flow rates and reservoir levels, as well as turn pumps on or off. The SCADA system aids in the prevention of water reservoir overflow events and increases energy efficiency. The SCADA system can be used to monitor demands and evaluate the effectiveness of conservation measures. The District’s mechanisms for monitoring water use are summarized below: • Daily production and distribution records will provide data on system‐wide changes in demand. • Customer billing data will provide data on month‐to‐month changes in water use, and year‐to‐ year changes for key customers. • SCADA system will provide data on short‐term changes in pumping, flow rates, or reservoir levels showing increased water use. The District will monitor the implementation of this plan to evaluate its effectiveness as an adaptive management tool. The monitoring and reporting program described in Section 9 will provide information on the effectiveness of the shortage response actions during any shortage levels that may be invoked. If the District determines that the shortage response actions are not effective in producing the desired results, it will initiate a process to refine the WSCP. The District will consider the addition of new shortage response actions or changes to the levels when shortage response actions are implemented. Suggestions for refinements will be collected from agency staff, customers, industry experts, and the general public. The District will work with the Water Authority to share data and suggestions for refinement to identify opportunities to increase the effectiveness of the WSCP while maintaining alignment with other agencies in the region when possible. The District will review the WSCP’s description of procedures for the Annual Assessment each year while preparing the Annual Assessment and make adjustments as needed. The District has distinguished swimming pools and spas as recreational water features, while non-pool and non-spa water features are considered decorative water features. This distinction is used in the shortage response actions because decorative water features have the potential to use recycled water, Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 15 while pools and spas (recreational water features) must use potable water for health and safety considerations. The District adopted this WSCP with the 2020 UWMP. The UWMP and WSCP were made available for public review during May of 2021. A public hearing was held on June 2, 2021 to allow public input on the draft UWMP and the WSCP. The District’s Board of Directors adopted the UWMP and the WSCP at a meeting on June 2, 2021. The resolution of adoption is included as an appendix. This WSCP was submitted to DWR through the WUEData portal before the deadline of July 1, 2021. This WSCP will be available to the public on the agency’s website. Notice was provided to cities and counties in the service area that the WSCP is available on the agency’s website. If the District identifies the need to amend this WSCP, it will follow the same procedures for notification to cities, counties, and the public as used for the UWMP and for initial adoption of the WSCP. The draft amended WSCP will be made available for public review, and the District’s governing board will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the draft amended WSCP. Once the District’s governing board adopts the amended WSCP, the amended plan will be submitted to DWR and the California State Library, and it will be made available to the public and the cities and counties in the service area through placement on the District’s web site. Appendix I District Code of Ordinance Section 39 Drought Response Conservation Program 39-1 SECTION 39. DROUGHT RESPONSE CONSERVATION PROGRAM 39.01 DECLARATION OF NECESSITY AND INTENT (a) This Section establishes water management requirements that are in addition to any permanent water waste prohibitions and are necessary to conserve water, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, prevent unreasonable use of water, prevent unreasonable method of use of water within the District in order to assure adequate supplies of water to meet the needs of the public, and further the public health, safety, and welfare, recognizing that water is a scarce natural resource that requires careful management not only in times of a water shortage, but at all times. (b) This Section establishes regulations to be implemented during times of declared water shortages or declared water shortage emergencies. It establishes six levels of drought response actions to be implemented in times of shortage, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought conditions and decreasing available supplies. (c) The Level 1 condition drought response measures are voluntary and will be reinforced through local and regional public education and awareness measures that may be funded in part by the District. Beginning at the level 2 Water Shortage Response Condition, the District may implement water shortage pricing. During drought response condition Levels 2 through 6, all conservation measures and water-use restrictions become mandatory and become increasingly restrictive in order to attain escalating conservation goals. (d) During a Drought Response Level 2 condition or higher, the water conservation measures and water use restrictions established by this ordinance are mandatory and violations are subject to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and remedies specified in Section 72 of this ordinance. 39-2 39.02 DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROGRAM (a) The following words and phrases whenever used in this Section shall have the meaning defined in this sub- section: 1. “Grower” refers to those engaged in the growing or raising, in conformity with recognized practices of husbandry, for the purpose of commerce, trade, or industry, or for use by public educational or correctional institutions, of agricultural, horticultural or floricultural products, and produced: (1) for human consumption or for the market, or (2) for the feeding of fowl or livestock produced for human consumption or for the market, or (3) for the feeding of fowl or livestock for the purpose of obtaining their products for human consumption or for the market. “Grower” does not refer to customers who purchase water subject to the Water Authority’s Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. 2. “Water Authority” means the San Diego County Water Authority. 3. “Metropolitan” means the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 4. “Permanent water use efficiency measures” means any permanent water use efficiency measure adopted by the District Board of Directors. 5. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, public or private entity, public or private association, public or private agency, government agency or institution, school district, college, university, or any other user of water provided by the District. 6. “WSCP” means the Water Authority’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan or the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as specified, in existence on the effective date of this ordinance and as readopted or amended from time to time, or an equivalent plan of the Water Authority to manage or allocate supplies during shortages. 39-3 39.03 APPLICATION (a) The provisions of this Section apply to any person in the use of any water provided by the District. (b) This Section is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement any provision of federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff. Refer to the local jurisdiction or Regional Water Quality Control Board for information on any storm water ordinances and storm water management plans. (c) Nothing in this Section is intended to affect or limit the ability of the District to declare and respond to an emergency, including an emergency that affects the ability of the District to supply water. (d) The provisions of this Section do not apply to use of water from private wells or to recycled water. (e) Nothing in this Section shall apply to use of water that is subject to a special supply program, such as the Water Authority Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. Violations of the conditions of special supply programs are subject to the penalties established under the applicable program. A person using water subject to a special supply program and other water provided by the District is subject to this Section in the use of the other water. At all times, the following practices shall be in effect: 1. Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. Similarly, stop water flows onto non-targeted areas, such as adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, or structures. 2. Serve and refill water in restaurants and other food service establishments only upon request. 39-4 3. Offer guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments the option of not laundering towels and linens daily. 4. Use only re-circulated water in fountains or other decorative water features. 5. Wash automobiles with a hose equipped only with a positive shut-off nozzle. 6. Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians only with recycled water. 7. Repair all water leaks within forty-eight (48) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the General Manager or designee. 8. Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm or for forty-eight (48) hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field. 9. No washing down of paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. 39.04 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 1 (a) A Drought Response Level 1 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to drought or other supply reductions, there is a reasonable probability there will be supply shortages and that a consumer demand reduction of up to 10 percent is required in order to ensure that sufficient supplies will be available to meet anticipated demands. The General Manager shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 1 and take action to implement the Level 1 conservation practices identified in this Section. (b) During a Drought Response Level 1 condition, the District will increase its public education and outreach efforts to emphasize increased public awareness of the need to implement the water conservation practices noted above 39-5 and the following water conservation practices. The same water conservation practices become mandatory if the District declares a Level 2 Drought Alert condition: 1. Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for 30 days. 2. Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. 3. Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. 5. Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. 6. Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. 39.05 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 2 (a) A Drought Response Level 2 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction in supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to 20 percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response 39-6 Level 2 condition and implement the mandatory Level 2 conservation measures identified in this section of the ordinance. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 2 condition, and shall also comply with the following additional conservation measures: 1. Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than three (3) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply commercial growers or nurseries. 2. Limit lawn watering and landscape irrigation using sprinklers to no more than ten (10) minutes per watering station per day. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems using water efficient devices, including but not limited to: weather-based controllers, drip/micro-irrigation systems, and stream rotor sprinklers. 3. Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above by using a bucket, hand-held hose with positive shut- off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. 4. Stop operating fountains or similar decorative water features unless recycled water is used. 39.06 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 3 – DROUGHT CRITICAL CONDITION (a) A Drought Response Level 3 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to 30 percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 3 condition and implement the Level 3 conservation measures identified in this Section. 39-7 (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1 and Level 2 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 3 condition and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than two (2) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply to commercial growers or nurseries. 2. Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. 3. Stop washing vehicles except at commercial carwashes that re-circulate water, or by high pressure/low volume wash systems. If a commercial car wash cannot accommodate the vehicle because of the vehicle size or type, such as RVs, horse trailers, boats and commercial vehicles, customers will be allowed to wash vehicles using a bucket and a hand- held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system. (c) Upon the declaration of a Drought Response Level 3 condition, the District will suspend consideration of annexations to its service area. (d) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water 39-8 usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. 39.07 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 4 (a) A Drought Response Level 4 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to 40 percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 4 condition and implement the Level 4 conservation measures identified in this section. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 4 condition and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: Stop filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of a water shortage response level under this Section. (c) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. 39-9 39.08 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 5 (a) A Drought Response Level 5 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to 50% is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 5 condition and implement the Level 5 conservation measures identified in this ordinance. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A. Maintenance of trees and shrubs that are watered on the same schedule as noted above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation; B. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; C. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; D. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well- being of rare animals; E. Maintenance of landscaping within active public parks and playing fields, day care centers, school grounds, cemeteries, and golf 39-10 course greens, provided that such irrigation does not exceed two (2) days per week according to the schedule established under the District’s Level 3 Condition; F. Watering of livestock; and G. Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. 2. Repair all water leaks within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the District. (c) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of any provision of this Section. (d) Upon the declaration of a Level 5 condition, no new potable water service shall be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) shall be issued, except under the following circumstances: 1. A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; or 2. The project is necessary to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare; or 39-11 3. The applicant provides substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a new water meter(s) to the satisfaction of the District. This provision shall not be construed to preclude the resetting or turn-on of meters to provide continuation of water service or to restore service that has been interrupted for a period of one year or less. 39.09 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 6 (a) A Drought Response Level 6 condition applies when the Water Authority Board of Directors declares a water shortage emergency pursuant to California Water Code Section 350 and notifies its member agencies that Level 6 requires a demand reduction of more than 50% in order for the District to have maximum supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District shall declare a Drought Emergency in the manner and on the grounds provided in California Water Code section 350. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; B. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; C. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of rare animals; 39-12 D. Watering of livestock; and E. Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. 39.10 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION AND NOTIFICATION OF DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL (a) The existence of a Drought Response Level 1 condition may be declared by the General Manager upon a written determination of the existence of the facts and circumstances supporting the determination. A copy of the written determination shall be filed with the Clerk or Secretary of the District and provided to the District Board of Directors. The General Manager may publish a notice of the determination of existence of Drought Response Level 1 condition in one or more newspapers, including a newspaper of general circulation within the District. The District will also post notice of the condition on their website. (b) The existence of Drought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4 or Level 5 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board of Directors adopted at a regular or special public meeting held in accordance with State law. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Drought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on- going water service. Water allocation shall be effective on the fifth (5) day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice. (c) The existence of a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be declared in accordance with the procedures specified in California Water Code sections 351 to 352. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Drought Response Level 6 conditions shall take effect on the tenth 39-13 (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. (d) The District Board of Directors may declare an end to a Drought Response Level by the adoption of a resolution at any regular or special meeting held in accordance with State law. 39.11 HARDSHIP VARIANCE (a) If, due to unique circumstances, a specific requirement of this ordinance would result in undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon which agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water uses, then the person may apply for a variance to the requirements as provided in this section. (b) The variance may be granted or conditionally granted, only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon with agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user’s property. 1. Application. Application for a variance shall be a form prescribed by the District and shall be accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee in an amount set by resolution of the District Board of Directors. 2. Supporting Documentation. The application shall be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawings, and other information, including a written statement of the applicant. 3. Required Findings for Variance. An application for a variance shall be denied unless the approving authority finds, based on the information provided in the application, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on 39-14 water use information for the property as shown by the records of the District, all of the following: A. That the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other District customers. B. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this ordinance would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to customers generally. C. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties and will not materially affect the ability of the District to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and will not be detrimental to the public interest. D. That the condition or situation of the subject property or the intended use of the property for which the variance is sought is not common, recurrent, or general in nature. 4. Approval Authority. The General Manager shall exercise approval authority and act upon any completed application no later than ten (10) days after submittal and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the variance. The applicant requesting the variance shall be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise at the time a variance is approved, the variance applies to the subject property during the term of the mandatory drought response. 5. Appeals to District Board of Directors. An applicant may appeal a decision or condition of the General Manager on a variance application to the District Board of Directors within ten (10) days of the decision upon written request for a hearing. The request shall state the grounds for the appeal. At a public meeting, the District Board of Directors shall act as the approval authority and review the appeal de novo by following the regular variance procedure. The decision of the District Board of Directors is final. 39-15 39.12 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES (a) Any person, who uses, causes to be used, or permits the use of water in violation of this ordinance is guilty of an offense punishable as provided herein. (b) Each day that a violation of this ordinance occurs is a separate offense. (c) Administrative fines may be levied for each violation of a provision of this ordinance as identified in Section 72 of this code. (d) Violation of a provision of this ordinance is subject to enforcement through installation of a flow- restricting device in the meter. (e) Each violation of this ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both as provided in Water Code Section 377 and Section 72 of this code. (f) Willful violations of the mandatory conservation measures and water use restrictions as set forth in Section 11.0 and applicable during a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be enforced by discontinuing service to the property at which the violation occurs as provided by Water Code Section 356 and Section 72 of this code. (g) All remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Appendix J Energy Intensity Calculations Appendix J:  Otay Water District Energy Intensity Calculations  Introduction  The Otay Water District imports all of its potable water from the San Diego County Water Authority. The  District does not treat any of its water except for a small amount of chemical treatment for boosting  disinfection and preventing nitrification in reservoirs. Most of the energy use is for the conveyance of  the water into storage reservoirs and out of the reservoirs for distribution to District customers.     The District also operates a water reclamation plant that produces Title 22 recycled water used for  landscape irrigation in the District’s service area located in eastern Chula Vista.  Energy is used to treat  the wastewater to Title 22 standards. The distribution of the recycled water to landscape areas also  consumes energy. Additionally, the District consumes energy distributing the recycled water it  purchases from the City of San Diego South Bay Treatment Plant.    Energy Use Reporting   Potable Water Supply   The District has chosen to calculate energy intensity on a whole‐system basis. The water flow data in  acre‐feet used in the calculation is from the fiscal year 2020 (July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020). The energy  consumption, in kilowatt hour (kWh), is the energy required for pumping operations to move water  through the District’s distribution system for delivery to District customers. Approximately 22% of the  flow from the Water Authority is distributed through gravity but the remainder of the flow must be  pumped and accounts for the majority of the energy consumption. Additional smaller amounts of  energy consumption come from storage in reservoirs (mixing and disinfection), pressure reducing  stations, and SCADA. Table J‐1 below shows the Energy Intensity for the District’s potable water  distribution.   Table J‐1   Potable Water Supply Energy Intensity    FY 2020  Water Delivered (AF)  27,448  Energy Used (kWh)  10,451,119  Energy Intensity (kWh/AF)  381    Recycled Water Treatment and Supply  The District owns and operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF), a tertiary  treatment water reclamation plant that treats approximately 1 mgd of wastewater to Title 22 recycled  water standards. The recycled water produced at the plant is pumped to reservoirs in eastern Chula  Vista and from there it is distributed through the District’s recycled water system for landscape irrigation  use. Energy is consumed for treatment of the wastewater and the pumping of recycled water into  storage and out of that storage for use at irrigation sites. Because the demand for recycled water in the  District is higher than can be produced at the RWCWRF, the District has an agreement with the City of  San Diego (see Appendix F) to purchase recycled water produced at their South Bay treatment plant.  The pumping of this water to District recycled water reservoirs and out of storage into the recycled  water distribution system is included in the energy used for distribution of recycled water. Table J‐2  shows the energy intensity for the District’s recycled water system.    Table J‐2   Recycled Water Energy Intensity  FY 2020  Treatment  Distribution  Total  Volume of Recycled Water Entering  Process (AF) 873  3,333  3,333  Energy Used (kWh)  877,178  1,506,283  2,383,461  Energy Intensity (kWh/AF)  1,005  452  715                        Appendix K Report on Reduced Delta Reliance 1 Appendix L: Quantifying Regional Self-Reliance and Reduced Reliance on the Delta Watershed 1 - Introduction The 2020 UWMP Guidebook states that that an urban water supplier that anticipates participating in or receiving water from a proposed project, such as a multi-year water transfer, conveyance facility, or new diversion that involves transferring water through, exporting water from, or using water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) should provide information in their 2015 and 2020 UWMP’s that can then be used in the covered action process to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy, WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self Reliance (California Code Req., tit. 23, § 5003). The Delta Plan Policy WR P1 specifies the measures that must be taken by water suppliers under certain conditions to reduce their reliance on the Delta and improve regional self-reliance. In addition, the Delta Plan recommends that all water suppliers within the Delta watershed voluntarily implement the measures contained in WR P1 to reduce their reliance on the Delta and improve regional self-reliance. Delta Plan WR P1 identifies UWMP’s as the tool to be used to demonstrate consistency with the state policy that states that suppliers who carry out or take part in covered actions must reduce their reliance on the Delta. WR P1 subsection (c)(1) further defines what adequately contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta means. (c)(1) Water suppliers that have done all the following are contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self-reliance and are therefore consistent with this policy: (A) Completed a current Urban or Agricultural Water Management Plan (Plan) which has been reviewed by the California Department of Water Resources for compliance with the applicable requirements of Water Code Division 6, Parts 2.55, 2.6, and 2.8; (B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the implementation schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the Plan that are locally cost effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the Delta; and (C) Included in the Plan, commencing in 2015, the expected outcome for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional self-reliance. The expected outcome for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional self- reliance shall be reported in the Plan as the reduction in the amount of water used, or in the percentage of water used, from the Delta watershed. For the purposes of reporting, water efficiency is considered a new source of water supply, consistent with Water Code section 1011(a). The analysis and documentation provided below include all of the elements described in WR P1 (c)(1) that need to be included in a water suppliers UWMP to support a certification of consistency for any future covered actions. 2 2 - Demonstration of Regional Self-Reliance The methodology used to determine improved regional self-reliance for the Otay Water District (District) is consistent with the approach detailed in DWR’s UWMP Guidebook Appendix C, including the use of narrative justifications for the accounting of supplies and the documentation of specific data sources. Some of the key assumptions underlying the District’s demonstration of reduced reliance include: • All data were obtained from the current 2020 UWMP or previously adopted UWMPs and represent average or normal water year conditions. • All analyses were conducted at the service area level, and all data reflect the total contributions of the District and its customers. • No projects or programs that are described in the UWMPs as “Projects Under Development” were included in the accounting of supplies. Baseline and Expected Outcomes To demonstrate the expected outcomes for a reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self- reliance, a comparison to a baseline is needed. This analysis uses a normal water year representation of 2010 as the baseline, which is consistent with the approach described in the Guidebook Appendix C. Data for the 2010 baseline were taken from the District’s 2005 UWMP as the UWMPs generally do not provide normal water year data for the year that they are adopted (i.e., 2005 UWMP normal year forecasts begin in 2010, 2010 UWMP normal year forecasts begin in 2015, and so on). Consistent with the 2010 baseline data approach, the expected outcomes for reduced Delta reliance and improved regional self-reliance for 2015 and 2020 were taken from the District’s 2010 and 2015 UWMPs, respectively. Expected outcomes for 2025-2045 are from the current 2020 UWMP. Documentation of the specific data sources and assumptions are included in the discussions below. Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency In alignment with the Guidebook Appendix C, this analysis uses normal water year demands, rather than normal water year supplies to calculate expected outcomes in terms of the percentage of water used. Using normal water year demands serves as a proxy for the amount of supplies that would be used in a normal water year. This helps alleviate issues associated with how supply capability is presented to fulfill requirements of the UWMP Act versus how supplies might be accounted for to demonstrate consistency with WR P1. Because WR P1 considers water use efficiency savings a source of water supply, water suppliers can calculate their embedded water use efficiency savings based on changes in forecasted per capita water use since the baseline. As explained in the Guidebook Appendix C, water use efficiency savings must be added back to the normal year demands to represent demands without water use efficiency savings accounted for; otherwise, the effect of water use efficiency savings on regional self-reliance would be overestimated. Table K-1 shows the results of this adjustment for the District. Supporting narratives and documentation for all the data shown in Table K-1 are provided below. Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency The service area demands shown in Table K-1 represent the total water demands for the District’s retail service area which consist of municipal and industrial (M&I) demands. The M&I demand data shown in Table K-1 were collected from the following sources: • Baseline (2010): 2005 UWMP, Table 4 3 • 2015: 2010 UWMP, Table 6 • 2020: 2015 UWMP, Table 4-2 • 2025-2045: 2020 UWMP, Table 4-2 Non-Potable Water Demands The District serves recycled water to customers for non-potable uses, as discussed in Chapter 6 of the 2020 UWMP. The non-potable water demand data shown in Table K-1 represents recycled water demand estimates for use in the District’s service area collected from the following sources: • Baseline (2010): 2005 UWMP, Table 4 • 2015: 2010 UWMP, Table 19 • 2020: 2015 UWMP, Table 6-4 • 2025-2045: 2020 UWMP, Table 6-4 Potable Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency The “Potable Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency” was calculated by subtracting the “Non- Potable Water Demands” from “Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency.” Service Area Population The population data shown in Table K-1 were collected from the following sources: • Baseline (2010): 2010 UWMP, Table 3 • 2015: 2015 UWMP, Table 3-1 • 2020-2045: 2020 UWMP, Table 3-1 Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline The “Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline” was calculated using “Potable Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency” divided by “Service Area Population” and then comparing with 2010 Per Capita Water Use. Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency In Table K-2, the “Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency” was added to the “Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline” to obtain the “Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For”. Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance For a covered action to demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) states that water suppliers must report the expected outcomes for measurable improvement in regional self- reliance. Table K-3 shows expected outcomes for supplies contributing to regional self-reliance both as an amount and as a percentage. The numbers shown in Table C-3 represent efforts to improve regional self-reliance for the District’s entire service area and include the total contributions of the District and its customers. Supporting narratives and documentation for all the data shown in Table K-3 are provided below. Water Use Efficiency The water use efficiency information shown in Table K-3 is taken directly from Table K-1. 4 Water Recycling The water recycling values shown in Table K-3 are taken directly from the non-potable water demands in Table K-1. Local Water Supply Projects The local supply project values in Table K-3 are future District water supply projects (2030-2045) that are considered as additional planned or conceptual. These future projects are described in the 2020 UWMP section 6.8. 3 - Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed Metropolitan’s service area reduces reliance on the Delta through investments in non-Delta water supplies, local water supplies, and regional and local demand management measures. Metropolitan’s member agencies coordinate reliance on the Delta through their membership in Metropolitan, a regional cooperative providing wholesale water service to its 26 member agencies, which includes the Water Authority, who the District receives supplies from. Accordingly, regional reliance on the Delta can only be measured regionally—not by individual Metropolitan member agencies and not by the customers of those member agencies. Metropolitan’s member agencies, and those agencies’ customers, indirectly reduce reliance on the Delta through their collective efforts as a cooperative. Metropolitan’s member agencies do not control the amount of Delta water they receive from Metropolitan. Metropolitan manages a statewide integrated conveyance system consisting of its participation in the State Water Project (SWP), its Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) including Colorado River water resources, programs and water exchanges, and its regional storage portfolio. Along with the SWP, CRA, storage programs, and Metropolitan’s conveyance and distribution facilities, demand management programs increase the future reliability of water resources for the region. In addition, demand management programs provide system-wide benefits by decreasing the demand for imported water, which helps to decrease the burden on the district’s infrastructure and reduce system costs, and free up conveyance capacity to the benefit of all member agencies. Metropolitan’s costs are funded almost entirely from its service area, except for grants and other assistance from government programs. Most of Metropolitan’s revenues are collected directly from its member agencies. Properties within Metropolitan’s service area pay a property tax that currently provides approximately 8 percent of the fiscal year 2021 annual budgeted revenues. The rest of Metropolitan’s costs are funded through rates and charges paid by Metropolitan’s member agencies for the wholesale services it provides to them. Thus, Metropolitan’s member agencies fund nearly all operations Metropolitan undertakes to reduce reliance on the Delta, including Colorado River Programs, storage facilities, Local Resources Programs and Conservation Programs within Metropolitan’s service area. Because of the integrated nature of Metropolitan’s systems and operations, and the collective nature of Metropolitan’s regional efforts, it is infeasible to quantify each of Metropolitan member agencies’ individual reliance on the Delta. It is infeasible to attempt to segregate an entity and a system that were designed to work as an integrated regional cooperative. In addition to the member agencies funding Metropolitan’s regional efforts, they also invest in their own local programs to reduce their reliance on any imported water. Moreover, the customers of those member agencies may also invest in their own local programs to reduce water demand. However, to the extent those efforts result in reduction of demands on Metropolitan, that reduction does not equate to 5 a like reduction of reliance on the Delta. Demands on Metropolitan are not commensurate with demands on the Delta because most of Metropolitan member agencies receive blended resources from Metropolitan as determined by Metropolitan—not the individual member agency—and for most member agencies, the blend varies from month-to-month and year-to-year due to hydrology, operational constraints, use of storage and other factors. Infeasibility of Accounting Regional Investments in Reduced Reliance Below the Regional Level The accounting of regional investments that contribute to reduced reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed is straightforward to calculate and report at the regional aggregate level. However, any similar accounting is infeasible for the individual member agencies or their customers. As described above, the region (through Metropolitan) makes significant investments in projects, programs and other resources that reduce reliance on the Delta. In fact, all of Metropolitan’s investments in Colorado River supplies, groundwater and surface storage, local resources development and demand management measures that reduce reliance on the Delta are collectively funded by revenues generated from the member agencies through rates and charges. Metropolitan’s revenues cannot be matched to the demands or supply production history of an individual agency, or consistently across the agencies within the service area. Each project or program funded by the region has a different online date, useful life, incentive rate and structure, and production schedule. It is infeasible to account for all these things over the life of each project or program and provide a nexus to each member agency’s contributions to Metropolitan’s revenue stream over time. Accounting at the regional level allows for the incorporation of the local supplies and water use efficiency programs done by member agencies and their customers through both the regional programs and through their own specific local programs. As shown above, despite the infeasibility of accounting reduced Delta reliance below the regional level, Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers have together made substantial contributions to the region’s reduced reliance. Because of this infeasibility to separate out the individual member agency’s reduced reliance on the Delta, Metropolitan has completed the analysis to demonstrate a regional wide reduction which is shown in Table K-4. 4 - Summary of Expected Outcomes for Reduced Reliance on the Delta As stated in WR P1(c)(1)(C), the policy requires that, commencing in 2015, UWMPs include expected outcomes for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improved regional self- reliance. WR P1 further states that those outcomes shall be reported in the UWMP as the reduction in the amount of water used, or in the percentage of water used, from the Delta. The expected outcomes for the District’s Delta reliance and regional self-reliance were developed using the approach and guidance described in Appendix C of DWR’s Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2020 (Guidebook Appendix C) issued in March 2021. Regional Self-Reliance The data used to demonstrate increased regional self-reliance in this analysis represent the total regional efforts of the District and its customers and were developed in conjunction with the Water Authority and Metropolitan as part of the UWMP coordination process. 6 The following provides a summary of the near-term (2025) and long-term (2045) expected outcomes for the District’s regional self-reliance. • Long-term (2045) – Normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by about 14,260 AFY from the 2010 baseline; this represents an increase of about 23.1 percent of 2025 normal water year retail demands (Table K-3). The results show that the District and its customers are measurably reducing reliance on the Delta and improving regional self-reliance. Reduced Reliance on Supplies from the Delta Watershed For reduced reliance on supplies from the Delta Watershed, the data used in this analysis represent the total regional efforts of Metropolitan, the Water Authority, its member agencies and their customers (many of them retail agencies) and were developed in conjunction with the Water Authority and other Metropolitan member agencies as part of the UWMP coordination process (as described in Section 5 of Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP). In accordance with UMWP requirements, Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers (many of them retail agencies) also report demands and supplies for their service areas in their respective UWMPs. The data reported by those agencies are not additive to the regional totals shown in Metropolitan’s UWMP, rather their reporting represents subtotals of the regional total and should be considered as such for the purposes of determining reduced reliance on the Delta. While the demands that Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers report in their UWMP’s are a good reflection of the demands in their respective service areas, they do not adequately represent each water suppliers’ individual contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta. To calculate and report their reliance on water supplies from the Delta watershed, water suppliers that receive water from the Delta through other regional or wholesale water suppliers would need to determine the amount of Delta water that they receive from the regional or wholesale supplier. Two specific pieces of information are needed to accomplish this, first is the quantity of demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier that accurately reflect a supplier’s contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta and second is the quantity of a supplier’s demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier that are met by supplies from the Delta watershed. For water suppliers that make investments in regional projects or programs it may be infeasible to quantify their demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier in a way that accurately reflects their individual contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta. Due to the extensive, long-standing, and successful implementation of regional demand management and local resource incentive programs in Metropolitan’s service area, this infeasibility holds true for Metropolitan’s members as well as their customers. For Metropolitan’s service area, reduced reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed can only be accurately accounted for at the regional level. The results show that as a region, Metropolitan and its members (including the District) as well as their customers are measurably reducing reliance on the Delta and improving regional self-reliance. 5 - UWMP Implementation In addition to the analysis and documentation described above, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(B) requires that all programs and projects included in the UWMP that are locally cost-effective and technically feasible, which reduce reliance on the Delta, are identified, evaluated, and implemented consistent with the implementation schedule. WR P1 (c)(1)(B) states that: 7 (B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the implementation schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the Plan that are locally cost effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the Delta[.] In accordance with Water Code Section 10631(f), water suppliers must already include in their UWMP a detailed description of expected future projects and programs that they may implement to increase the amount of water supply available to them in normal and single-dry water years and for a period of drought lasting five consecutive years. The UWMP description must also identify specific projects, include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project, and include an estimate regarding the implementation timeline for each project or program. Chapter 6 of the District’s 2020 UWMP summarizes the implementation plan and continued progress in developing a diversified water portfolio to meet the region’s water needs. 6 - 2015 UWMP Appendix L The information contained in this appendix is also intended to be a new Appendix L to the District’s 2015 UWMP consistent with WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5003). The District provided notice of the availability of the draft 2020 UWMP, 2021 WSCP, and the new Appendix L to the 2015 UWMP and held a public hearing to consider adoption of the documents in accordance with CWC Sections 10621(b) and 10642, and Government Code Section 6066, and Chapter 17.5 (starting with Section 7290) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. The public review drafts of the 2020 UWMP, Appendix L to the 2015 UWMP, and the 2021 WSCP were posted on the District’s website in advance of the public hearing on June 2, 2021. The notice of availability of the documents was sent to cities and counties in the District’s service area. Copies of the notification sent to the cities and counties in the District’s service area are included in the 2020 UWMP Appendix B. Thus, this Appendix K to the District’s 2020 UWMP, which was adopted with the District’s 2020 UWMP, will also be recognized and treated as Appendix L to the District’s 2015 UWMP. The District held the public hearing for the draft 2020 UWMP, draft Appendix L to the 2015 UWMP, and draft 2021 WSCP on June 2, 2021, at a regular Board of Directors meeting, held online due to COVID-19 concerns. The District’s Board of Directors determined that the 2020 UWMP and the 2021 WSCP accurately represent the water resources plan for the District’s service area. In addition, the District’s Board of Directors determined that Appendix L to the 2015 UWMP and Appendix K to the 2020 UWMP includes all the elements described in Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5003), which need to be included in a water supplier’s UWMP to support a certification of consistency for a future covered action. As stated in Resolutions 4396, 4397, and 4395, the District’s Board of Directors adopted the 2020 UWMP, Appendix L to the 2015 UWMP, and the 2021 WSCP and authorized their submittal to the State of California. Copies of the resolutions are included in the 2020 UWMP Appendix B. 8 Table K-1: Calculation of Water Use Efficiency (Completed if Water Supplier does not specifically estimate Water Use Efficiency as a Supply) Table K-2: Calculation of Service Area Water Demands Without Water Use Efficiency Service Area Water Use Efficiency Demands (Acre-Feet) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Service Area Water Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 45,772 44,883 37,050 33,465 35,736 38,536 41,767 45,265 Non-Potable Water Demands 4,040 4,400 5,670 4,500 5,000 5,100 5,200 5,300 Potable Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 41,732 40,483 31,380 28,965 30,736 33,436 36,567 39,965 Total Service Area Population Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Service Area Population 200,704 217,339 225,870 233,256 239,627 242,883 248,905 272,353 Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline (Acre-Feet) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Per Capita Water Use (GPCD)186 166 124 111 115 123 131 131 Change in Per Capita Water Use from Baseline (GPCD)(19) (62) (75) (71) (63) (54) (55) Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline 4,708 15,585 19,535 19,089 17,066 15,187 16,665 Total Service Area Water Demands (Acre-Feet) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Service Area Water Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 45,772 44,883 37,050 33,465 35,736 38,536 41,767 45,265 Reported Water Use Efficiency or Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline 301 14,378 14,806 14,231 12,142 10,141 11,143 Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 45,772 45,184 51,428 48,271 49,967 50,678 51,908 56,408 9 Table K-3: Calculation of Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance (Acre-Feet) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Water Use Efficiency - 4,708 15,585 19,535 19,089 17,066 15,187 16,665 Water Recycling 4,040 4,400 5,670 4,500 5,000 5,100 5,200 5,300 Stormwater Capture and Use Advanced Water Technologies Conjunctive Use Projects Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage Projects 6,700 13,000 13,000 13,000 Other Programs and Projects the Contribute to Regional Self-Reliance Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 4,040 9,108 21,255 24,035 30,789 35,166 33,387 34,965 Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency (Acre-Feet) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 45,772 45,184 51,428 48,271 49,967 50,678 51,908 56,408 Change in Regional Self Reliance (Acre-Feet) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 4,040 9,108 21,255 24,035 30,789 35,166 33,387 34,965 Change in Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 5,068 17,215 19,995 26,749 31,126 29,347 30,925 Percent Change in Regional Self Reliance (As Percent of Demand w/out WUE) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Percent of Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 8.8%20.2%41.3%49.8%61.6%69.4%64.3%62.0% Change in Percent of Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 11.3%32.5%41.0%52.8%60.6%55.5%53.2% 10 Table K-4: Calculation of Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed (Acre-Feet) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) CVP/SWP Contract Supplies 1,472,000 1,029,000 984,000 1,133,000 1,130,000 1,128,000 1,126,000 1,126,000 Delta/Delta Tributary Diversions Transfers and Exchanges 20,000 44,000 91,000 58,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 Other Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed Total Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 1,492,000 1,073,000 1,075,000 1,191,000 1,182,000 1,180,000 1,178,000 1,178,000 Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency (Acre-Feet) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 5,493,000 5,499,000 5,219,000 4,925,000 5,032,000 5,045,000 5,133,000 5,374,000 Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed (Acre-Feet) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 1,492,000 1,073,000 1,075,000 1,191,000 1,182,000 1,180,000 1,178,000 1,178,000 Change in Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed (419,000) (417,000) (301,000) (310,000) (312,000) (314,000) (314,000) Percent Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed (As a Percent of Demand w/out WUE) Baseline (2010)2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Optional) Percent of Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 27.2%19.5%20.6%24.2%23.5%23.4%22.9%21.9% Change in Percent of Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed -7.6%-6.6%-3.0%-3.7%-3.8%-4.2%-5.2% Appendix L DWR Standardized Tables DWR Standardized Tables will be added after adoption of the 2020 UWMP. Public Hearing June 2, 2021 3:30 PM ATTACHMENT D The Otay Water District is required to adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years to comply with California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act. The 2020 UWMP details the District’s water demand forecast, imported & local water supplies, water supply reliability assessment, demand management and water shortage contingency plan. 2 Water Demand Forecast 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Ac r e -Fe e t Year Projected Potable Water Demand 3 How Future Water Demands are Determined •Forecasted future water demands use existing demands as a base and scale demands based on the net effects of population and economic growth, conservation, and weather. •Projections were also adjusted using the Water Authority projections of District future water demand prepared using the CWA-MAIN model to maintain consistency with the District’s wholesale provider. •Population numbers use SANDAG Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast, the most recent population forecast data for the District’s service area. •Demands include water conservation savings and potential near-term annexations for the District. 4 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Potable Demand Projections (AF) 2010 UWMP 2015 UWMP 2016 WFMP 2020 UWMP 5 Water Conservation Act Of 2009 -Senate Bill SBX7-7 Reduction of Per Capita Water Use by 20 Percent by 2020 Conservation Target Compliance 2015 Actual GPCD 2015 Interim Target GPCD Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2015 2020 Actual GPCD 2020 Confirmed Target GPCD Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2020 124 172 Yes 108 153 Yes 6 Service Area Supplies Potable Water from SDCWA Recycled Water Supplies Future Water Supply Projects 7 Water Service Reliability Reliability Assessment 20 or 25 year Assessment in 5 year increments Drought Risk Assessment Normal Year Single Dry Year Multi-Dry Years Shortage risk for next 5 years 8 Water Shortage Contingency Plan 1)Analysis of water supply reliability 2)Annual Water Supply & Demand Assessment 3)Six Standard Shortage Levels 4)Response Actions 5)Communication protocols Ten Major Components 6)Compliance & enforcement 7)Legal Authorities 8)Description of Financial Consequences 9)Monitoring & Reporting 10)Reevaluation & Refinement 9 Six Standard Water Shortage Stages and Response Actions Shortage Stage Shortage Gap Shortage Response Actions 1 Up to 10%Voluntary measures 2 10% to 20%Mandatory measures 3 20% to 30%Mandatory measures 4 30% to 40%Mandatory measures 5 40% to 50%Mandatory measures 6 Over 50%Emergency shortage measures 10 Additional New Requirements for 2020 Defined as the total energy consumed by an agency’s water operations. The District’s energy intensity is calculated as the ratio of energy consumption over volume of water entering the distribution system. District used whole-system basis for calculation. Calculated for potable and recycled water systems. Calculation of Energy Intensity 11 Reporting on Reduced Delta Reliance Beginning in 2015, the California Code of Regulations requires urban water suppliers to document a reduced reliance on the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta (Delta). Applies to any urban water supplier that anticipates participating in or receiving water from a proposed project that involves transferring water through, exporting water from, or using water in the Delta. This analysis is included in the District’s 2020 UWMP as Appendix K. The District’s 2015 UWMP did not include documentation related to reduced reliance on the Delta. An addendum to the 2015 UWMP has been prepared for the 2015 UWMP (Appendix L). 12 Questions? 13 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 2, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist PROJECT: P1210-026000 DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Otay Water District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Approval of Resolution No. 4396 Adopting the District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 583 to Amend Section 39, Water Shortage Response Program, of the District’s Code of Ordinances GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board), after holding a public hearing on the District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), approve Resolution No. 4396 adopting the District’s WSCP, and adopt Ordinance No. 538 to amend Section 39, Water Shortage Response Program, of the District’s Code of Ordinances. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: That the Board, after holding a public hearing on the District’s 2020 WSCP, approve Resolution No. 4396 (Attachment B) adopting the District’s 2020 WSCP (Attachment C), and adopt Ordinance No. 538 (Attachment D) to amend Section 39, Water Shortage Response Program, of the District’s Code of Ordinances. AGENDA ITEM 6b 2 ANALYSIS: The District’s 2020 WSCP is a formal planning document designed to prepare for and respond to water shortages. The WSCP complies with California Water Code (CWC) Section 10632, which requires that every urban water supplier (Supplier) shall prepare and adopt a WSCP as part of its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). This level of detailed planning and preparation is intended to help maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions. The WSCP will serve as the District’s operating manual for preventing catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, management. A water shortage may occur due to several reasons, such as population and land use growth, climate change, drought, and catastrophic events. The WSCP provides a guide for the District to respond to water shortages. The document includes standardized action levels, enforcement information, and implementation actions in the event of water shortage conditions. The information in the WSCP allows the District Board, staff, and the public to easily identify and implement pre-determined steps to manage a water shortage response to various water supply shortage conditions. The WSCP also describes the District’s procedures for conducting an Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment (Annual Assessment) that is required by CWC Section 10632.1 and is to be submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on or before July 1 of each year. The District’s Annual Assessment will be coordinated with the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) as they are the wholesale supplier of water to the District. The District’s 2020 WSCP is included as an appendix to its 2020 UWMP, which will be submitted to DWR by July 1, 2021. However, this WSCP is created separately from the District’s 2020 UWMP and can be amended, as needed, without amending the UWMP. Furthermore, the CWC does not prohibit a Supplier from taking actions not specified in its WSCP, if needed, without having to formally amend its UWMP or WSCP. The District’s Code of Ordinances, Section 39, is currently titled Water Shortage Response Program and details the District’s Urban Water Management Plan and the regulations to be implemented during times of water shortages or emergencies. This section must be amended to include the regulations in the WSCP, and specifically the response measures under each of the six levels of drought response actions required by the CWC Section 10632. Section 39, as amended with the changes reflected in Exhibit 1 to Attachment D of this staff report, will be titled, Drought Response Conservation Program, and shall become effective July 1, 2021. 3 As required by the Act, the public hearing was noticed in newspapers of general circulation, including the San Diego Union Tribune, the Star News, the East County Californian, and the Alpine Sun. In addition, the notice of the hearing, with a link to the draft WSCP, was posted on the District’s website. The District also noticed and solicited comments from the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, local planning groups, and the general public. Any relevant comments received will be incorporated into the final document. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer While the adoption of the WSCP does not have a financial impact, the consequences of a water shortage are described in the WSCP. These consequences may include reductions in revenue due to lower water sales and increased expenses associated with implementing the shortage response actions. The WSCP also describes potential mitigation actions for these financial consequences. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: In accordance with the Act, the District will meet its legal requirement if the 2020 WSCP is approved by the Board before July 1, 2021 and a copy of the WSCP is included with the District’s 2020 UWMP submitted to DWR within 30 days of Board adoption and no later than July 1, 2021. LC-B/BK:jf https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engoperating/Shared Documents/Engineering/P1210 WFMP-PEIR, UWMP & IRP/2020 UWMP Update/Staff Reports/WSCP Staff Report/BD 06-02-21, Staff Report, 2020 WSCP, Res. 4396 Approval & Ord. 583 Adopt., (LCB-BK)_LCB draft.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Resolution No. 4396 Attachment C – Otay Water District 2020 WSCP Attachment D – Ordinance No. 583 Exhibit 1 – Section 39 Strike-through Exhibit 2 – Section 39 Proposed ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P1210-026000 Public Hearing for the Otay Water District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Approval of Resolution No. 4396 Adopting the District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 583 to Amend Section 39, Water Shortage Response Program, of the District’s Code of Ordinances COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 18, 2021 and the following changes were made: • Staff recommended that the Board, after holding a public hearing on the District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), approve Resolution No. 4396 adopting the District’s WSCP, and adopt Ordinance No. 538 to amend Section 39, Water Shortage Response Program, of the District’s Code of Ordinances. • In response to comments and questions from the Committee, staff stated that there is a 10-day water supply storage in the north and about 5 days in the south of the District to cover its territory if a water shortage should occur. • Staff discussed agency inter-connections and stated that, as a region, the District has access to other water resources from the Helix Water District, City of San Diego, Sweetwater Authority and County Water Authority. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as a Public Hearing and Action Item. ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. 4396 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING THE 2020 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR THE 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Otay Water District (District) has completed the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) pursuant to the requirements of the California Water Code section 10610 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the WSCP is the formal document that provides an action plan for a drought or catastrophic water supply shortage. The WSCP serves as an operating manual that is used to prevent catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, management, and allows the District Board, staff, and the public to identify and efficiently implement pre-determined steps to manage a water shortage response to various water supply shortage conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District hereby approves and adopts the plan entitled “2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan” for the Otay Water District; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager of the District is authorized and directed to implement the water conservation measures included in the plan as the District’s part in the local and regional water conservation effort. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District at a regular meeting this 2nd day of June, 2021, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________ President ATTEST: ________________________ District Secretary Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan Prepared by WSC Inc. & Otay Water District 6/30/2021 ATTACHMENT C i Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 Water Supply Reliability Analysis ...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures ........................................................... 2 2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Water Supply ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2.3 Unconstrained Customer Demand ........................................................................................... 2 2.2.4 Planned Water Use for Current Year Considering Dry Subsequent Year ................................. 3 2.2.5 Infrastructure Considerations ................................................................................................... 3 2.2.6 Other Factors ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Six Standard Water Shortage Stages ................................................................................................. 3 4.0 Shortage Response Actions ............................................................................................................... 4 5.0 Communication Protocols ............................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Compliance and Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 12 7.0 Legal Authorities ............................................................................................................................. 12 8.0 Financial Consequences of WSCP ................................................................................................... 13 9.0 Monitoring and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 14 10.0 WSCP Refinement Procedures ........................................................................................................ 14 11.0 Special Water Feature Distinction .................................................................................................. 14 12.0 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability ..................................................................................... 15 ii List of Tables Table 1. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels (DWR Table 8-1R) ......................................................... 4 Table 2. Supply Augmentation Actions (DWR Table 8-3) ............................................................................. 6 Table 3. Demand Reduction Actions (DWR Table 8-2) ................................................................................ 7 Table 4. Communication Plan Outline ....................................................................................................... 11 Table 5. City and County Coordination on Proclamation of Emergencies ................................................. 12 Abbreviation or Acronym Meaning Cal-Am California American Water District Otay Water District DMM Demand Management Measure DWR California Department of Water Resources ECRTWIP East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program ERP Emergency Response Plan ESP Emergency Storage Project mgd Million gallons per day MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition UWMP Urban Water Management Plan Water Authority San Diego County Water Authority WD Water District WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan WTP Water Treatment Plant Appendix 1 District Ordinance Section 39 Appendix 2 Board Resolution Adopting the WSCP Appendix 3 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 1 In 1988, the Otay Water District (WD) Board of Directors established a comprehensive water conservation program pursuant to California Water Code Sections 375 et seq., based upon the need to conserve water supplies and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future water supply shortage. The District’s water conservation ordinance specified that the conditions prevailing in the San Diego County area require that the available water resources be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented. This document represents the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) adopted by the Otay Water District (District). The document follows the structure recommended in guidance documents prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The numbering of Sections 1 through 12 corresponds with the numbered sections in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Guidebook. In 2018, new legislation expanded the required elements of a WSCP. The District has prepared this updated WSCP to meet these requirements and is adopting it alongside its 2020 UWMP. The WSCP is a separate document from the UWMP. The District will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this WSCP, and if the need arises to modify this plan, the District will follow the update procedures described in Section 12. This section provides a summary of the supply reliability analysis presented in the UWMP and highlights key issues that could create a shortage condition. The District’s supplies have a high degree of reliability. The District obtains 100 percent of its potable water supplies from the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority). The availability of sufficient imported and regional potable water supplies to serve existing and planned uses within the District is demonstrated in the UWMPs for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the Water Authority. The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.” The Water Authority and its member agencies continue to make great strides to develop a more drought-resilient mix of water resources, thereby increasing the region’s ability to manage and avoid shortage situations. The Water Authority has evaluated the reliability of its supplies and found that it will be able to meet projected demands during normal years, dry years, or multiple dry years. Chapter 7 of the District’s UWMP presents a supply reliability analysis for a five-year dry period. This analysis shows that the District could continue to meet demands with water supplied by the Water Authority. Although that analysis demonstrates that the District’s urban water supply is reliable, there are potential issues that could create a shortage condition. These include: • An extended drought more severe than historic events, possibly impacted by climate change. • An extended and wide-spread power outage caused by a natural disaster or malevolent acts. • Regulatory mandates to reduce water use. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2 Water shortage contingency planning provides a way to plan for these risks and anticipate actions that should be implemented to manage the impacts. This plan describes how the District intends to respond to such shortage events. The District will be required to prepare an Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment, referred to by DWR as the Annual Assessment, and submit it to DWR each year, beginning July 1, 2022. The Annual Assessment is intended to meet requirements of Water Code Section 10632.1 and present an assessment of the likelihood of a water shortage occurring during the next 12 months. This section of the WSCP outlines the procedures that the District will use to prepare the Annual Assessment. The procedures defined in this section will allow the District to follow a consistent annual procedure for making the determination of whether to activate the WSCP. Decision Making Process The District will coordinate its efforts with the Water Authority, which will also prepare an Annual Assessment each year. The District will use the following procedures in preparing the Annual Assessment. 1. In April of each year, District staff will coordinate with Water Authority staff to gather the necessary information to complete the assessment. This information will include the status of imported water supplies and recent demand data. 2. In May of each year, District staff will determine whether adoption of a shortage response level should be presented to the District’s Board of Directors for consideration. 3. In June of each year, District staff will complete the Annual Assessment and submit it to DWR. This timeline is preliminary and may be modified as new information becomes available. Data and Methodologies This section describes the data and methodologies that will be used by the District to evaluate water system reliability for the coming year, while considering that the year to follow could be dry. 2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria The District will rely on locally applicable criteria for each Annual Assessment. These criteria will primarily be based on coordination with the Water Authority and its assessment of water supply availability. 2.2.2 Water Supply The District’s anticipated supplies will be quantified for the near-term future, and descriptive text will be used to note any anticipated reductions in supply. 2.2.3 Unconstrained Customer Demand The District will prepare an estimate of unconstrained demand (as the term is used in Water Code Section 10632(a)(2)(B)(i)). The estimated demand will be calculated using the demand projection approach described in the UWMP, in combination with updated data for connections, climate, changes in land use, and recent water usage history. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 3 2.2.4 Planned Water Use for Current Year Considering Dry Subsequent Year The District will describe the anticipated use of water supplies for the coming year, with the anticipation that the following year will be dry. The supplies will be characterized in a manner consistent with the UWMP, in combination with updated data for climate and recent observations. 2.2.5 Infrastructure Considerations The District will describe any potential infrastructure constraints on the ability to deliver adequate supplies to meet expected customer demands in the coming year. The District will show that its system of pipelines, pump stations, and storage tanks have adequate capacity to deliver the anticipated demands. The District will describe any anticipated capital projects that are intended to address constraints in production, treatment, or distribution. 2.2.6 Other Factors The District will describe any specific locally applicable factors that could influence or disrupt supplies. The District will also describe unique local considerations that are considered as part of the annual assessment. Since the preparation of the 2015 UWMP, the Water Code has been amended to define six standard shortage levels. The six standard water shortage levels correspond to progressively increasing estimated shortage conditions (up to 10-, 20-, 30-, 40-, 50- percent, and greater than 50-percent shortage compared to the normal reliability condition). If an agency elects to retain an existing set of shortage levels from its previous WSCP, then the document must provide a crosswalk to relate the existing stages to the six standard stages. The District has elected to update its WSCP to include the six standard stages. The Water Authority’s 2020 WSCP also uses the six standard stages, allowing the agencies to align their response actions. All normal water efficiency programs and water conservation regulations shall remain in force during any stage unless the Board directs otherwise. Wholesale Shortage Levels The District is not a wholesale supplier, and therefore this section is not applicable. Retail Shortage Levels The District’s shortage levels are identified in Table 1. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 4 Table 1. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels (DWR Table 8-1R) Submittal Table 8-1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels Shortage Level Percent Shortage Range Shortage Response Actions 1 Up to 10% Voluntary measures described in Table 3 2 Up to 20% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 3 Up to 30% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 4 Up to 40% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 5 Up to 50% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 6 > 50% Emergency shortage measures described in Table 3 The existence of Level 1 may be declared by the District’s General Manager. The existence of Level 2, 3, 4, or 5 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board of Directors. These stages can be triggered when there is water deficiency caused by limitations on supply or by limitations on the District’s delivery system. The plan shall be implemented in case of a long or short- term water deficiency, or in case of an emergency water shortage. Higher stages will be implemented as shortages continue and/or if customer response does not bring about desired water savings. Each level represents an anticipated reduction in the supplies that would normally be available to the agency. These supply reductions could be the result of a variety of potential causes including natural forces, system component failure or interruption, regulatory actions, contamination, or any combination thereof. The stages involve voluntary and mandatory conservation measures and restrictions, depending on the causes, severity, and anticipated duration of the water supply shortage. The locally appropriate shortage response actions that would be taken at each level to address the resulting gap between supplies and demands are described in the following section. This section describes the shortage response actions that would be taken by the District at each shortage level. These actions have been grouped into categories including: • Supply Augmentation Actions • Demand Reduction Actions and Mandatory Use Restrictions • Operational Changes Supply Augmentation For long-range planning, the District continues to evaluate opportunities to increase supply reliability. These programs are described in detail in the water supply section of the UWMP. The District continues to pursue diversification of its water supply resources to increase reliability and flexibility. The District also continues to plan, design, and construct potable water system facilities to obtain these supplies and to distribute potable water to meet customer demands. The District has Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 5 successfully negotiated two water supply diversification agreements that enhance reliability and flexibility, which are briefly described as follows: • The District entered into an agreement with the City of San Diego, known as the Otay Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Agreement. The Otay WTP Agreement provides for raw water purchase from the Water Authority and treatment by the City of San Diego at their Otay WTP for delivery to Otay WD. The supply system link to implement the Otay WTP Agreement to access the regions raw water supply system and the local water treatment plant became fully operational in August 2005 and was improved in 2021. This supply link consists of the typical storage, transmission, pumping, flow measurement, and appurtenances to receive and transport the treated water to the District’s system. The City of San Diego obligation to supply 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated water under the Otay WTP Agreement is contingent upon there being available 10 mgd of surplus treatment capacity in the Otay WTP until such time as District pays the City of San Diego to expand the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. In the event that the City of San Diego’s surplus is projected to be less than 10 mgd the City of San Diego will consider and not unreasonably refuse the expansion of the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. The Otay WTP existing rated capacity is 40 mgd with an actual effective capacity of approximately 34 mgd. The City of San Diego’s typical demand for treated water from the Otay WTP is approximately 20 mgd. It is at the City of San Diego’s discretion to utilize either imported raw water delivered by the Water Authority Pipeline No. 3 or local water stored in Lower Otay Reservoir for treatment to supply the District’s demand. • The District entered into an agreement with the Water Authority, known as the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program (ECRTWIP Agreement). The ECRTWIP Agreement provides for transmission of raw water to the Helix WD R. M. Levy WTP for treatment and delivery to the District. The supply system link to implement the ECRTWIP Agreement is complete allowing access to the region’s raw water supply system and the local water treatment plant. This supply link consists of the typical transmission, pumping, storage, flow control, and appurtenances to receive and transport the potable water from the R. M. Levy WTP to the District. The District has also invested in emergency storage capacity. The District has established a goal to sustain a 10‐day outage of supply from the Water at any time of the year without a reduction in service level. The District seeks to obtain this level of supply reliability through the development of alternative water supplies, through agreements with neighboring water districts, and through treated water storage. For emergency events longer than the 10‐day aqueduct shutdowns noted previously, the District will utilize emergency supplies developed by Water Authority’s Emergency Storage Project (ESP). The ESP is designed to provide treated water service to all Water Authority member agencies during a two‐month interruption in service of imported water deliveries into San Diego County. The ESP is sized to deliver up to 75 percent of each agency’s peak two‐month summer demand. The key facilities of the ESP include the Olivenhain Dam and Conveyance System, the Lake Hodges Interconnect, the San Vicente‐Miramar Pipeline, the San Vicente Pump Station, and the expansion of San Vicente Reservoir capacity. Another supply diversification approach is interconnections with neighboring agencies. There are several existing emergency interconnections with neighboring agency systems that can provide relatively small quantities of water to benefit the District, the other agency or both. These connections are typically used when performing shutdowns within specific localized pressure zones for planned Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 6 operational circumstances or in the event of an emergency within an agency unrelated to Water Authority’s system operations. In many cases, the interconnections are at different operating pressures requiring the District to install temporary pumping facilities to fully utilize. The District has eight existing minor interconnections with the Helix WD, all eight of which are capable of supplying the District with water. The District has eight existing minor interconnections with Sweetwater Authority, one of which is capable of supplying the District with water. The District has one existing minor interconnection with Cal‐American (Cal‐Am) that is capable of supplying this private water company with water. The District has seven existing minor interconnections with the City of San Diego, six of which are capable of supplying the District with water. The supply augmentation actions are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Supply Augmentation Actions (DWR Table 8-3) Submittal Table 8-3: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions Shortage Level Supply Augmentation Methods and Other Actions by Water Supplier How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference All Other purchases Medium Water purchase from City of San Diego All Stored emergency supply Medium Otay WD storage and Water Authority ESP Demand Reduction Actions and Mandatory Use Restrictions The District offers various rebates and programs to encourage conservation. These measures are described in detail in Chapter 9 of the District’s UWMP, which describes Demand Management Measures (DMMs). The demand reduction actions that will be implemented at each shortage level are shown in Table 3. The format of Table 3 is based on the standard submittal table defined by DWR. The column titled, “Penalty, Charge, or Enforcement” is a Yes/No field to characterize whether there is a penalty, charge, or enforcement action associated with implementing the demand reduction action. This field is a required field in the standard submittal table defined by DWR. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 7 Table 3. Demand Reduction Actions (DWR Table 8-2) Submittal Table 8-2: Demand Reduction Actions Shortage Level Demand Reduction Actions How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? All Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape irrigation N/A Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. Similarly, stop water flows onto non-targeted areas, such as adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, or structures. Yes All CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request N/A Serve and refill water in restaurants and other food service establishments only upon request. Yes All CII - Lodging establishment must offer opt out of linen service N/A Offer guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments the option of not laundering towels and linens daily. Yes All Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains N/A Use only re-circulated water in fountains or other decorative water features. Yes All Other - Require automatic shut of hoses N/A Wash automobiles with a hose equipped only with a positive shut-off nozzle. Yes All Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation N/A Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians only with recycled water if available. Yes All Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner N/A Repair all water leaks within forty-eight (48) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the General Manager or designee. Yes All Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition N/A Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm or for forty-eight (48) hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field. Yes All Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces N/A No washing down of paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. Yes 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for 30 days. No 1 Other - Require automatic shut of hoses Low Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. No 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. No 1 Other Low Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. No 1 Other Medium Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. No 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for 30 days. Yes 2 Other - Require automatic shut of hoses Low Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. Yes 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. Yes 2 Other Low Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. Yes 2 Other Medium Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. Yes Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 8 Submittal Table 8-2: Demand Reduction Actions Shortage Level Demand Reduction Actions How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days Medium Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than three (3) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. Yes 2 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Limit lawn watering and landscape irrigation using sprinklers to no more than ten (10) minutes per watering station per day. Yes 2 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above by using a bucket, hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. Yes 2 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Low Stop operating fountains or similar decorative water features unless recycled water is used. Yes 3 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days Medium Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than two (2) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. Yes 3 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. Yes 3 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water Low Stop washing vehicles except at commercial carwashes that re-circulate water. Yes 3 Moratorium or Net Zero Demand Increase on New Connections Medium The District will suspend consideration of annexations to its service area. Yes 3 Implement or Modify Drought Rate Structure or Surcharge High The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District. Yes 4 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Low Stop filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life. Yes 5 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries, subject to some exceptions specified in the ordinance. Yes 5 Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner Medium Repair all water leaks within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the District. Yes 5 Moratorium or Net Zero Demand Increase on New Connections Medium No new potable water service shall be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) shall be issued, except under certain circumstances. Yes 6 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition High Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries, subject to some exceptions specified in the ordinance. Yes Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 9 Operational Changes The District has identified operational changes that could be made to help address a short-term gap between demands and available supplies. These include: • Improved monitoring and analysis of customer water usage. • Reductions in flushing of hydrants and dead-end lines. • Increased leak detection throughout the distribution system. • Expediting planned system improvement projects that include reduction in water loss (e.g., replacement of water mains that are experiencing higher rates of leaks and breaks). Additional Mandatory Restrictions The District has identified a series of restrictions that will be implemented at different shortage levels. These prohibitions are identified in Ordinance Section 39 and are included in the demand reduction actions in Table 3. Emergency Response Plan The Water Code requires that an agency’s WSCP address catastrophic water shortages and plans to address them. This information can be addressed in the agency’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Each agency’s ERP can contain sensitive information related to potential vulnerabilities or impacts of natural disasters or malevolent acts. Therefore, these documents are not typically made publicly available. Major hazards that can degrade the quality and/ or impact the quantity of water available to the District’s water system include regional power outages, earthquakes, chemical spills, and terrorist acts. Some of these hazards could also adversely impact the distribution systems, such as the major transmission mains or reservoirs. Interruptions to water supplies from any of the above-mentioned hazards may be limited to days or even months. The District’s ERP outlines measures to respond to such disasters. It could be activated whenever any of the following conditions exist: • Natural disasters such as earthquake, flood, etc. • Major loss of power • Loss of water transmission lines, main breaks, or other major facilities • Water quality issues involving a "boil water" order or other major public relations/communication issues • Emergency curtailment • Disturbance affecting nearby utilities • Hazardous spills • Terrorist activities The ERP will guide damage assessment, record keeping, prioritization of repairs, and coordination with other agencies. The goal is returning to normal operations as soon as practicable. The District has also established minor emergency interconnections with neighboring water agencies for use during short‐term outages. The District has eight minor interconnections with Helix Water District, eight with Sweetwater Authority, and five with the City of San Diego that are capable of supplying the District with water. These minor interconnections are intended primarily for short‐term repairs or Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 10 emergencies. During an extended outage or water shortage, these neighboring agencies may not have sufficient supply at these minor interconnections to share significant amounts with the District. Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Water Code Section 10632.5 requires agencies to assess seismic risk to water supplies as part of their WSCP. The code also requires a mitigation plan for managing seismic risks. In lieu of conducting their own seismic risk assessment, suppliers can comply with the Water Code requirement by submitting the relevant local hazard mitigation plan or multi-hazard mitigation plan. The District participated in the development of the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which addressed seismic risk. A copy of the plan is included as an appendix to this WSCP. Shortage Response Action Effectiveness The District has estimated the effectiveness of shortage response actions in terms of reducing the gap between expected supplies and demands. These estimates were developed using industry resources and observations from recent operating history at the agency. These estimates have been included in Table 3. To determine the specific actions that should be taken at each level, the District and the Water Authority and its member agencies will evaluate conditions specific to the timing, supply availability, and cost, along with other pertinent variables. Timely and effective communication is a key element of WSCP implementation. The District will need to inform customers, the general public, and other government entities of WSCP actions taken during a water shortage (either one derived from the Annual Assessment, or an emergency or catastrophic event). The District will coordinate its communication efforts with the Water Authority and its 24 member agencies as detailed in Section 9 Communication Plan in the Water Authority’s WSCP. The communication protocols that could be used by the District at each shortage level are summarized in Table 4. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 11 Table 4. Communication Plan Outline Normal Conditions Level 1 Up to 10% Voluntary Conservation Level 2 Up to 20% Mandatory Conservation Levels 3 and 4 Up to 30% or 40% Mandatory Conservation Levels 5 and 6 Up to 50% or Over 50% Mandatory Conservation Standard outreach efforts in effect (media relations, social media, website) Update message platform to reflect conditions, District response, and needed actions from public Update campaign and messages to generate immediate actions/behaviors by public Update campaign and messages to raise awareness for more severe water-saving actions/behaviors by public Update campaign and messages to reflect extreme or emergency condition and likely need to focus water use on health/safety needs Promote ongoing WUE programs and tools and partnerships designed to achieve long-term water management goals Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Standard coordination with Water Authority Include increased conservation messages on website and in standard outreach efforts; provide regular condition updates to stakeholders/media Supplement Level 1 activities with additional tactics as needed; provide regular condition updates to stakeholders/media Supplement Level 2 outreach with additional tactics as needed; provide regular updates to stakeholders/media on conditions Supplement Level 3-4 outreach with additional tactics as needed; provide regular condition updates to stakeholders/media on conditions Quarterly Board reports on public communication and water-use efficiency outreach activities Enhance promotion of ongoing WUE programs/tools; deploy targeted advertising Conduct issue briefings with elected officials, other key civic and business leaders Conduct specialized outreach to reduce discretionary outdoor use while minimizing landscape damage Suspend promotion of long-term WUE programs/ tools to focus on imminent needs Initiate regular Board reports on campaign efforts Continue promotion of ongoing WUE programs/tools Promote available water assistance resources for vulnerable populations; specialized outreach to impacted industries Continue enhanced coordination with member agencies as needed (daily or weekly briefings or email updates, etc.) Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 12 The District will enforce mandatory reduction programs as necessary to decrease consumption during a water shortage. The criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and remedies are specified in Section 72 of the District’s ordinance. Administrative fines may be levied for each violation. Violation of a provision of the ordinance is subject to enforcement through installation of a flow-restricting device in the meter. Each violation of the ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both. Willful violations of the mandatory conservation measures and water use restrictions applicable during a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be enforced by discontinuing service to the property at which the violation occurs. Appeals and Exemption Process This section describes the appeals and exemption processes. Where feasible, specific exemptions can be identified and defined. Where not feasible, the process to appeal or obtain an exemption should be detailed. The District’s ordinance Section 39 includes details of granting a Hardship Variance in certain circumstances. This section describes the legal authorities that the agency relies upon to implement the shortage response actions and the associated enforcement actions. The District’s Code of Ordinance Section 39 provides the District with authority to implement and enforce restrictions. A copy of the revised Section 39 is included as Appendix 1. In accordance with Water Code Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 350) of Division 1 general provisions regarding water shortage emergencies, the District shall declare a water shortage emergency in the event of a catastrophic interruption in supply. The District shall coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water supply services for the possible proclamation of a local emergency under California Government Code, California Emergency Services Act (Article 2, Section 8558). Including a list of and contacts for all cities or counties for which the Supplier provides service in the WSCP, along with developed coordination protocols, can facilitate compliance with this section of the Water Code in the event of a local emergency as defined in subpart (c) of Government Code Section 8558. The cities and counties in the District’s service area are shown in Table 5. Table 5. City and County Coordination on Proclamation of Emergencies City or County Contact San Diego County Office of Emergency Services, County of San Diego City of Chula Vista Office of Emergency Services, City of Chula Vista City of San Diego Office of Emergency Services, City of San Diego, and Director of Public Utilities Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 13 This section describes the anticipated financial consequences to the District of implementing the WSCP. The description includes potential reductions in revenue due to lower water sales and increased expenses associated with implementing the shortage response actions. Potential financial impacts could include: • Reduced revenue from reduced water use. • Reduced revenue from suspending new service connections and annexations. • Increased staff costs for tracking, reporting, patrolling, and enforcing restrictions. • Economic impacts associated with water-dependent businesses in the service area. Potential mitigation measures may include: • Using financial reserves. • Reducing operation and maintenance expenses. • Deferring capital improvement projects. • Reducing future projected operation and maintenance expenses. • Increasing fixed readiness-to-serve charge. • Increasing commodity charge and water adjustment rates to cover revenue shortfalls. • Other financial management mechanisms. An extended water shortage would reduce the amount of water sold by the District to its customers. Since water bills are based on water consumption, the revenue received by the District would also be reduced. Some of the District’s costs might be increased, such as additional staff time for monitoring water use, or enforcing conservation policies. However, these efforts will be achieved by temporarily re‐directing staff from other tasks. These changes in operation are not expected to cause a significant increase in the District’s total expenditures. If the reduction was due to a short‐term situation, the District could absorb a portion of the shortfall by drawing on its general fund reserves, which are maintained at a target or minimum level defined by the Board. After conditions returned to normal, the District would replenish its reserves. The District’s response would be more complex if the 50 percent reduction in consumption was expected to be permanent. The District could eventually need to raise rates. Two factors would mitigate the need for more immediate increases. First, the District’s general fund reserves could be used to temporarily fill the gap between expenditures and revenues. Second, the shortfall includes a significant portion that would go to the Water Authority as it raises its rates, assuming the reduction was occurring across the region. To the extent the Water Authority’s rate stabilization fund was adequate they would likely spread their rate increases over several years, allowing the District to do the same. A permanent 50 percent reduction in water consumption might allow the District to achieve cost savings in some areas. The need for additional pumping, storage, and pipeline capacity might be reduced. The District might not require as much equipment or staff to maintain its infrastructure. However, the District might see higher expenditures in other areas, such as water use monitoring or answering questions from customers. Overall, these changes are not expected to have a significant impact on District expenditures. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 14 This section describes how the agency will monitor and report on implementation of the WSCP. Mechanisms to determine reductions in water use include Water Authority water purchase invoices and records, which show prior use for comparison with District customer billing showing 36‐month prior consumption history for each customer, and its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The District has a SCADA system to control, monitor, and collect data regarding the operation of the water system. The major facilities that have SCADA capabilities are the water supply sources, transmission network, pumping stations, and water storage reservoirs. The SCADA system allows for many and varied useful functions. Some of these functions provide for operating personnel to monitor the water supply source flow rates and reservoir levels, as well as turn pumps on or off. The SCADA system aids in the prevention of water reservoir overflow events and increases energy efficiency. The SCADA system can be used to monitor demands and evaluate the effectiveness of conservation measures. The District’s mechanisms for monitoring water use are summarized below: • Daily production and distribution records will provide data on system‐wide changes in demand. • Customer billing data will provide data on month‐to‐month changes in water use, and year‐to‐ year changes for key customers. • SCADA system will provide data on short‐term changes in pumping, flow rates, or reservoir levels showing increased water use. The District will monitor the implementation of this plan to evaluate its effectiveness as an adaptive management tool. The monitoring and reporting program described in Section 9 will provide information on the effectiveness of the shortage response actions during any shortage levels that may be invoked. If the District determines that the shortage response actions are not effective in producing the desired results, it will initiate a process to refine the WSCP. The District will consider the addition of new shortage response actions or changes to the levels when shortage response actions are implemented. Suggestions for refinements will be collected from agency staff, customers, industry experts, and the general public. The District will work with the Water Authority to share data and suggestions for refinement to identify opportunities to increase the effectiveness of the WSCP while maintaining alignment with other agencies in the region when possible. The District will review the WSCP’s description of procedures for the Annual Assessment each year while preparing the Annual Assessment and make adjustments as needed. The District has distinguished swimming pools and spas as recreational water features, while non-pool and non-spa water features are considered decorative water features. This distinction is used in the shortage response actions because decorative water features have the potential to use recycled water, Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 15 while pools and spas (recreational water features) must use potable water for health and safety considerations. The District adopted this WSCP with the 2020 UWMP. The UWMP and WSCP were made available for public review during May of 2021. A public hearing was held on June 2, 2021 to allow public input on the draft UWMP and the WSCP. The District’s Board of Directors adopted the UWMP and the WSCP at a meeting on June 2, 2021. The resolution of adoption is included as an appendix. This WSCP was submitted to DWR through the WUEData portal before the deadline of July 1, 2021. This WSCP will be available to the public on the agency’s website. Notice was provided to cities and counties in the service area that the WSCP is available on the agency’s website. If the District identifies the need to amend this WSCP, it will follow the same procedures for notification to cities, counties, and the public as used for the UWMP and for initial adoption of the WSCP. The draft amended WSCP will be made available for public review, and the District’s governing board will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the draft amended WSCP. Once the District’s governing board adopts the amended WSCP, the amended plan will be submitted to DWR and the California State Library, and it will be made available to the public and the cities and counties in the service area through placement on the District’s web site. Appendix 1 District Ordinance Section 39 39-1 SECTION 39. DROUGHT RESPONSE CONSERVATION PROGRAM 39.01 DECLARATION OF NECESSITY AND INTENT (a) This Section establishes water management requirements that are in addition to any permanent water waste prohibitions and are necessary to conserve water, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, prevent unreasonable use of water, prevent unreasonable method of use of water within the District in order to assure adequate supplies of water to meet the needs of the public, and further the public health, safety, and welfare, recognizing that water is a scarce natural resource that requires careful management not only in times of a water shortage, but at all times. (b) This Section establishes regulations to be implemented during times of declared water shortages or declared water shortage emergencies. It establishes six levels of drought response actions to be implemented in times of shortage, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought conditions and decreasing available supplies. (c) The Level 1 condition drought response measures are voluntary and will be reinforced through local and regional public education and awareness measures that may be funded in part by the District. Beginning at the level 2 Water Shortage Response Condition, the District may implement water shortage pricing. During drought response condition Levels 2 through 6, all conservation measures and water-use restrictions become mandatory and become increasingly restrictive in order to attain escalating conservation goals. (d) During a Drought Response Level 2 condition or higher, the water conservation measures, and water use restrictions established by this ordinance are mandatory and violations are subject to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and remedies specified in Section 72 of this ordinance. 39-2 39.02 DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROGRAM (a) The following words and phrases whenever used in this Section shall have the meaning defined in this sub- section: 1. “Grower” refers to those engaged in the growing or raising, in conformity with recognized practices of husbandry, for the purpose of commerce, trade, or industry, or for use by public educational or correctional institutions, of agricultural, horticultural or floricultural products, and produced: (1) for human consumption or for the market, or (2) for the feeding of fowl or livestock produced for human consumption or for the market, or (3) for the feeding of fowl or livestock for the purpose of obtaining their products for human consumption or for the market. “Grower” does not refer to customers who purchase water subject to the Water Authority’s Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. 2. “Water Authority” means the San Diego County Water Authority. 3. “Metropolitan” means the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 4. “Permanent water use efficiency measures” means any permanent water use efficiency measure adopted by the District Board of Directors. 5. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, public or private entity, public or private association, public or private agency, government agency or institution, school district, college, university, or any other user of water provided by the District. 6. “WSCP” means the Water Authority’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan or the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as specified, in existence on the effective date of this ordinance and as readopted or amended from time to time, or an equivalent plan of the Water Authority to manage or allocate supplies during shortages. 39-3 39.03 APPLICATION (a) The provisions of this Section apply to any person in the use of any water provided by the District. (b) This Section is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement any provision of federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff. Refer to the local jurisdiction or Regional Water Quality Control Board for information on any storm water ordinances and storm water management plans. (c) Nothing in this Section is intended to affect or limit the ability of the District to declare and respond to an emergency including an emergency that affects the ability of the District to supply water. (d) The provisions of this Section do not apply to use of water from private wells or to recycled water. (e) Nothing in this Section shall apply to use of water that is subject to a special supply program, such as the Water Authority Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. Violations of the conditions of special supply programs are subject to the penalties established under the applicable program. A person using water subject to a special supply program and other water provided by the District is subject to this Section in the use of the other water. At all times, the following practices shall be in effect: 1. Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. Similarly, stop water flows onto non-targeted areas, such as adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, or structures; 2. Serve and refill water in restaurants and other food service establishments only upon request; 39-4 3. Offer guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments the option of not laundering towels and linens daily; 4. Use only re-circulated water in fountains or other decorative water features; 5. Wash automobiles with a hose equipped only with a positive shut-off nozzle; 6. Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians only with recycled water; 7. Repair all water leaks within forty-eight (48) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the General Manager or designee; 8. Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm or for forty-eight (48) hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field; 9. No washing down of paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. 39.04 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 1 (a) A Drought Response Level 1 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to drought or other supply reductions, there is a reasonable probability there will be supply shortages and that a consumer demand reduction of up to ten (10) percent is required in order to ensure that sufficient supplies will be available to meet anticipated demands. The General Manager shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 1 and take action to implement the Level 1 conservation practices identified in this Section. (b) During a Drought Response Level 1 condition, the District will increase its public education and outreach efforts to emphasize increased public awareness of the need to implement the water conservation practices noted above and the following water conservation practices. The same water conservation practices become mandatory if the District declares a Level 2 Drought Alert condition: 39-5 1. Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for thirty (30) days. 2. Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. 3. Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. 4. Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. 5. Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. 39.05 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 2 (a) A Drought Response Level 2 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction in supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to twenty (20) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 2 condition and implement the mandatory Level 2 conservation measures identified in this Section of the ordinance. 39-6 (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 2 condition, and shall also comply with the following additional conservation measures: 1. Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than three (3) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply to commercial growers or nurseries. 2. Limit lawn watering and landscape irrigation using sprinklers to no more than ten (10) minutes per watering station per day. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems using water efficient devices, including but not limited to weather-based controllers, drip/micro-irrigation systems, and stream rotor sprinklers. 3. Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. 4. Stop operating fountains or similar decorative water features unless recycled water is used. 39.06 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 3 – DROUGHT CRITICAL CONDITION (a) A Drought Response Level 3 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to thirty (30) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 3 condition and implement the Level 3 conservation measures identified in this Section. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1 and Level 2 water conservation practices 39-7 during a Drought Response Level 3 condition and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than two (2) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply to commercial growers or nurseries. 2. Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. 3. Stop washing vehicles except at commercial carwashes that re-circulate water, or by high pressure/low volume wash systems. If a commercial car wash cannot accommodate the vehicle because of the vehicle size or type, such as RVs, horse trailers, boats, and commercial vehicles, customers will be allowed to wash vehicles using a bucket and a hand- held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system. (c) Upon the declaration of a Drought Response Level 3 condition, the District will suspend consideration of annexations to its service area. (d) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water 39-8 usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. 39.07 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 4 (a) A Drought Response Level 4 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to forty (40) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 4 condition and implement the Level 4 conservation measures identified in this Section. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 4 condition and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: Stop filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of a water shortage response level under this Section. (c) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. 39-9 39.08 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 5 (a) A Drought Response Level 5 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to fifty (50) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 5 condition and implement the Level 5 conservation measures identified in this ordinance. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A. Maintenance of trees and shrubs that are watered on the same schedule as noted above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation; B. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; C. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; D. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well- being of rare animals; E. Maintenance of landscaping within active public parks and playing fields, day care 39-10 centers, school grounds, cemeteries, and golf course greens, provided that such irrigation does not exceed two (2) days per week according to the schedule established under the District’s Level 3 Condition; F. Watering of livestock; and G. Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. 2. Repair all water leaks within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the District. (c) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of any provision of this Section. (d) Upon the declaration of a Level 5 condition, no new potable water service shall be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) shall be issued, except under the following circumstances: 1. A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; or 2. The project is necessary to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare; or 39-11 3. The applicant provides substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a new water meter(s) to the satisfaction of the District. This provision shall not be construed to preclude the resetting or turn-on of meters to provide continuation of water service or to restore service that has been interrupted for a period of one (1) year or less. 39.09 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 6 (a) A Drought Response Level 6 condition applies when the Water Authority Board of Directors declare a water shortage emergency pursuant to California Water Code Section 350 and notifies its member agencies that Level 6 requires a demand reduction of more than fifty (50) percent in order for the District to have maximum supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District shall declare a Drought Emergency in the manner and on the grounds provided in California Water Code Section 350. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; B. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; 39-12 C. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well- being of rare animals; D. Watering of livestock; and E. Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. 39.10 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION AND NOTIFICATION OF DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL (a) The existence of a Drought Response Level 1 condition may be declared by the General Manager upon a written determination of the existence of the facts and circumstances supporting the determination. A copy of the written determination shall be filed with the Clerk or Secretary of the District and provided to the District Board of Directors. The General Manager may publish a notice of the determination of existence of Drought Response Level 1 condition in one or more newspapers including a newspaper of general circulation within the District. The District will also post notice of the condition on their website. (b) The existence of Drought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board of Directors adopted at a regular or special public meeting held in accordance with State law. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Drought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on- going water service. Water allocation shall be effective on the fifth (5) day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice. 39-13 (c) The existence of a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be declared in accordance with the procedures specified in California Water Code Sections 351 to 352. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Drought Response Level 6 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. (d) The District Board of Directors may declare an end to a Drought Response Level by the adoption of a resolution at any regular or special meeting held in accordance with State law. 39.11 HARDSHIP VARIANCE (a) If, due to unique circumstances, a specific requirement of this ordinance would result in undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon which agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water uses, then the person may apply for a variance to the requirements as provided in this Section. (b) The variance may be granted or conditionally granted, only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon with agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user’s property. 1. Application. Application for a variance shall be a form prescribed by the District and shall be accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee in an amount set by resolution of the District Board of Directors. 2. Supporting Documentation. The application shall be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawings, and other information including a written statement of the applicant. 39-14 3. Required Findings for Variance. An application for a variance shall be denied unless the approving authority finds, based on the information provided in the application, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on water use information for the property as shown by the records of the District, all of the following: A. That the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other District customers; B. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this ordinance would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to customers generally; C. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties and will not materially affect the ability of the District to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and will not be detrimental to the public interest; D. That the condition or situation of the subject property or the intended use of the property for which the variance is sought is not common, recurrent, or general in nature. 4. Approval Authority. The General Manager shall exercise approval authority and act upon any completed application no later than ten (10) days after submittal and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the variance. The applicant requesting the variance shall be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise at the time a variance is approved, the variance applies to the subject property during the term of the mandatory drought response. 5. Appeals to District Board of Directors. An applicant may appeal a decision or condition of the General Manager on a variance application to the District Board of Directors within ten (10) days of the decision upon written request for a hearing. The 39-15 request shall state the grounds for the appeal. At a public meeting, the District Board of Directors shall act as the approval authority and review the appeal de novo by following the regular variance procedure. The decision of the District Board of Directors is final. 39.12 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES (a) Any person, who uses, causes to be used, or permits the use of water in violation of this ordinance is guilty of an offense punishable as provided herein; (b) Each day that a violation of this ordinance occurs is a separate offense; (c) Administrative fines may be levied for each violation of a provision of this ordinance as identified in Section 72 of this code; (d) Violation of a provision of this ordinance is subject to enforcement through installation of a flow- restricting device in the meter; (e) Each violation of this ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both as provided in Water Code Section 377 and Section 72 of this code; (f) Willful violations of the mandatory conservation measures and water use restrictions as set forth in Section 11.0 and applicable during a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be enforced by discontinuing service to the property at which the violation occurs as provided by Water Code Section 356 and Section 72 of this code; (g) All remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Appendix 2 Board Resolution Adopting the WSCP Resolution to be added after approval by Board. Appendix 3 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Participating Jurisdictions: Carlsbad National City Chula Vista Oceanside Coronado Poway Del Mar San Diego El Cajon San Marcos Encinitas Santee Escondido Solana Beach Imperial Beach Vista La Mesa County of San Diego Lemon Grove Alpine FPD Rancho Santa Fe FPD Padre Dam MWD October 2017 ii iii Contents Introduction 1 1.1 Plan Description/Purpose of Plan ................................................................. 1 1.2 Plan Purpose and Authority.......................................................................... 2 1.3 Community Description ............................................................................... 3 1.3.1 The County of San Diego ................................................................ 3 1.3.2 Local Jurisdictions ........................................................................... 6 2.1 List of Participating and Non-Participating Jurisdictions .......................... 13 2.2 Description of Each Jurisdiction’s Participation in the Planning Process .. 13 3.1 Description of Planning Committee Formation ......................................... 15 3.1.1 Invitation to Participate ................................................................. 15 3.2 Name of Planning Committee and its Members ........................................ 15 3.3 Hazard Mitigation Working Group Meetings ............................................ 17 3.4 Planning Process Milestones ...................................................................... 17 3.5 Public Involvement .................................................................................... 19 3.6 Existing Plans or Studies Reviewed ........................................................... 19 4.1 Overview of the Risk Assessment Process ................................................ 21 4.1.1 Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 21 4.1.2 Profiling (Describing) Hazards ...................................................... 22 4.1.3 Identifying Assets .......................................................................... 22 4.1.4 Analyze Risk ................................................................................. 22 4.1.5 Repetitive Loss .............................................................................. 23 4.1.6 Exposure Analysis ......................................................................... 23 4.2 Hazard Identification and Screening .......................................................... 23 4.2.1 List of Hazards Prevalent in the Jurisdiction ................................. 23 4.2.2 Hazard Identification Process ........................................................ 24 4.2.3 Hazard Identification Sources ........................................................... 27 4.2.4 Non-Profiled Hazards ........................................................................ 27 4.3 Hazard Profiles ........................................................................................... 28 4.3.1 Emerging Risk – Climate Change ................................................. 28 4.3.2 Sea Level Rise, Coastal Storms, Erosion and Tsunami ................. 31 4.3.3 Dam Failure ................................................................................... 39 4.3.4 Earthquake ..................................................................................... 43 4.3.5 Flood .............................................................................................. 49 4.3.6 Rain-Induced Landslide ................................................................. 55 4.3.7 Liquefaction ................................................................................... 59 4.3.8 Structure/Wildfire Fire .................................................................. 62 4.3.9 Extreme Heat ................................................................................. 69 4.3.10 Drought/Water Supply ................................................................... 71 4.3.11 Manmade Hazards ......................................................................... 72 4.4 Vulnerability Assessment ........................................................................... 77 4.4.1 Asset Inventory ................................................................................. 77 4.4.2 Estimating Potential Exposure and Losses, and Future Development Trends ............................................................................................ 77 4.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Assessment .............................................................. 121 4.5.1 Analysis of Land Use .................................................................. 121 iv 4.5.2 Analysis of Development Trends ................................................ 121 5.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 125 5.1.1 Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................... 125 5.1.2 Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions ................................... 125 5.2 Regional Considerations .......................................................................... 127 5.21 County of San Diego ................................................................................ 129 5.21.1 Capabilities Assessment .............................................................. 131 5.21.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances .................. 131 5.21.3 Fiscal Resources .......................................................................... 136 5.21.4 Goals, Objectives and Actions..................................................... 137 5.21.5 Prioritization and Implementation of Action Items ..................... 148 6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan ........................................ 151 6.1.1 Plan Monitoring ........................................................................... 151 6.1.2 Plan Evaluation ............................................................................ 151 6.1.3 Plan Updates ................................................................................ 151 6.1.4 Implementation through Existing Programs ................................ 152 6.1.5 Continued Public Involvement .................................................... 152 section 7 References ................................................................................................ 155 Appendix A: Hazard Mitigation Working Group Meeting Agendas and Summaries 1 Appendix B: Data Matrix .............................................................................................. 1 Appendix C: Implementation status............................................................................ 1 Appendix D: Survey Results for SD Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Revision .................................................................................................. 1 v This page intentionally left blank SECTION ONE Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION Across the United States, natural and manmade disasters have led to increasing levels of death, injury, property damage, and interruption of business and government services. The impact on families and individuals can be immense and damages to businesses can result in regional economic consequences. The time, money and effort to respond to and recover from these disasters divert public resources and attention from other important programs and problems. With four presidential disaster declarations, four gubernatorial proclamations and fifteen local proclamations of emergency since 1999 San Diego County, California recognizes the consequences of disasters and the need to reduce the impacts of natural and manmade hazards. The elected and appointed officials of the County also know that with careful selection, mitigation actions in the form of projects and programs can become long-term, cost effective means for reducing the impact of natural and manmade hazards. This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for San Diego County, California (the Plan), was prepared with input from county residents, responsible officials, the San Diego County Water Authority, the Alpine and Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection Districts, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, the San Diego Foundation, ICLEI, the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The process to develop the Plan included over a year of coordination with representatives from all of the jurisdictions in the region. The Plan will guide the region toward greater disaster resilience in harmony with the character and needs of the community. This section of the Plan includes an overview of the Plan, a discussion of the Plan’s purpose and authority, and a description of the 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated County within the San Diego region. 1.1 Plan Description/Purpose of Plan Federal legislation has historically provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is the latest legislation to improve this planning process (Public Law 106-390). The new legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. As such, DMA 2000 establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Section 322 of DMA 2000 specifically addresses mitigation planning at the state and local levels. It identifies new requirements that allow HMGP funds to be used for planning activities, and increases the amount of HMGP funds available to states that have developed a comprehensive, enhanced mitigation plan prior to a disaster. States and communities must have an approved mitigation plan in place prior to receiving post-disaster HMGP funds. Local and tribal mitigation plans must demonstrate that their proposed mitigation measures are based on a sound planning process that accounts for the risk to and the capabilities of the individual communities. State governments have certain responsibilities for implementing Section 322, including: SECTION ONE Introduction 2 • Preparing and submitting a standard or enhanced state mitigation plan; • Reviewing and updating the state mitigation plan every three years; • Providing technical assistance and training to local governments to assist them in applying for HMGP grants and in developing local mitigation plans; and • Reviewing and approving local plans if the state is designated a managing state and has an approved enhanced plan. The intent of DMA 2000 is to facilitate cooperation between state and local authorities, prompting them to work together. It encourages and rewards local and state pre-disaster planning and promotes sustainability as a strategy for disaster resilience. This enhanced planning network is intended to enable local and state governments to articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more effective risk reduction projects. FEMA prepared an Interim Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (44 CFR Parts 201 and 206), which establishes planning and funding criteria for states and local communities. The Plan has been prepared to meet FEMA requirements thus making the County and all participating jurisdictions and special districts eligible for funding and technical assistance from state and federal hazard mitigation programs. 1.2 Plan Purpose and Authority In the early 1960s, the incorporated cities and the County of San Diego formed a Joint Powers Agreement which established the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization (USDCESO) and the Unified Disaster Council (UDC) as the policy making group. The UDC, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, City Councils and governing Boards for each participating municipality or special district will adopt the Plan once the State of California and FEMA have granted provisional approval. This Plan is intended to serve many purposes, including: Enhance Public Awareness and Understanding – to help residents of the County better understand the natural and manmade hazards that threaten public health, safety, and welfare; economic vitality; and the operational capability of important institutions; Create a Decision Tool for Management – to provide information that managers and leaders of local government, business and industry, community associations, and other key institutions and organizations need to take action to address vulnerabilities to future disasters; Promote Compliance with State and Federal Program Requirements – to ensure that San Diego County and its incorporated cities can take full advantage of state and federal grant programs, policies, and regulations that encourage or mandate that local governments develop comprehensive hazard mitigation plans; Enhance Local Policies for Hazard Mitigation Capability – to provide the policy basis for mitigation actions that should be promulgated by participating jurisdictions to create a more disaster-resistant future; and SECTION ONE Introduction 3 Provide Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination of Mitigation-Related Programming – to ensure that proposals for mitigation initiatives are reviewed and coordinated among the participating jurisdictions within the County. Achieve Regulatory Compliance – To qualify for certain forms of federal aid for pre- and post- disaster funding, local jurisdictions must comply with the federal DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations (44 CFR Section 201.6). DMA 2000 intends for hazard mitigation plans to remain relevant and current. Therefore, it requires that State hazard mitigation plans are updated every three years and local plans, including the San Diego Regional Plan, every five years. This means that the Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for San Diego uses a “five-year planning horizon”. It is designed to carry the region through the next five years, after which its assumptions, goals, and objectives will be revisited and the plan resubmitted for approval. 1.3 Community Description 1.3.1 The County of San Diego San Diego County, one of 58 counties in the State of California, was established on February 18, 1850, just after California became the 31st state. The County stretches 65 miles from north to south, and 86 miles from east to west, covering 4,261 square miles. Elevation ranges from sea level to about 6,500 feet. Orange and Riverside Counties border it to the north, the agricultural communities of Imperial County to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the State of Baja California, Mexico to the south. Geographically, the County is on the same approximate latitude as Dallas, Texas and Charleston, South Carolina. San Diego County is comprised of 18 incorporated cities and 17 unincorporated communities. The county's total population in 2016 was approximately 3.2 million with a median age of 35 years (US 2010 Census Quickfacts). San Diego is the third most populous county in the state. The following subsections provide an overview of the Economy, Physical Features, Infrastructure, and Jurisdictional Summaries for the County of San Diego. 1.3.1.1 Economy San Diego offers a vibrant and diverse economy along with a strong and committed public/private partnership of local government and businesses dedicated to the creation and retention of quality jobs for its residents. Although slowed by the recession in 2008, the business climate continues to thrive due to the diversification of valuable assets such as world class research institutions; proximity to Mexico and the Pacific Rim; a well educated, highly productive work force; and an unmatched entrepreneurial spirit. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), San Diego's Gross Regional Product (GRP)–an estimate of the total output of goods and services in the county–was $197.9 billion in 2013 San Diego's abundant and diverse supply of labor at competitive rates is one of the area's greatest assets. As of November 2014, the total civilian labor force was estimated at 1.33 million, which includes self-employed individuals and wage and salary employment. Unemployment for SECTION ONE Introduction 4 November 2014 was 5.8% or 94,000 persons. This was slightly higher than the national rate of 5.5% but significantly lower than the state's rate of 7.1% (Source: State of California Employment Development Department). There are several reasons for the strong labor supply in San Diego. The area's appealing climate and renowned quality of life are two main factors that attract a quality workforce. The excellent quality of life continues to be an important advantage for San Diego companies in attracting and retaining workers. In addition, local colleges and universities augment the region's steady influx of qualified labor. Each year San Diego's educational institutions graduate approximately 1,500 students with bachelors, masters and PhD degrees in electrical engineering, computer science, information systems, mechanical engineering and electronic technology. Over 2,500 students annually receive advanced degrees in business administration. There is also a pool of qualified workers from San Diego's business schools, which annually graduate over 1,000 students with administrative and data processing skills. 1.3.1.2 Employment San Diego's diverse and thriving high-tech industry has become the fastest growing sector of employment and a large driving force behind the region's continued economic prosperity. San Diego's high-tech industry comprises over a tenth of the region's total economic output. San Diego boasts the third largest concentration of biotech companies in the country with an estimated 700 firms. Currently there are over 34,500 people employed in San Diego's biotech industry. Life Science activity accounts for more than $14.2 billion in direct economic activity and $36.6 billion in total economic impact in San Diego (Source: BIOCOM 2013 Southern California Economic Impact Report). The general services industry is the second largest employment sector in the County, totaling nearly 51% of the county's industry employment. This sector includes business services, San Diego's tourism industry, health services and various business services, employing 671,600 workers. Government is the fourth largest employer with 236,200 jobs accounting for about 187% of total industry employment. (Source: California Employment Development Division). 1.3.1.3 Physical Features The physical, social and economic development of the region has been influenced by its unique geography, which encompasses over 70 miles of coastline, broad valleys, lakes, forested mountains and the desert. The county can be divided into three basic geographic areas, all generally running in the north-south direction. The coastal plain extends from the ocean to inland areas for 20 to 25 miles. The foothills and mountains, rising in elevation to 6,500 feet, comprise the middle section of the county. The third area is the desert, extending from the mountains into Imperial County, 80 miles east of the coast. San Diegans can live in the mountains, work near the ocean, and take recreational day trips to the desert. One of San Diego's greatest assets is its climate. With an average yearly temperature of 70 degrees, the local climate has mild winters, pleasant summers, and an abundance of sunshine and light rainfall. SECTION ONE Introduction 5 San Diego County experiences climatic diversity due to its varied topography. Traveling inland, temperatures tend to be warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter. In the local mountains, the average daily highs are 77 degrees and lows are about 45 degrees. The mountains get a light snowfall several times a year. East of the mountains is the Anza Borrego Desert, where rainfall is minimal and the summers are hot. The dry, mild climate of San Diego County is conducive to productivity. Outdoor work and recreational activities are possible almost all year-round. In addition, storage and indoor work can be handled with minimum investment in heating and air conditioning, although extreme heat events have increased slightly in both frequency and severity. 1.3.1.4 Infrastructure San Diego has a well-developed highway system. There are about 610 miles of state highways and 1,000 miles of regional arterials within the San Diego region. The county also encompasses more than 7,185 miles of maintained city streets and county roads. Roughly 11.6 million vehicle trips are made on the region's roadways daily, accounting for more than 68 million vehicle miles traveled daily. Since 1980, San Diego's licensed drivers have increased 46%; likewise, auto registrations have increased 57%. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are up 86% since 1980. Unfortunately the increase in drivers, vehicles and VMT has not been matched by corresponding increases in freeway mileage (10%) or local street and road mileage (19%). Over the same time period, there has been a decrease in both reported fatal accidents and injury accidents. All urbanized areas in the region and some rural areas are served by public transit. The San Diego Region is divided into two transit development boards: the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), and the North County Transit Development Board (NCTD). San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), which operates transit service under MTDB, serves about two million people annually with routes that cover the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, El Cajon, La Mesa and National City, as well as portions of San Diego County's unincorporated areas. SDTC routes also connect with other regional operators' routes. San Diego Trolley operates the light rail transit system under MTDB. The North County Transit District (NCTD) buses carry passengers in north San Diego County, including Del Mar, east to Escondido, north to Orange County and Riverside County, and north to Camp Pendleton. NCTD's bus fleet carries more than 11 million passengers every year. NCTD's bus system has 35 routes. In addition, NCTD runs special Express Buses for certain sporting and special events in San Diego. San Diego Gas & Electric is a public utility that provides natural gas and electric service to 3 million consumers through 1.2 million electric meters and 720,000 natural gas meters in San Diego and southern Orange counties. SDG&E's service area encompasses 4,100 square miles, covering two counties and 25 cities. SDG&E is a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, a Fortune 500 energy services holding company based in San Diego. Virtually all of the petroleum products in the region are delivered via a pipeline system operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. The San Diego County Water Authority is a public agency serving the San Diego region as a wholesale supplier of water. The Water Authority works through its 24 member agencies to provide a safe, reliable water supply to support the region’s $171 billion economy and the quality SECTION ONE Introduction 6 of life of 3 million residents or 90 percent of the county’s population. The 24 member agencies are comprised of six cities, five water districts, three irrigation districts, eight municipal water districts, one public utility district and one federal agency (military base) and cover a service area of 920,000 acres. In 2008, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California supplied 71% of the water while 29% came from local and other supplies. Metropolitan imports the water from two sources, the Colorado River and the state Water Project (Bay-Delta) in northern California. Traveling hundreds of miles over aqueduct systems that include pump stations, treatment plants and reservoirs, approximately 700,000 acre-feet of water is transported annually through the Water Authority’s five pipelines and then distributed to the member agencies for delivery to the public. Residents place the highest demand on water, consuming roughly 59% of all water in San Diego County. Industrial/commercial use is the second largest consumer of water at 17%, followed by the public sector at 13% and agriculture at 12% of the total water demand. 1.3.2 Local Jurisdictions 1.3.2.1 Carlsbad (Population: 110,972) Carlsbad is a coastal community located 35 miles north of downtown San Diego. It is bordered by Encinitas to the south, Vista and San Marcos to the east and Oceanside to the north. Carlsbad is home to world-class resorts such as the La Costa Resort and Spa and the Four Seasons Resort at Aviara, offering championship-level golf and tennis facilities. The newest addition to Carlsbad's commercial/recreational landscape is Legoland, which opened in the spring of 1999. The city of Carlsbad has a strong economy, much of which has come from industrial development. Callaway Golf, Cobra Golf, ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Mallinckrodt Medical, NTN Communications and Immune Response are just a few of the local companies located in Carlsbad. The area has nine elementary schools, two junior high schools, and three high schools. The school district ranks among the best in the county. Distinguished private and parochial schools also serve Carlsbad, including the internationally renowned Army Navy Academy. 1.3.2.2 Chula Vista (Population: 256,780) Chula Vista is home to an estimated 44% of all businesses in the South Bay Region of San Diego County. Chula Vista is the second largest municipality in San Diego County, and the 21st largest of 450 California cities. Today Chula Vista is attracting such companies as Solar Turbines and Raytheon, a $20 billion global technology firm serving the defense industry. Chula Vista ranks among the nation's top ten governments in terms of employee productivity and local debt levels. 1.3.2.3 Coronado (Population: 23,500) Coronado is a 13.5 square mile ocean village. The military bases of the Naval Air Station North Island and Naval Amphibious Base occupy 5.3 square miles. Coronado is connected to San Diego by a 2.3-mile bridge and to Imperial Beach (its neighbor to the south), by a six-mile scenic highway, the Silver Strand. It is primarily a bedroom community for San Diego executives, a haven for retired senior military officers and an internationally renowned tourist destination. This vibrant community welcomes more than two million visitors annually to soak up the sun and the sand while enjoying SECTION ONE Introduction 7 the lush surroundings and village appeal of Coronado. The city contains 14 hotels, amongst them are 3 world-class resorts including the Hotel Del Coronado and 67 highly acclaimed restaurants. 1.3.2.4 Del Mar (Population: 4,311) Del Mar is the smallest city in the County with only 4,580 residents in the year 2014. Located 27 miles north of downtown San Diego, this coastal community is known for its affluence and comfortable standard of living. It is a beautiful wooded hillside area overlooking the ocean and has a resort-like atmosphere. The Del Mar Racetrack and Thoroughbred Club serve as Del Mar's most noted landmark. This racetrack is also the location for the annual San Diego County Fair. The City of Del Mar has 2.9 miles of shoreline that include the Del Mar City Beach and the Torrey Pines State Beach. There are two elementary schools, one junior high school and one high school in Del Mar, which is considered one of the region’s best school districts. 1.3.2.5 El Cajon (Population: 102,211) El Cajon is located 15 miles east of the City of San Diego. El Cajon is an inland valley surrounded by rolling hills and mountains. El Cajon's current population of 97,934 makes it the sixth most populated jurisdiction in the region. As one of the most eastern cities in the County, El Cajon has a warm and dry climate. El Cajon is a diverse residential, commercial, and industrial area, and serves as the main commerce center for several surrounding communities. Gillespie Field, a general aviation airport, is a major contributing factor to the city's vibrant industrial development. El Cajon includes a cross-section of housing types from lower cost mobile homes and apartments to moderately priced condominiums to higher cost single-family residences. There are 23 elementary schools, seven middle schools and four high schools. 1.3.2.6 Encinitas (Population: 61,588) Encinitas is located along six miles of Pacific coastline in the northern half of San Diego County. Approximately 21 square miles, Encinitas is characterized by coastal beaches, cliffs, flat topped coastal areas, steep mesa bluffs and rolling hills. Incorporated in 1986, the City encompasses the communities of Old Encinitas, New Encinitas, Olivenhain, Leucadia and Cardiff-By-The-Sea. The Los Angeles/San Diego (LOSSAN) rail passes through the city, and other transit corridors traversing the city include El Camino Real and Coast Highway 101. Encinitas is bordered by Carlsbad to the north, Solana Beach to the south and the community of Rancho Santa Fe to the east. 1.3.2.7 Escondido (Population: 148,738) Escondido has a reputation as a bedroom community due to the large percentage of residents who work outside of the city. Escondido is located 30 miles north of San Diego and is approximately 18 miles inland from the coast. It is the region's fifth most populated city. More than a decade ago, the people of Escondido conceived a vision of cultural excellence. Today, the $73.4 million California Center for the Arts stands as a product of this vision. Escondido has 18 elementary schools, nine of which are parochial schools, three middle schools and six high schools, three of which are parochial. There is a unique mix of agriculture, industrial firms, high-tech firms, recreational centers and parks, as well as residential areas. The area’s largest shopping mall, the SECTION ONE Introduction 8 North County Fair, houses 6 major retail stores and approximately 175 smaller stores. California State University, San Marcos and Palomar Community College are located within minutes of Escondido. 1.3.2.8 Imperial Beach (Population: 27,063) Imperial Beach claims the distinction of being the "Most Southwesterly City - in the continental United States." The City is located in the Southwest corner of San Diego County, only five miles from the Mexican Border and 15 miles from downtown San Diego. With a population of 28,200, Imperial Beach occupies an area of 4.4 square miles. Imperial Beach offers some of the least expensive housing to be found west of the I-5. It is primarily a resort/recreation community with a vast beach area as well as a 12,000-foot pier for fishing. Some describe Imperial Beach as quaint, but mostly the town has a rare innocence and a relaxed atmosphere. Looking south just across the International border, Tijuana's famous "Bullring by the Sea," the Plaza De Monumental can be seen. 1.3.2.9 La Mesa (Population: 58,642) La Mesa is centrally located 12 miles east of downtown San Diego. La Mesa is a suburban residential community as well as a commercial and trade center. The area is characterized by rolling hills and has a large number of hilltop home sites that take advantage of the beautiful views. La Mesa offers affordable housing within a wide range of prices, as well as high-end luxury homes atop Mt. Helix. La Mesa has an abundance of mixed-use condominiums for those who prefer a downtown village atmosphere. There is a positive balance between single-family housing and multi-family housing within La Mesa's city limits. One of the region's major retail facilities, Grossmont Center is located in the heart of the city adjacent to another major activity center, Grossmont Hospital. The La Mesa-Spring Valley Elementary School District provides 18 elementary schools and four junior high schools. There are two high schools in the area and Grossmont College, a two-year community college, is also located in La Mesa. 1.3.2.10 Lemon Grove Population: (26,141) Lemon Grove lies eight miles east of downtown San Diego. Lemon Grove is the third smallest jurisdiction in the San Diego region based on population and geographic size. Initially the site of expansive lemon orchards, the city still remains a small town with a rural ambiance. Currently manufacturing and trade account for over one-third of the total employment in this area. A substantial proportion of the homes in Lemon Grove are single-family dwellings with the addition of several apartments and condominiums built over the last 20 years. There are five elementary schools and two junior high schools. 1.3.2.11 National City (Population: 59,578) National City is one of the county's oldest incorporated areas. Just five miles south of San Diego, National City is the South Bay's center of industrial activity. The economy is based on manufacturing, shipbuilding and repair. The San Diego Naval Station, which overlaps San Diego and National City is the largest naval facility in the country. There are a great number of historical SECTION ONE Introduction 9 sites in National City and homes in the area are usually 50 years or older. Stately Victorians reflect the early part of the century when shipping and import/export magnates lived here. Served by National Elementary and Sweetwater High School districts, National City also offers several private schools for all grade levels. National City is best known for its Mile of Cars; the title describing its abundant auto dealerships. Two large shopping malls, Plaza Bonita and South Bay Plaza, are located in National City. 1.3.2.12 Oceanside (Population: 172,794) Oceanside is centrally located between San Diego and Los Angeles. Located just 36 miles north of downtown San Diego, Oceanside is bordered by Camp Pendleton to the north, Carlsbad to the south, Vista to the east and the ocean to the west. The current population of 178,806 makes Oceanside the fourth largest jurisdiction in the County and the largest coastal community. Industrial real estate rates tend to be lower than the County average. There is an abundant supply of new housing and condominium developments, which tend to be more affordable than in other areas of Southern California coastal cities. With a near-perfect year-round climate and recognition as one of the most livable places in the nation, Oceanside offers both an incomparable lifestyle and abundant economic opportunity. Its extensive recreational facilities include 3.5 miles of sandy beaches, the Oceanside Harbor and the Oceanside Lagoon. There are 16 elementary schools, two parochial and two private, three middle schools and three high schools, as well as Mira Costa College and the United States International University. 1.3.2.13 Poway (Population: 49,417) Poway is located 23 miles northeast of San Diego within the well-populated I-15 corridor. Poway is distinct because it is set into the foothills. Poway's main recreational facility is the 350-acre Lake Poway Park; the Lake also serves as a reservoir for the water supplied to San Diego by the Colorado River Aqueduct. The area has many recreational facilities, providing complete park sites, trails and fishing opportunities. Poway is also home to the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve, 700 acres of natural habitat with hiking, horseback riding and interpretive trails. The Poway Performing Arts Center is an 815 seat professional theater that began its eleventh season in 2001. The Poway Unified School District is excellent and has been consistently rated in the top tier. The district has four high schools, five middle schools and 19 elementary schools. There are eight private and parochial schools offering instruction from K-8 grades. 1.3.2.14 San Diego (Population 1,356,865) The City of San Diego is the largest city in San Diego County, containing roughly half of the County's total population. With its current population of 1,336,865, the City of San Diego is the second largest city in the state. It is the region's economic hub, with well over half of the region's jobs and nearly three-quarters of the region's large employers. Thirteen of the region's 20 major colleges and universities are in the City of San Diego, as are six of the region's major retail centers. The City's visitor attractions are world-class and include Balboa Park, San Diego Zoo, Wild Animal Park, Sea World, Cabrillo National Monument and Old Town State Historic Park. The City of San Diego spans approximately 40 miles from its northern tip to the southern border. Including the SECTION ONE Introduction 10 shoreline around the bays and lagoons, the City of San Diego borders a majority of the region's shoreline, encompassing 93 of the region's 182 shoreline miles. 1.3.2.15 San Marcos (Population: 89,387) San Marcos is located between Vista and Escondido, approximately 30 miles north of downtown San Diego. San Marcos is known for its resort climate, rural setting, central location and affordable housing prices. San Marcos has been the fasted growing jurisdiction in the region since 1956. It is home to two of the region's major educational facilities, Palomar Community College and California State University, San Marcos. The K-12 School District is an award winning district with over seven Schools of Distinction Awards to their credit. 1.3.2.16 Santee (Population: 56,105) Santee lies 18 miles northeast of downtown San Diego and is bordered on the east and west by slopes and rugged mountains. The San Diego River runs through this community, which was once a dairy farming area. It is now a residential area that has experienced phenomenal growth since the 1970's. Since the expansion of the San Diego Trolley, Santee residents can ride the Trolley to Mission Valley, Downtown San Diego and as far as the U.S./Mexico Border. Elementary students attend one of 11 elementary schools, while high school students attend Santana or West Hills High School. 1.3.2.17 Solana Beach (Population: 13,236) As one of the county's most attractive coastal communities, Solana Beach is known for its small- town atmosphere and pristine beaches. Incorporated in 1986, it has one of the highest median income levels in the County as well as an outstanding school system recognized with state and national awards of excellence. Lomas Santa Fe, located east of the freeway, is a master planned community, which features shopping, homes, and condominiums, two golf courses and the family oriented Lomas Santa Fe Country Club. 1.3.2.18 Vista (Population: 96,929) Vista has been growing at twice the rate of the State of California and 50% faster than the rest of the San Diego area in the last decade. There are 10 elementary schools, four middle schools, and five high schools. More than 400 companies have located their businesses in the city since 1986. 1.3.2.19 Unincorporated County of San Diego (Population: 609,062) The unincorporated County consists of approximately 34 Community Planning and Sub-regional Areas. Many of the communities in the Unincorporated County jurisdiction are located in the mountains, desert, North County, or on the border of Mexico. Rancho Santa Fe, an affluent residential and resort community, is one of the exceptions, located within the urban core area. The community of Julian is located in the central mountains along a principle travel route between the desert and Metropolitan San Diego, and is a common tourist destination. Alpine is located east of El Cajon on Interstate 8 and is considered a gateway to San Diego County's wilderness areas of mountains, forests, and deserts. SECTION ONE Introduction 11 The Sub-regional Planning Areas are Central Mountain, County Islands, Mountain Empire, North County Metro, and North Mountain. Communities within the Central Mountain Sub-region are Cuyamaca, Descanso, Guatay, Pine Valley, and Mount Laguna. The County Islands Community Plan area consists of Mira Mesa, Greenwood, and Lincoln Acres. The North Mountain Sub-region is mostly rural and includes Santa Ysabel, Warner Springs, Palomar Mountain, Mesa Grande, Sunshine Summit, Ranchita and Oak Grove. The Mountain Empire Sub-region contains Tecate, Potrero, Boulevard, Campo, Jacumba, and the remainder of the plan area. The Community Planning Areas are Alpine, Bonsall, Borrego Springs, Boulevard, Crest/Dehesa/Granite Hills/Harbison Canyon, Cuyamaca, Descanso, Desert, Fallbrook, Hidden Meadows, Jacumba, Jamul/Dulzura, Julian, Lake Morena/Campo, Lakeside/Pepper Drive-Bostonia, Otay, Pala-Pauma, Palomar/North Mountain, Pendleton/Deluz, Pine Valley, Portrero, Rainbow, Ramona, San Dieguito (Rancho Santa Fe), Spring Valley, Sweetwater, Tecate, Twin Oaks, Valle De Oro, and Valley Center. SECTION ONE Introduction 12 This page intentionally left blank. SECTIONTWO Multi-jurisdictional Participation Information 13 2.1 List of Participating and Non-Participating Jurisdictions The incorporated cities that participated in the planning process are Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego (City), San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Unincorporated (County), and Vista. There were no non-participating cities. The two Fire Protection District that participated in the revision of the plan were the Alpine Fire Protection District and the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District. One municipal water district also participated, Padre Dam MWD. Representatives from all participating jurisdictions, local businesses, educational facilities, various public, private and non-profit agencies, and the general public provided input into the preparation of the Plan. Local jurisdictional representatives included but were not limited to fire chiefs/officials, police chiefs/officials, planners and other jurisdictional officials/staff. 2.2 Description of Each Jurisdiction’s Participation in the Planning Process A Hazard Mitigation Working Group (HMWG) was established to facilitate the development of the Plan. Representatives from each incorporated city, special district and the unincorporated county were designated by their jurisdiction as the HMWG member. Each HMWG member identified a Local Mitigation Planning Team for their jurisdiction that included decision-makers from police, fire, emergency services, community development/planning, transportation, economic development, public works and emergency response/services personnel, as appropriate. The jurisdiction-level Local Mitigation Planning Team assisted in identifying the specific hazards/risks that are of concern to each jurisdiction and to prioritize hazard mitigation measures. The HMWG members brought this information to HMWG meetings held regularly to provide jurisdiction-specific input to the multi-jurisdictional planning effort and to assure that all aspects of each jurisdiction’s concerns were addressed. A list of the lead contacts for each participating jurisdiction is included in Section 3.2. All HMWG members were provided an overview of hazard mitigation planning elements at the HMWG meetings. This training was designed after the FEMA State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide worksheets, which led the HMWG members through the process of defining the jurisdiction’s assets, vulnerabilities, capabilities, goals and objectives, and action items. The HMWG members were also given additional action items at each meeting to be completed by their Local Mitigation Planning Team. HMWG members also participated in the public workshops held to present the risk assessment, preliminary goals, objectives and actions. In addition, several HMWG members met with OES staff specifically to discuss hazard-related goals, objectives and actions. Preliminary goals, objectives and actions developed by jurisdiction staff were then reviewed with their respective City Council, City Manager and/or representatives for approval. Throughout the planning process, the HMWG members were given maps of the profiled hazards as well as detailed jurisdiction-level maps that illustrated the profiled hazards and critical infrastructure. These maps were created using the data sources listed in Appendix B. These data sources contain the most recent data available for the San Diego region. A very large portion of this data was supplied by the regional GIS agency, SanGIS. The SanGIS data is updated periodically with the new data being provided by the local agencies and jurisdictions. This ensured that the data used was the most recent available for each participating jurisdiction. The HMWG members reviewed these maps and provided updates or changes to the critical facility or hazard layers. Data received from HMWG members were added to the hazard SECTIONTWO Multi-jurisdictional Participation Information 14 database and used in the modeling process described in the Risk Assessment portion of the Plan (Section 4). The data used in this revision of the plan is considered to be more accurate that that utilized in the original plan All 18 incorporated cities and participating special districts provided OES with edits to critical facilities within their jurisdictions. SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 15 3.1 Description of Planning Committee Formation The San Diego County Operational Area consists of the County of San Diego and the eighteen incorporated cities located within the county’s borders. Planning for emergencies, training and exercises are all conducted on a regional basis. In 1961 the County and the cities formed a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) to facilitate regional planning, training, exercises and responses. This JPA is known as the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization (USDCESO). Its governing body is the Unified Disaster Council (UDC). The membership of the UDC is defined in the JPA. Each city and the County have one representative. Representatives from the cities can be an elected official, the City Manager or from the municipal law enforcement or fire agency. The County is represented by the Chairperson of the County Board of Supervisors, who also serves as Chair of the UDC. In addition there are 26 fire protection districts and 17 water districts within the San Diego Region. Each was offered the opportunity to participate in the development of this plan. 3.1.1 Invitation to Participate The original development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, as well as this current revision, was conducted under the auspices of the UDC. At the direction of the UDC, the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services (OES) acted as the lead agency in the revision of this plan. Thomas Amabile, the representative for the San Diego County OES, requested input from each jurisdiction in the county. Each municipality and special district was formally invited to attend a meeting to develop an approach to the planning process and to form the HMWG Committee (See Appendix A). These invitations were in the form of an email to each member jurisdiction. Invitations were also emailed to each Water District and Fire Protection District within the County. At the October 17, 2013 UDC meeting, it was again announced that the plan was reaching the five year mark and required updating. Each jurisdiction also confirmed their participation on the HMWG. In addition to the eighteen incorporated cities, OES provided an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as business, academia and other private and non-profit interested to be involved in the planning process. Some of those parties are listed in Section 3.2 below. The committee was formed as a working group to undertake the planning process and meeting dates were set for all members of the committee and interested parties to attend. Local jurisdictional representatives included but were not limited to fire chiefs/officials, police chiefs/officials, planners and other jurisdictional officials/staff. 3.2 Name of Planning Committee and its Members The HMWG is comprised of representatives from San Diego County (County), each of the 18 incorporated cities in the County four special districts and interested public agencies and citizens, as listed above in Section 2.1. The HMWG met regularly, and served as a forum for participating agencies to voice their opinions and concerns about the mitigation plan. Although several jurisdictions sent several representatives to the HMWG meetings, each jurisdiction selected a lead representative who acted as the liaison between their jurisdictional Local Mitigation Planning Team and the HMWG. Each local team, made up of other jurisdictional staff/officials met separately and provided additional local-level input to the leads for inclusion into the Plan. These lead representatives are: SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 16 Lead HMWG Representatives for Participating Jurisdictions: • City of Carlsbad, David Harrison, Fire Department, Emergency Preparedness Manager • City of Chula Vista, Marisa Balmer, Fire Department, Emergency Services Coordinator • City of Coronado, Perry Peake, Fire Department, Battalion Chief • City of Del Mar, Ashlee Stratakis, Fire Department, Program Analyst • City of El Cajon, Rick Sitta, Fire Department, Deputy Chief • City of Encinitas, Tom Gallup, Fire Department, Senior Program Analyst • City of Escondido, Don Rawson, Fire Department, Emergency/Disaster Preparedness Manager • City of Imperial Beach, Dean Roberts, Fire Department, Emergency Services Coordinator • City of La Mesa, Greg McAlpine, Fire Dept, Deputy Chief • City of Lemon Grove, Tim Smith, Fire Department, Deputy Chief • City of National City, Walter Amadee, Fire Department, Management Analyst III • City of Oceanside, Greg Vanvorhees, Fire Department, Fire Marshall • City of Poway, Dane Cawthone, Fire Department, Division Chief • City of San Diego, Jeff Pack, Office of Homeland Security, Sr. Homeland Security Coordinator • City of San Diego, Eugene Ruzzini, Office of Homeland Security, Analyst • City of San Marcos, Scott Hansen, Fire Department, Battalion Chief • City of Santee, Richard Mattick, Fire Department, Assistant Chief • City of Solana Beach, Ashlee Stratakis, Fire Department, Program Analyst • City of Vista, Mike Easterling, Fire Department, Deputy Chief • County of San Diego, Thomas Amabile, OES, Sr. Emergency Services Coordinator • County of San Diego, Jason Batchelor, SD County Planning and Developmental Services, GIS Coordinator • Alpine FPD, Bill Paskle, Fire Chief • Padre Dam MWD, Larry Costello, Safety and Risk Manager • Rancho Santa Fe FPD, Tony Michel, Fire Chief Representatives of the following agencies/organizations were invited to attend all planning team meetings and provided both data and general input to and feedback on the plan: • California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES.), Joanne Phillips, Sr. Emergency Services Coordinator • Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Medical Response, Donna Johnson, EMS Specialist • San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division, Dave Cammall, Registered Environmental Health Specialist • San Diego Department of Public Works, Gitanjali Shinde, Assistant Engineer The California Office of Emergency Services participated on the regional planning committee. The representatives from San Diego County EMS, Hazardous Materials and Public Works participated on the County’s local planning team. Each participating jurisdiction had their own local planning team. Details on the membership of those teams can be found in the individual jurisdiction’s portion of Section Five. Each local planning team met SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 17 either before or after the regional team to discuss the topics of the regional meetings (listed in Section 3.3 below). Finally, the Unified Disaster Council (UDC) received briefings regularly on the progress of the planning process. UDC meetings are open to the public, with agendas and notices posted according to California’s Brown Act, with emailed invitations and reminders sent out one to two weeks prior to the meetings. Included on that email list are representatives from the following agencies: • American Red Cross • Chambers of Commerce • Federal Agencies (USN, USMC, USCG, DHS) • Hospitals • Port of San Diego • State Agencies (Cal OES, DMV, Caltrans) • School Districts • Universities and colleges • Utilities (Power- SDG&E, Water – San Diego County Water Authority and Water Districts, Cable, telephone and internet – Cox Communications) 3.3 Hazard Mitigation Working Group Meetings The Hazard Mitigation Working Group met regularly. The following is a list of meeting dates and results of meetings (see Appendix A for sign-in sheets, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes). HMWG Meeting Dates/Results of Meeting: HMWG Meeting 1: 2/11/2014 - Kickoff and Formation of HMWG Climate Change Workshop 1: 3/4/2014 HMWG Meeting 2: 3/11/2014 - Overview of Planning Process/Assessing Risks Climate Change Workshop 2: 6/10/2014 HMWG Meeting 3: 6/10/2014 - Overview of Planning Process/Profiling Hazards HMWG Meeting 4: 9/16/2014 - Review Risk Assessment/Development of Mitigation Plan The distribution of the draft and final plans was accomplished electronically. Other meetings included individual meetings with jurisdictions and meetings with GIS staff. Not all members were able to attend all meetings. Follow-up phone calls and in person meetings were conducted with those who were not able attend to ensure they were kept current on the process. 3.4 Planning Process Milestones The approach taken by San Diego County relied on sound planning concepts and a methodical process to identify County vulnerabilities and to propose the mitigation actions necessary to avoid or reduce those vulnerabilities. Each step in the planning process was built upon the previous, providing a high level of assurance that the mitigation actions proposed by the participants and the priorities of implementation are valid. Specific milestones in the process included: SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 18 Risk Assessment (June 2014 – September 2014) - The HMWG used the list of hazards from the current Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan to determine if they were still applicable to the region and if there were any new threats identified that should be added to the plan. Specific geographic areas subject to the impacts of the identified hazards were mapped using a Geographic Information System (GIS). The HMWG had access to updated information and resources regarding hazard identification and risk estimation. This included hazard specific maps, such as floodplain delineation maps, earthquake shake potential maps, and wildfire threat maps; GIS-based analyses of hazard areas; the locations of infrastructure, critical facilities, and other properties located within each jurisdiction and participating special district; and an estimate of potential losses or exposure to losses from each hazard. The HMWG also conducted a methodical, qualitative examination of the vulnerability of important facilities, systems, and neighborhoods to the impacts of future disasters. GIS data and modeling results were used to identify specific vulnerabilities that could be addressed by specific mitigation actions. The HMWG also reviewed the history of disasters in the County and assessed the need for specific mitigation actions based on the type and location of damage caused by past events. The process used during the completion of the initial plan and first update was utilized for this update. Finally, the assessment of community vulnerabilities included a review of current codes, plans, policies, programs, and regulations used by local jurisdictions to determine whether existing provisions and requirements adequately address the hazards that pose the greatest risk to the community. Again, this was a similar process to that used in the original plan and first update. Goals, Objectives and Alternative Mitigation Actions (August, 2014- October, 2014) – Based on this understanding of the hazards faced by the County, the goals and objectives identified in the current plan were reviewed to see what had been completed and could be removed and which were not able to be completed due to funding or other roadblocks. Members then added those goals, objectives or actions as required for the completion of the update. This was done by the members working with their local planning groups and in a series of one-on-one meetings with OES staff. Mitigation Plan and Implementation Strategy (October 2014 - February, 2015) – Each jurisdiction reviewed their priorities for action from among their goals, objectives and actions, developing a specific implementation strategy including details about the organizations responsible for carrying out the actions, their estimated cost, possible funding sources, and timelines for implementation. Work Group Meetings (February, 2014 – December, 2014) - As listed in Section 3.3 a series of HMWG meetings were held in which the HMWG considered the probability of a hazard occurring in an area and its impact on public health and safety, property, the economy, and the environment, and the mitigation actions that would be necessary to minimize impacts from the identified hazards. These meetings were held every month or two (depending on the progress made) starting February 2014 and continued through September 2014. The meetings evolved as the planning process progressed, and were designed to aid the jurisdictions in completing worksheets that helped define hazards within their jurisdictions, their existing capabilities and mitigation goals and action items for the Mitigation Plan. Climate Change Workshops and Stakeholder Meeting (March, 2014-September 2014) – A series of workshops to discuss the impact climate change is having on the regions natural hazards were conducted to educate local planners and community members. Topics discussed included sea level rise, drought, changes to precipitation patterns and extreme weather, as well as their current and potential future impacts. The information presented in these workshops were incorporated into the risk assessment process as well in the development of mitigation goals and objectives. SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 19 3.5 Public Involvement A detailed survey was posted on the websites of all participating jurisdictions. It was active from the beginning of March 2014 to the end of July 2014. There were 532 responses to the survey. The survey questions and respondents answers are found in Appendix D. A Hazard Mitigation Plan Web Page, as part of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services website was developed to provide the public with information. Items posted on the web site included the current plan, and draft updates, by jurisdiction or agency. Public involvement was valuable in the development of the Plan. The areas of concern provided by the survey responses were used by each jurisdiction while developing mitigation objectives and actions. 3.6 Existing Plans or Studies Reviewed HMWG team members and their corresponding Local Mitigation Planning Teams prior to and during the planning process reviewed several plans, studies, and guides. These plans included FEMA documents, emergency services documents as well as county and local general plans, community plans, local codes and ordinances, and other similar documents. These included: San Diego County/Cities General Plans Various Local Community Plans Various Local Codes and Ordinances FEMA Local Mitigation Handbook March 2013 FEMA Mitigation Ideas January 25, 2013 Integrating Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Planning – ICLEI February 2014 Climate Change Impacts in the United States – U.S. Government Printing Office 2014 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool California State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013 Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan dated September 2010 SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 20 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 21 4.1 Overview of the Risk Assessment Process Risk Assessment requires the collection and analysis of hazard-related data in order to enable local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce losses from potential hazards. The FEMA Local Mitigation Handbook March 2013 identifies nine tasks to the hazard mitigation planning process, including: 1) determining the planning area and resources, which requires establishing the planning area and those jurisdictions to be included in the planning process 2) building the planning team, which involves identifying local team members, engaging local leadership, getting buy-in and documentation of the process, 3) creating an outreach strategy, to ensure public participation 4) reviewing community capabilities, which involves assessing what resources are in place, such as the National Flood Insurance Program, to help mitigate the hazards, 5) conducting the risk assessment which profiles the hazards, 6) developing a mitigation strategy to minimize the impacts of the hazards, 7) keeping the plan current, 8) reviewing and adopting the plan and 9) creating a safe and resilient community . Tasks 1, 2 3 and 4 were described in Section Three. The remaining tasks are described below. When the revision process began in 2014 a complete review of the hazards identified in the original plan and first update was conducted to determine if they were still valid and should be kept as a target for mitigation measures or removed from the list. We also reassessed those hazards that were not considered for mitigation actions in 2010 to determine if that decision was still applicable or if they should be moved to the active list. Finally, we examined potential or emerging hazards, including climate change, to see if any should be included on the active list. The data used was the most recent data available from SanGIS and the participating jurisdictions. This data changed the model results in some cases raising the risks and reducing it in others. The overall result was a more accurate picture of the risks facing the region. An example of this is the data for dam failure. The 2010 plan shows an exposed population of is 241,767, with the exposure for residential buildings at $23,054,569. The 2014 data shows the exposed population has increased to 432,664, with exposure for residential buildings increasing to $40,141,337. While many of the mitigation measures listed in the original plan and revision were accomplished, the risk of the hazard did not significantly diminish. This is easily seen in both the wildfire and earthquake hazards. While mitigation measures have been put in place (such as the update of the fire code and vegetation management measures) wildfire remains, and will continue to be, the greatest risk to the San Diego region. The HMG reviewed all events since 2010 (wildfires, etc.) and all were profiled accurately in the original plan. The review of the other hazards showed that the updated data was consistent with previous growth in the region. Any significant changes to the hazard profiles were the result of the incorporation of climate change into this plan. 4.1.1 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment is the process of identifying the potential impacts of hazards that threaten an area including both natural and man-made events. A natural event causes a hazard when it harms people or property. Such events would include floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunami, coastal storms, landslides, and wildfires that strike populated areas. Man-made hazard events are caused by human activity and include technological hazards and terrorism. Technological hazards are generally accidental and/or have unintended consequences (for example, an accidental hazardous materials release). Terrorism is defined by the Code SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 22 of Federal Regulations as “…unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Natural hazards that have harmed the County in the past are likely to happen in the future; consequently, the process of risk assessment includes determining whether or not the hazard has occurred previously. Approaches to collecting historical hazard data include researching newspapers and other records, conducting a planning document and report literature review in all relevant hazard subject areas, gathering hazard-related GIS data, and engaging in conversation with relevant experts from the community. In addition, a variety of sources were used to determine the full range of all potential hazards within San Diego County. Even though a particular hazard may not have occurred in recent history in San Diego County, it is important during the hazard identification stage to consider all hazards that may potentially affect the study area. 4.1.2 Profiling (Describing) Hazards Hazard profiling entails describing the physical characteristics of hazards such as their magnitude, duration, past occurrences and probability. This stage of the hazard mitigation planning process involves creating base maps of the study area and then collecting and mapping hazard event profile information obtained from various federal, state, and local government agencies. Building upon the original hazard profiles, OES used the existing hazard data tables (created for the original Hazard Mitigation Plan and revision) and updated them using current data. The revised hazard data was mapped to determine the geographic extent of the hazards in each jurisdiction in the County. The level of risk associated with each hazard in each jurisdiction was also estimated and assigned a risk level of high, medium or low depending on several factors unique to that particular hazard. The hazards looked at were both natural and man-made. Probability of future events are described in the plan as: • Highly Likely – Occurs at intervals of 1 – 10 years • Likely - Occurs at intervals of 10 - 50 years • Somewhat Likely - Occurs at intervals greater than every 50 years 4.1.3 Identifying Assets The next step of the risk assessment process entails identifying which assets in each jurisdiction will be affected by each hazard type. Assets include the built environment (any type of structure or critical facility such as hospitals, schools, museums, apartment buildings, and public infrastructure), people, economic factors, future development and the natural environment. The inventory of existing and proposed assets within the County was updated. The assets were then mapped to show their locations and to determine their vulnerability to each hazard type. The HMWG also considered proposed structures, including planned and approved developments, based upon a review of the General Plan Land Use Element for the County and the cities. 4.1.4 Analyze Risk Analyzing risk involves evaluating vulnerable assets, describing potential impacts and estimating losses for each hazard. Vulnerability describes the degree to which an asset is susceptible to damage from a hazard. Vulnerability depends on an asset’s construction, contents and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 23 another. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct effects. Risk analysis predicts the extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a given area. It identifies the effects of natural and man-made hazard events by estimating the relative exposure of existing and future population, land development, and infrastructure to hazardous conditions. The analysis helps set mitigation priorities by allowing local jurisdictions to focus attention on areas most likely to be damaged or most likely to require early emergency response during a hazard event. 4.1.5 Repetitive Loss Disaster records were reviewed for repetitive losses. No repetitive losses were found for Coastal storms, erosion and Tsunamis, Dam Failures, Earthquakes, landslides, wildfire or liquefaction. The City of Lemon Grove had one address involved in a series of repetitive structure fires caused by arson. A list of repetitive losses by jurisdiction is below (Repetitive loss due to flooding is found in Section 4.3.5.3): Alpine FPD 0 National City 0 Carlsbad 1 Structure Fire Oceanside 0 Chula Vista 0 Poway 0 Coronado 0 Padre Dam MWD 0 Del Mar 3 Storm /Erosion San Diego 0 El Cajon 0 San Marcos 0 Encinitas 0 Santee 0 Escondido 0 Solana Beach 0 Imperial Beach 0 Flood Vista 0 La Mesa 0 County of San Diego 0 Flood Lemon Grove 1 Structure Fire Rancho Santa Fe FPD 0 4.1.6 Exposure Analysis Exposure analysis identifies the existing and future assets located in an identified hazard area. It can quantify the number, type and value of structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure located in those areas, as well as assets exposed to multiple hazards. It can also be used to quantify the number of future structures and infrastructure possible in hazard prone areas based on zoning and building codes. 4.2 Hazard Identification and Screening 4.2.1 List of Hazards Prevalent in the Jurisdiction The HMWG reviewed the hazards identified in the original Hazard Mitigation Plan and evaluated each to see if they still posed a risk to the region. In addition, the hazards listed in the How-to Guide were also reviewed to determine if they should be added to the list of hazards to include in the plan revision. All hazards identified by FEMA in the How-To-Guides were reviewed. They include: avalanche, coastal storm, coastal erosion, dam failure, drought/water supply, earthquake, expansive soils, extreme heat, flooding, hailstorm, house/building fire, land subsidence, landslide, liquefaction, severe winter storm, tornado, tsunami, wildfire, windstorm, and volcano. Although not required by the FEMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, manmade hazards such as hazardous materials release, nuclear materials release, and terrorism were also reviewed by the HMWG. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 24 Climate change was not included as a hazard. However, the impact of climate change on the identified hazards was included in the evaluation of the hazards and their impacts. 4.2.2 Hazard Identification Process As summarized above, hazard identification is the process of identifying all hazards that threaten an area, including both natural and man-made events. In the hazard identification stage, The HMWG determined hazards that potentially threaten San Diego County. The hazard screening process involved narrowing the all-inclusive list of hazards to those most threatening to the San Diego region. The screening effort required extensive input from a variety of HMWG members, including representatives from City governments, County agencies, special districts, fire agencies and law enforcement agencies, the California Office of Emergency Services, local businesses, community groups, the 2010 Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan, and the general public. OES, with assistance of GIS experts from the County of San Diego’s Planning and Development Services used information from FEMA and other nationally and locally available databases to map the County’s hazards, infrastructure, critical facilities, and land uses. This mapping effort was utilized in the hazard screening process to determine which hazards would present the greatest risk to the County of San Diego and to each jurisdiction within the County. It was also determined that the coastal storm, erosion, and tsunami hazards should be profiled together because the same communities in the County have the potential to be affected by all three hazards. In the development of the initial plan, the HMWG indicated that based on the fact that the majority of the development in San Diego is relatively recent (within the last 60 years), an urban type of fire that destroys multiple city blocks is not likely to occur alone, without a wildfire in the urban/wild-land interface occurring first. Therefore, it was determined that house/building fire and wildfire should be addressed as one hazard category in the plan. This current revised plan continues to discuss structure fire and wildfire together. Similarly, the original plan and first revision addressed earthquake and liquefaction as one category because liquefaction does not occur unless an adequate level of ground shaking from an earthquake occurs first. With the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station it was decided to incorporate nuclear materials release (resulting from an accident) under hazardous materials release. The final list of hazards to be profiled for San Diego County was determined as Wildfire/Structure Fire, Flood, Coastal Storms/Erosion/Tsunami, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Rain-Induced Landslide, Dam Failure, Drought, Hazardous Materials Incidents, and Terrorism. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 25 Table 4.2-1 shows a summary of the hazard identification results for San Diego County. Table 4.2-1 Summary of Hazard Identification Results Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion Coastal Storms, Erosion and Tsunami • Historical Coastlines (NOAA) • Shoreline Erosion Assessment (SANDAG) • Maximum Tsunami Run up Projections (USCA OES) • FEMA FIRM Maps • FEMA Hazards website • Coastal Zone Boundary (CALTRANS) • Tsunamis and their Occurrence along the San Diego County Coast (report, Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory) • Tsunami (article, Scientific American) • Storms in San Diego County (publication of San Diego County Dept. of Sanitation and Flood Control) • Coastal storms prompted 11 Proclaimed States of Emergency from 1950-2017 • Coastline stabilization measures have been implemented at various times in the past (erosion) • Extensive development along the coast Dam Failure • FEMA-HAZUS • Dam Inundation Data (SanGIS) • San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) (Olivenhain Dam) • FEMA FIRM maps • Topography (SANDAG) • FEMA Hazards website • Dam failure • 58 dams exist throughout San Diego County • Many dams over 30 years old • Increased downstream development Drought • California Department of Water Resources • San Diego County Water Authority • Statewide multiple year droughts have occurred numerous times since 1976 • Regional water storage reserves are at the lowest point since 2008 Earthquake • USGS • CGS • URS • CISN • SanGIS • SANDAG • FEMA-HAZUS 99 • FEMA Hazards website • Several active fault zones pass through San Diego County SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 26 Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion Floods • FEMA FIRM Maps • Topography • Base flood elevations (FEMA) • Historical flood records • San Diego County Water Authority • San Diego County Dept. of Sanitation and Flood Control • FEMA Hazards website • Much of San Diego County is located within the 100-year floodplain • Flash floods and other flood events occur regularly during rainstorms due to terrain and hydrology of San Diego County • There have been multiple Proclaimed States of Emergency between 1950-2016 for floods in San Diego County Hazardous Materials Release • County of San Diego Dept. of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division • San Diego County has several facilities that handle or process hazardous materials • Heightened security concerns since September 2001 Landslide • USGS • CGS • Tan Map Series • Steep slope data (SANDAG) • Soil Series Data (SANDAG) • FEMA-HAZUS • FEMA Hazards website • NEH • Steep slopes within earthquake zones characterize San Diego County, which creates landslide risk. • There have been 2 Proclaimed States of Emergency for landslides in San Diego County Liquefaction • Soil-Slip Susceptibility (USGS) • FEMA-HAZUS MH • FEMA Hazards website • Steep slopes or alluvial deposit soils in low-lying areas are susceptible to liquefaction during earthquakes or heavy rains. San Diego County terrain has both of these characteristics and lies within several active earthquake zones Nuclear Materials Release • San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and Department of Defense • The potential exists for an accidental release to occur at San Onofre or from nuclear ships in San Diego Bay • Heightened security concerns since September 2001 Terrorism • County of San Diego Environmental Health Department Hazardous Materials Division • The federal and state governments have advised every jurisdiction to consider the terrorism hazard • Heightened security concerns since September 2001 Wildfire/ Structure Fire • CDF-FRAP • USFS • CDFG • Topography • Local Fire Agencies • Historical fire records • FEMA Hazards website • San Diego County experiences wildfires on a regular basis • 9 States of Emergency were declared for wildfires between 1950-2016 • Terrain and climate of San Diego • Santa Ana Winds A matrix of all data collected, including source, original projection, scale and data limitations is included in Attachment B. Maps were generated depicting the potential hazards throughout the county and distributed to the jurisdictions. Data and methods that were ultimately used to determine risk levels and probability of occurrence for each hazard are described in detail in the hazard profiling sections. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 27 Hazards are categorized in this plan as being highly likely (occurring every 1-10 years), likely (occurring every 10-50 years) or somewhat likely (occurring at intervals greater than 50 years). 4.2.3 Hazard Identification Sources Once the hazards of concern for San Diego County were determined, the available data was collected, using sources including the Internet, direct communication with various agencies, discussions with in-house URS experts, and historical records. Specific sources included the United States Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) HAZUS, FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), United States Forest Service (USFS), California Department of Forestry – Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF-FRAP), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), San Diego Geographic Information Source (SanGIS), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), San Diego County Flood Control District, Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Drought Outlook websites, and input gathered from local jurisdictions districts and agencies. When necessary, agencies were contacted to ensure the most updated data was obtained and used. Historical landmark locations throughout the County were obtained from the National Register and from the San Diego Historical Resources Board. Table 4.2-1 also depicts data sources researched and utilized by hazard, as well as brief justifications for inclusion of each hazard of concern in the San Diego region. See Appendix B for a Data Matrix of all sources used to gather initial hazard information. 4.2.4 Non-Profiled Hazards During the initial evaluation the HMWG determined that those hazards that were not included in the original plan’s profiling step because they were not prevalent hazards within the County, were found to pose only minor or very minor threats to the County compared to the other hazards had not changed and would not be included in the revision. The following table gives a brief description of those hazards and the reason for their exclusion from the list. Table 4.2-2 Summary of Hazards Excluded from Hazard Profiling Hazard Description Reason for Exclusion Avalanche A mass of snow moving down a slope. There are two basic elements to a slide; a steep, snow-covered slope and a trigger Snowfall in County mountains not significant; poses very minor threat compared to other hazards Expansive soils Expansive soils shrink when dry and swell when wet. This movement can exert enough pressure to crack sidewalks, driveways, basement floors, pipelines and even foundations Presents a minor threat to limited portions of the County Hailstorm Can occur during thunderstorms that bring heavy rains, strong winds, hail, lightning and tornadoes Occurs during severe thunderstorms; most likely to occur in the central and southern states; no historical record of this hazard in the region. Land subsidence Occurs when large amounts of ground water have been withdrawn from certain types of Soils in the County are mostly granitic. Presents a minor threat to limited parts of the county. No historical record SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 28 Hazard Description Reason for Exclusion rocks, such as fine-grained sediments. The rock compacts because the water is partly responsible for holding the ground up. When the water is withdrawn, the rocks fall in on themselves. of this hazard in the region. Tornado A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. It is spawned by a thunderstorm (or sometimes as a result of a hurricane) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage from a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris. Less than one tornado event occurs in the entire State of California in any given year; poses very minor threat compared to other hazards. No historical record of this hazard in the region. Volcano A volcano is a mountain that is built up by an accumulation of lava, ash flows, and airborne ash and dust. When pressure from gases and the molten rock within the volcano becomes strong enough to cause an explosion, eruptions occur No active volcanoes in San Diego County. No historical record of this hazard in the region. Windstorm A storm with winds that have reached a constant speed of 74 miles per hour or more Maximum sustained wind speed recorded in the region is less than 60 miles per hour and would not be expected to cause major damage or injury (see Figure 4.3.1) 4.3 Hazard Profiles A hazard profile is a description of the physical characteristics of a hazard and a determination of various hazard descriptors, including magnitude, duration, frequency, probability, and extent. The hazard data that were collected in the hazard identification process were mapped to determine the geographic extent of the hazards in each jurisdiction in the County and the level of risk associated with each hazard. Most hazards were given a risk level of high, medium or low depending on several factors unique to the hazard. The hazards identified and profiled for San Diego County, as well as the data used to profile each hazard are presented in this section. The hazards are presented in alphabetical order; and this does not signify level of importance to the HMWG. Because Nuclear Materials Release, Hazardous Materials Release and Terrorism hazards are sensitive issues and release of information could pose further unnecessary threat, the HMWG decided that each of these hazards would be discussed separately in a “For Official Use Only” Appendix and would be exempt from public distribution and disclosure by Section 6254 (99) of the California Government Code (See separately bound Attachment A). 4.3.1 Emerging Risk – Climate Change According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increased global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.1 The overwhelming majority of 1 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 29 climate scientists agree that human activities, especially burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for most of the global warming observed.2 Climate change is already affecting California and the San Diego region. Sea levels measured at a station in La Jolla have risen at a rate of 6 inches over the last century.3 Flooding and erosion in coastal areas is already occurring even at existing sea levels and damaging some coastal areas during storms and extreme high tides.4 California has also seen an increase in average temperatures of about 1.5F since 1985, more extreme heat events, and decreasing spring snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada as more precipitation falls as rain instead of snow.5 Eighty-four percent of San Diego County residents believe that climate change is happening.6 The climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond.7 Climate change is not a hazard in and of itself, but rather is a factor that could affect the location, extent, probability of occurrence, and magnitude of climate-related hazards. This risk assessment goes on to discuss climate change as a factor affecting extreme heat, coastal storms/erosion, wildfire, flooding, and drought/water supply. The climate change factor is increasing risk for some natural hazards, and this assessment includes information about how risk will change into the future. By assessing ongoing changes in risk—in addition to the traditional practice of risk assessment based on observed hazard events—this plan’s hazard mitigation strategies can better reduce risk from hazards expected going forward. The following section provides a summary of projections for temperatures, sea level rise, and precipitation, provided by Dr. Daniel Cayan and his team at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.8 4.3.1.1 Annual Average Temperature According to the National Climate Assessment, the Southwestern United States has already heated up markedly. The period since 1950 has been hotter than any other comparably long period in the last 600 years and the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the hottest in the 110-year instrumental record.9 Global climate 2 Ibid. 3 California Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2013. “Indicators of Climate Change in California.” 4 Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 19-67. doi:10.7930/J0KW5CXT. 5 Ibid. 6 Climate Education Partners, 2014. “San Diego, 2050 Is Calling. How Will We Answer?” 7 Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 19-67. doi:10.7930/J0KW5CXT. 8 Higbee, Melissa, Daniel Cayan, Sam Iacobellis, Mary Tyree (2014). Report from San Diego Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Training Workshop #1: Climate Change and Hazards in San Diego. ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www.icleiusa.org/library/documents/training-workshop-report/view 9 Garfin, G., G. Franco, H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzalez, T. Piechota, R. Smyth, and R. Waskom, 2014: Ch. 20: Southwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 462-486. doi:10.7930/J08G8HMN. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 30 models project that San Diego will likely warm 2-3 oF by 2050 under the relatively low GHG emissions scenario (RCP 4.5). Greater warming can be expected in inland areas than along the coast. Under the higher emissions scenario (RCP 8.5), the warming trend becomes significantly more pronounced after 2050. This tendency occurs in coastal and inland areas. 4.3.1.2 Heat Waves For this analysis, the definition of a heat wave is the occurrence of the 98th percentile maximum temperature calculated from the historical period of 1970-2000 for at least one day. For coastal areas, a heat wave is defined as at least one day with the temperature reaching 83 oF or higher. For inland areas, a heat wave is at least one day with the temperature reaching 116 degrees oF or higher. By this definition, heat waves occur about 2 times per year in San Diego’s present climate. However, heat waves are projected to increase in frequency and intensity (higher maximum temperatures) over the 21st century. By mid-century, the San Diego region could see heat waves occurring 12-16 times per year. Heat waves are also projected to increase in duration (number of days). In the current climate, heat waves last 2 days on average. By mid-century, heat waves are projected to last 3-4 days on average. 4.3.1.3 Sea Level Rise Sea levels measured at a station in La Jolla have risen at a rate of 6 inches over the last century.10 The table below shows the ranges of sea level rise that the California Coastal Commission11 recommends local jurisdictions plan for based on the National Research Council’s (NRC) report on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon and Washington: Past Present and Future.12 San Diego is projected to experience up to two feet of sea level rise by mid-century. NRC Average Sea Level Rise Projections for South of Cape Mendocino Time Period Range Central Estimate 2000-2030 4 to 30 cm (.13 to .98 ft) 14.7 ± 5.0 cm 2000-2050 12 to 61 cm (.39 to 2.0 ft) 28.4 ± 9.2 cm 2000-2100 42 to 167 cm (1.38 to 5.48 ft) 91.9 ± 24.9 cm 4.3.1.4 High Sea Level Events It’s not only important to consider increases in average sea level, but also consider other fluctuations that will occur on top of the increase in the average, such as high astronomical tides, wind, waves, and storm surge. These fluctuations produce high sea level events. This analysis of high sea levels uses a model that includes sea level rise, weather, and tidal-related fluctuations in sea level. This analysis defines a high sea level as the 99.99th percentile hourly sea level 10 California Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2013. “Indicators of Climate Change in California.” 11 California Coastal Commission Draft Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance (2013) http://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slr/guidance/CCC_Draft_SLR_Guidance_PR_10142013.pdf 12 Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (2012). http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 31 calculated for the period 1970-1999.The analysis sums the total number of hours in a year that the sea level is at or above this threshold. The chart below illustrates how as the annual mean sea level increases, San Diego’s shoreline will see increasingly more hours of high sea levels as the century progresses. In the present climate, San Diego experiences one hour of high sea levels per year on average. By the 2030 period, high sea levels occur 12 hours per year on average. By mid-century, this increases to 62 hours per year. These high sea levels put more natural ecosystems (beaches, cliffs, wetlands) and man-made infrastructure at risk of exposure to flooding and wave action. High Sea Levels Trend Chart: 4.3.2 Sea Level Rise, Coastal Storms, Erosion and Tsunami 4.3.2.1 Nature of Hazard These four hazards were mapped and profiled as a group because many of the factors and risks involved are similar and limited to the coastal areas. Coastal storms can cause increases in tidal elevations (called storm surge), wind speed, and erosion. The most dangerous and damaging feature of a coastal storm is storm surge. Storm surges are large waves of ocean water that sweep across coastlines where a storm makes landfall. Storm surges can inundate coastal areas, wash out dunes, and cause backwater flooding. If a storm surge occurs at the same time as high tide, the water height will be even greater. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 32 With up to two feet of sea level rise projected by 2050, low-lying areas could become inundated more frequently and with increasingly higher water levels. In addition, storm related flooding may reach father inland and occur more often13. Beaches and cliffs could also see increased erosion as they are exposed to more hours of high sea levels and wave action.14 The NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer allows for planers to predict the impact of sea level rise over the next several decades. It can be found at https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr. According to the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy for the San Diego Bay, the sectors most vulnerable to sea level rise are storm water, wastewater, shoreline parks, transportation facilities, commercial buildings, and ecosystems. Low-lying communities, such as Imperial Beach, Coronado, Mission Beach, and parts of La Jolla Shores, Del Mar, and Oceanside may be particularly vulnerable to sea level rise.15 In addition, some of San Diego’s military installations and the region controlled by the Port of San Diego may also be affected.16 According to the County of San Diego Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, (dated February 2017), fewer than one percent of the residents of San Diego County reside in areas at risk of inundation from a 55-inch rise in sea level by 2100. Based on that information, sea level rise is considered (on a scale of low, medium, high, very high) a low hazard for the region. Coastal erosion is the wearing away of coastal land. It is commonly used to describe the horizontal retreat of the shoreline along the ocean, and is considered a function of larger processes of shoreline change, which include erosion and accretion. Erosion results when more sediment is lost along a particular shoreline than is re-deposited by the water body, and is measured as a rate with respect to either a linear retreat or volumetric loss. Erosion rates are not uniform and vary over time at any single location. Various locations along the Coast of San Diego County are highly susceptible to erosion. Erosion prevention and repair measures such as installation of seawalls and reinforcement of cliffs have been required in different locations along the San Diego coast in the past. The risk of coastal erosion in San Diego County is considered medium. • A tsunami is a series of long waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of a large volume of water. Underwater earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, meteoric impacts, or onshore slope failures can cause this displacement. Tsunami waves can travel at speeds averaging 450 to 600 miles per hour. As a tsunami nears the coastline, its speed diminishes, its wavelength decreases, and its height increases greatly. After a major earthquake or other tsunami-inducing activity occurs, a tsunami could reach the shore within a few minutes. One coastal community may experience no damaging waves while another may experience very destructive waves. Some low-lying areas could experience severe inland inundation of water and deposition of debris more than 3,000 feet inland. Historically the impact of Tsunamis on the San Diego coastline has been low, but inundation maps developed by the California Office of Emergency Services and the California Geologic Survey show the potential for moderate damage along low-lying areas. The California Geologic Survey has developed Tsunami Inundation maps that can be found at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps. 13 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 33 4.3.2.2 Disaster History There were eleven (11) Proclaimed States of Emergency for Weather/Storms in San Diego County between 1950 and 2017. In January and February 1983, the strongest-ever El Nino-driven coastal storms caused over 116 million dollars in beach and coastal damage. Thirty-three homes were destroyed and 3900 homes and businesses were damaged. Other coastal storms that caused notable damage were during the El Nino winters of 1977-1978 and 1997-1998 and 2003-2004. Other Proclamations occurred in December 2010. July 2015, and February 2017. The City of San Diego proclaimed for winter storms in 2013. Coastal erosion is an ongoing process that is difficult to measure, but can be seen in various areas along the coastline of San Diego County. Unstable cliffs at Beacon’s Beach in Encinitas caused a landslide that killed a woman sitting on the beach in January 2000. In 1942, the Self-Realization Fellowship building fell into the ocean because of erosion and slope failure caused by groundwater oversaturated the cliffs it was built on. Wave heights and run-up elevations from tsunami along the San Diego Coast have historically fallen within the normal range of the tides (Joy 1968). The largest tsunami effect recorded in San Diego since 1950 was May 22, 1960, which had a maximum wave height 2.1 feet (NOAA, 1993). In this event, 80 meters of dock were destroyed and a barge sunk in Quivera Basin. Other tsunamis felt in San Diego County occurred on November 5, 1952, with a wave height of 2.3 feet and caused by an earthquake in Kamchatka; March 9, 1957, with a wave height of 1.5 feet; May 22, 1960, at 2.1 feet; March 27, 1964 with a wave height of 3.7 feet, September 29, 2009 with a wave height of 0.5 feet, February 2010 with a wave height of 0.6 meters, and in June, 2011 with wave height of 2 feet.. It should be noted that damage does not necessarily occur in direct relationship to wave height, illustrated by the fact that the damages caused by the 2.1-foot wave height in 1960 were worse than damages caused by several other tsunamis with higher wave heights. 4.3.2.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Figure 4.3.1 displays the location and extent of coastal storm/coastal erosion/tsunami hazard areas for the County of San Diego. As shown in this figure, the highest risk zones in San Diego County are located within the coastal zone of San Diego County. Coastal storm hazards are most likely during El Nino events. As shown on Figure 4.3.1, maximum wind speeds along the coast are not expected to exceed 60 miles per hour, resulting in only minor wind-speed related damage. Coastal erosion risk is highest where geologically unstable cliffs become over-saturated by irrigation or rainwater. The greatest type of tsunami risk is material damage to small watercraft, harbors, and some waterfront structures (Joy 1968), with flooding along the coast as shown in the run-up projections on Figure 4.3.1. As stated above, the risk of damage from seal level rise is considered somewhat likely with the risk of damage from coastal erosion considered to be likely and from tsunami highly likely. Data used to profile this group of hazards included the digitized flood zones from the FEMA FIRM Flood maps, NOAA historical shoreline data, and Caltrans’ coastal zone boundary for the coastal storm/erosion hazard (refer to Appendix B for complete data matrix). Maximum tsunami run up projections modeled by the University of Southern California and distributed by the California Office of Emergency Services were used for identifying tsunami hazard. The tsunami model was the result of a combination of inundation modeling and onsite surveys and shows maximum projected inundation levels from tsunamis along the entire coast of San Diego County. NOAA historical tsunami effects data were also used, which showed SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 34 locations where tsunami effects have been felt, and when available, details describing size and location of earthquakes that caused the tsunamis. The Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region Volumes I and II (SANDAG, 1992) were reviewed for the shoreline erosion category. This publication shows erosion risk levels of high, moderate and low for the entire coastline of San Diego County. For modeling purposes, the VE Zone of the FEMA FIRM map series was used as the high hazard value for coastal storms and coastal erosion. The VE Zone is defined by FEMA as the coastal area subject to a velocity hazard (wave action). Coastal storm and erosion risk were determined to be high if areas were found within the VE zone of the FEMA FIRM maps. Tsunami hazard risk levels were determined to be high if an area was within the maximum projected tsunami run-up and inundation area. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 35 Figure 4.3.1 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 36 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 37 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 38 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 39 4.3.3 Dam Failure 4.3.3.1 Nature of Hazard Dam failures can result in severe flood events. When a dam fails, a large quantity of water is suddenly released with a great potential to cause human casualties, economic loss, lifeline disruption, and environmental damage. A dam failure is usually the result of age, poor design, or structural damage caused by a major event such as an earthquake or flood. 4.3.3.2 Disaster History Two major dam failures have been recorded in San Diego County. The Hatfield Flood of 1916 caused the failure of the Sweetwater and Lower Otay Dams, resulting in 22 deaths. Most of those deaths were attributed to the failure of Lower Otay Dam (County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control, 2002). 4.3.3.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Figure 4.3.2 displays the location and extent of dam failure hazard areas for the County of San Diego. Dam failures are rated as one of the major “low-probability, high-loss” events. Dam inundation map data were used to profile dam failure risk levels (refer to Appendix B for complete data matrix). These maps were created by agencies that own and operate dams. OES obtained this data from SanGIS, a local GIS data repository. The dam inundation map layers show areas that would be flooded in the event of a dam failure. If an area lies within a dam inundation zone, it was considered at high risk. A dam is characterized as high hazard if it stores more than 1,000 acre-feet of water, is higher than 150 feet tall, has potential for downstream property damage, and potential for downstream evacuation. Ratings are set by FEMA and confirmed with site visits by engineers. A simple way to define high risk of dam failure is if failure of the dam is likely to result in loss of human life. Most dams in the County are greater than 50 years old and are characterized by increased hazard potential due to downstream development and increased risk due to structural deterioration in inadequate spillway capacity (Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan, 2014). The potential for dam failure is considered to be somewhat likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 40 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 41 Figure 4.3.2 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 42 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 43 4.3.4 Earthquake 4.3.4.1 Nature of Hazard An earthquake is a sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated within or along the edge of the Earth's tectonic plates. The effects of an earthquake can be felt far beyond the site of its occurrence. They usually occur without warning and, after just a few seconds, can cause massive damage and extensive casualties. Common effects of earthquakes are ground motion and shaking, surface fault ruptures, and ground failure. Ground motion is the vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake. When a fault ruptures, seismic waves radiate, causing the ground to vibrate. The severity of the vibration increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with distance from the causative fault or epicenter. Soft soils can further amplify ground motions. The severity of these effects is dependent on the amount of energy released from the fault or epicenter. One way to express an earthquake's severity is to compare its acceleration to the normal acceleration due to gravity. The acceleration due to gravity is often called "g". A 100% g earthquake is very severe. More damage tends to occur from earthquakes when ground acceleration is rapid. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the strength of ground movement. PGA measures the rate in change of motion relative to the established rate of acceleration due to gravity (980 cm/sec/sec). PGA is used to project the risk of damage from future earthquakes by showing earthquake ground motions that have a specified probability (10%, 5%, or 2%) of being exceeded in 50 years. These ground motion values are used for reference in construction design for earthquake resistance. The ground motion values can also be used to assess relative hazard between sites, when making economic and safety decisions. Another tool used to describe earthquake intensity is the Richter scale. The Richter scale was devised as a means of rating earthquake strength and is an indirect measure of seismic energy released. The scale is logarithmic with each one-point increase corresponding to a 10-fold increase in the amplitude of the seismic shock waves generated by the earthquake. In terms of actual energy released, however, each one-point increase on the Richter scale corresponds to about a 32-fold increase in energy released. Therefore, a magnitude (M) 7 earthquake is 100 times (10 X 10) more powerful than a M5 earthquake and releases 1,024 times (32 X 32) the energy. An earthquake generates different types of seismic shock waves that travel outward from the focus or point of rupture on a fault. Seismic waves that travel through the earth's crust are called body waves and are divided into primary (P) and secondary (S) waves. Because P waves move faster (1.7 times) than S waves they arrive at the seismograph first. By measuring the time delay between arrival of the P and S waves and knowing the distance to the epicenter, seismologists can compute the Richter scale magnitude for the earthquake. The Modified Mercalli Scale (MMI) is another means for rating earthquakes, but one that attempts to quantify intensity of ground shaking. Intensity under this scale is a function of distance from the epicenter (the closer to the epicenter the greater the intensity), ground acceleration, duration of ground shaking, and degree of structural damage. This rates the level of severity of an earthquake by the amount of damage and perceived shaking (Table 4.3-1). SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 44 Table 4.3-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale MMI Value Description of Shaking Severity Summary Damage Description Used on 1995 Maps Full Description I. Not felt II. Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed. III. Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks. Duration estimated. May not be recognized as an earthquake. IV. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks; or sensation of a jolt like a heavy ball striking the walls. Standing motorcars rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. In the upper range of IV, wooden walls and frame creak. V. Light Pictures Move Felt outdoors; direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset. Doors swing, close, open. Shutters, pictures move. Pendulum clock stop, start, change rate. VI. Moderate Objects Fall Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. VII. Strong Nonstructural Damage Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motorcars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roofline. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices. Some cracks in masonry C. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged. VIII. Very Strong Moderate Damage Steering of motorcars affected. Damage to masonry C, partial collapse. Some damage to masonry B; none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, factory stacks, monuments, towers, and elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted down; loose panel walls thrown out. Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes. IX. Very Violent Extreme Damage Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. X. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of services. XI. Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 45 Several major active faults exist in San Diego County, including the Rose Canyon, La Nacion, Elsinore, San Jacinto, Coronado Bank and San Clemente Fault Zones. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is part of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, which originates to the north in Los Angeles, and the Vallecitos and San Miguel Fault Systems to the south in Baja California (see Figure 4.3.3). The Rose Canyon Fault extends inland from La Jolla Cove, south through Rose Canyon, along the east side of Mission Bay, and out into San Diego Bay. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be the greatest potential threat to San Diego as a region, due to its proximity to areas of high population. The La Nacion Fault Zone is located near National City and Chula Vista. The Elsinore Fault Zone is a branch of the San Andreas Fault System. It originates near downtown Los Angeles, and enters San Diego County through the communities of Rainbow and Pala; it then travels in a southeasterly direction through Lake Henshaw, Santa Ysabel, Julian; then down into Anza-Borrego Desert State Park at Agua Caliente Springs, ending at Ocotillo, approximately 40 miles east of downtown. The San Jacinto Fault is also a branch of the San Andreas Fault System. This fault branches off from the major fault as it passes through the San Bernardino Mountains. Traveling southeasterly, the fault passes through Clark Valley, Borrego Springs, Ocotillo Wells, and then east toward El Centro in Imperial County. This fault is the most active large fault within County of San Diego. The Coronado Bank fault is located about 10 miles offshore. The San Clemente Fault lies about 40 miles off La Jolla and is the largest offshore fault at 110 miles or more in length (Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan, 2014). 4.3.4.2 Disaster History Historic documents record that a very strong earthquake struck San Diego on May 27, 1862, damaging buildings in Old Town and opening up cracks in the earth near the San Diego River mouth. This destructive earthquake was centered on either the Rose Canyon or Coronado Bank faults and descriptions of damage suggest that it had a magnitude of about 6.0 (M6). The strongest recently recorded earthquake in San Diego County was a M5.3 earthquake that occurred on July 13, 1986 on the Coronado Bank Fault, 25 miles west of Solana Beach. In recent years there have been several moderate earthquakes recorded within the Rose Canyon Fault Zone as it passes beneath the City of San Diego. Three temblors shook the city on 17 June 1985 (M3.9, 4.0, 3.9) and a stronger quake occurred on 28 October 1986 (M4.7) (Demere, SDNHM website 2003). The most recent significant earthquake activity occurred on June 15, 2004 with a M5.3 on the San Diego Trough Fault Zone approximately 50 miles SW of San Diego. It was reported as an IV on the MMI (Southern California Seismic Network). 4.3.4.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Figure 4.3.3 displays the location and extent of the profiled earthquake hazard areas for San Diego County. This is based on a USGS earthquake model that shows probabilistic peak ground acceleration for every location in San Diego County. Since 1984, earthquake activity in San Diego County has increased twofold over the preceding 50 years (Demere, SDNHM website 2003). All buildings that have been built in recent decades must adhere to building codes that require them to be able to withstand earthquake magnitudes that create a PGA of 0.4 or greater. Ongoing field and laboratory studies suggest the following maximum likely magnitudes for local faults: San Jacinto (M6.4 to 7.3), Elsinore (M6.5 to 7.3), Rose Canyon (M6.2 to 7.0), La Nacion (M6.2 to 6.6), Coronado Bank (M6.0 to 7.7), and San Clemente (M6.6 to 7.7) (Demere, SDNHM website 2003). SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 46 Data used to profile earthquake hazard included probabilistic PGA data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and a Scenario Earthquake Shake map for Rose Canyon from the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) (refer to Attachment A for complete data matrix). From these data, the HMWG determined that risk level for earthquake is determined to be high if an area lies within a 0.3 or greater PGA designation. Earthquakes were modeled using HAZUS-MH, which uses base information to derive probabilistic peak ground accelerations much like the PGA map from USGS that was used for the profiling process. The potential for an earthquake in the San Diego region is considered somewhat likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 47 Figure 4.3.3 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 48 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 49 4.3.5 Flood 4.3.5.1 Nature of Hazard A flood occurs when excess water from snowmelt, rainfall, or storm surge accumulates and overflows onto a river’s bank or to adjacent floodplains. Floodplains are lowlands adjacent to rivers, lakes, and oceans that are subject to recurring floods. Most injury and death from flood occurs when people are swept away by flood currents, and property damage typically occurs as a result of inundation by sediment-filled water. Average annual precipitation in San Diego County ranges from 10 inches on the coast to approximately 45 inches on the highest point of the Peninsular Mountain Range that transects the county, and 3 inches in the desert east of the mountains. Several factors determine the severity of floods, including rainfall intensity and duration. A large amount of rainfall over a short time span can result in flash flood conditions. A sudden thunderstorm or heavy rain, dam failure, or sudden spills can cause flash flooding. The National Weather Service’s definition of a flash flood is a flood occurring in a watershed where the time of travel of the peak of flow from one end of the watershed to the other is less than six hours. There are no watersheds in San Diego County that have a longer response time than six hours. In this county, flash floods range from the stereotypical wall of water to a gradually rising stream. The central and eastern portions of San Diego County are most susceptible to flash floods where mountain canyons, dry creek beds, and high deserts are the prevailing terrain. 4.3.5.2 Disaster History From 1770 until 1952, 29 floods were recorded in San Diego County. Between 1950 and 1997, flooding prompted 10 Proclaimed States of Emergency in the County of San Diego. Several very large floods have caused significant damage in the County of San Diego in the past. The Hatfield Flood of 1916 destroyed the Sweetwater and Lower Otay Dams, and caused 22 deaths and $4.5 million in damages. The flood of 1927 caused $117,000 in damages, and washed out the Old Town railroad bridge (Bainbridge, 1997). The floods of 1937 and 1938 caused approximately $600,000 in damages. (County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control, 1996). In the 1980 floods, the San Diego River at Mission Valley peaked at 27,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and caused $120 million in damage (Bainbridge, 1997). Table 4.3-2 displays a history of flooding in San Diego County, as well as loss associated with each flood event. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 50 Table 4.3-2 Historical Records of Large Floods in San Diego County 4.3.5.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude In regions such as San Diego, without extended periods of below-freezing temperatures, floods usually occur during the season of highest precipitations or during heavy rainfalls after long dry spells. The areas Date Loss Estimation Source of Estimate Comments 1862 Not available County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control 6 weeks of rain 1891 Not available County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control 33 inches in 60 hours 1916 $4.5 million County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control Destroyed 2 dams, 22 deaths 1927 $117,000 County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control Washed out railroad bridge Old Town 1937 & 1938 $600,000 County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control N/A 1965 Not available San Diego Union 6 killed 1969 Not available San Diego Union All of State declared disaster area 1979 $2,766,268 County OES Cities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, San Marcos, San Diego and unincorporated areas 1980 $120 million County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control; Earth Times San Diego river topped out in Mission Valley Oct-87 $640,500 State OES N/A 1995 $Tens of Millions County OES San Diego County Declared Disaster Area 2003 Not Available County OES Storm floods areas impacted by the 2003 firestorm. Sept 2004 Not Available San Diego Union-Tribune Series of storms caused localized flooding Oct 2004 Not Available San Diego Union-Tribune Flash-flood in Borrego Springs Jan-Mar 2005 Not Available Cal EMA (formerly State OES) San Diego County Declared Disaster Area Jan 2017 $14.5 million (estimated) County OES San Diego County Declared Disaster Area SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 51 surrounding the river valleys in all of San Diego County are susceptible to flooding because of the wide, flat floodplains surrounding the riverbeds, and the numerous structures that are built in the floodplains. One unusual characteristic of San Diego’s hydrology is that it has a high level of variability in its runoff. The western watershed of the County of San Diego extends about 80 miles north from the Mexican border and approximately 45 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. From west to east, there are about 10 miles of rolling, broken coastal plain, 10 to 15 miles of foothill ranges with elevations of 600 to 1,700 feet; and approximately 20 miles of mountain country where elevations range from 3,000 to 6,000 feet. This western watershed constitutes about 75% of the County, with the remaining 25% mainly desert country. There are over 3,600 miles of rivers and streams which threaten residents and over 200,000 acres of flood-prone property. Seven principle streams originate or traverse through the unincorporated area. From north to south they are the Santa Margarita, San Luis Rey, San Dieguito, San Diego, Sweetwater, Otay, and Tijuana Rivers (Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan, 2006). FEMA FIRM data was used to determine hazard risk for floods in the County of San Diego. FEMA defines flood risk primarily by a 100-year flood zone, which is applied to those areas with a 1% chance, on average, of flooding in any given year. Any area that lies within the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain is designated as high risk. Any area found in the 500-year floodplain is designated at low risk. Base flood elevations (BFE) were also used in the HAZUS-MH modeling process. A BFE is the elevation of the water surface resulting from a flood that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year (i.e. the height of the base flood). Figure 4.3.4 displays the location and extent of flood hazard areas for the County of San Diego. As shown in this figure, high hazard (100-year floodway) zones in San Diego County are generally concentrated within the coastal areas, including bays, coastal inlets and estuaries. Major watershed areas connecting the local mountain range to the coastal region, where flash floods are more common, show several 100-year flood hazard areas. Based on FEMA Records the San Diego region has not suffered severe repetitive loss (residential properties that have at least four NFIP payments over $5,000 each with the cumulative claim exceeding $20,000 or at least two separate claims payments with the cumulative amount exceeding the market value of the building) since 1974. There have been numerous repetitive losses (losses of at least $1,000 each). These losses are provided in the table below: Table 4.3-3 Repetitive Loss Due to Floods in San Diego County Jurisdiction Number of Repetitive Losses Jurisdiction Number of Repetitive Losses Jurisdiction Number of Repetitive Losses Carlsbad 1 Chula Vista 2 Coronado 0 Del Mar 13 El Cajon 4 Encinitas 2 Escondido 2 Imperial Beach 4 La Mesa 2 Lemon Grove 0 National City 2 Oceanside 15 Poway 7 San Diego 35 San Marcos 1 Santee 1 Solana Beach 6 Vista 2 County of San Diego 14 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 52 Based on the historical record, the likelihood of flooding in the San Diego region is highly likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 53 Figure 4.3.4 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 54 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 55 4.3.6 Rain-Induced Landslide 4.3.6.1 Nature of Hazard Landslides occur when masses of rock, earth, or debris move down a slope, including rock falls, deep failure of slopes, and shallow debris flows. Landslides are influenced by human activity (mining and construction of buildings, railroads, and highways) and natural factors (geology, precipitation, and topography). Frequently they accompany other natural hazards such as floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. Although landslides sometimes occur during earthquake activity, earthquakes are rarely their primary cause. The most common cause of a landslide is an increase in the down slope gravitational stress applied to slope materials (oversteepening). This may be produced either by natural processes or by man’s activities. Undercutting of a valley wall by stream erosion or of a sea cliff by wave erosion are ways in which slopes may be naturally oversteeped. Other ways include excessive rainfall or irrigation on a cliff or slope. Another type of soil failure is slope wash, the erosion of slopes by surface-water runoff. The intensity of slope wash is dependent on the discharge and velocity of surface runoff and on the resistance of surface materials to erosion. Surface runoff and velocity is greatly increased in urban and suburban areas due to the presence of roads, parking lots, and buildings, which have zero filtration capacities and provide generally smooth surfaces that do not slow down runoff. Mudflows are another type of soil failure, and are defined as flows or rivers of liquid mud down a hillside. They occur when water accumulates under the ground, usually following long and heavy rainfalls. If there is no brush, tree, or ground cover to hold the soil, mud will form and flow down-slope. 4.3.6.2 Disaster History Landslides and landslide prone sedimentary formations are present throughout the coastal plain of western San Diego County. Landslides also occur in the granitic mountains of East San Diego County, although they are less prevalent. Ancient landslides are those with subdued topographic expressions that suggest movements at least several hundred and possibly several thousands of years before present. Many of these landslides are thought to have occurred under much wetter climatic conditions than at present. Recent landslides are those with fresh or sharp geomorphic expressions suggestive of active (ongoing) movement or movement within the past several decades. Reactivations of existing landslides can be triggered by disturbances such as heavy rainfall, seismic shaking and/or grading. Many recent landslides are thought to be reactivations of ancient landslides. Areas where significant landslides have occurred are: the Otay Mesa area, Oceanside, Mt. Soledad in La Jolla, Sorrento Valley, in the vicinity of Rancho Bernardo and Rancho Penasquitos, along the sides of Mission Gorge (San Carlos and Tierrasanta), western Santee, the Fletcher Hills area of western El Cajon, western Camp Pendleton, and the east side of Point Loma. Some of the more significant historical coastal bluff landslides have occurred along north La Jolla (Black’s Beach), Torrey Pines, Del Mar, and Encinitas. Landslides tend to be more widespread in these areas where the underlying sedimentary formations contain weak claystone beds that are more susceptible to sliding. Remedial grading and other mitigation measures have stabilized many but not all landslides in urban areas and other developments within San Diego County. Published geologic maps and other sources of information pertaining to landslide occurrence may not differentiate between known or suspected landslides. Moreover, published landslide maps (such as those used to compile the landslide areas for this effort) are not always updated or revised to reflect landslides that have been stabilized, or in some cases SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 56 completely removed. The landslide maps for this study have been compiled for planning and emergency responses preparedness, and the compilation sources may not reflect current or existing conditions. 4.3.6.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Data used to determine landslide risk were steep slope (greater than 25%), soil series data (SANDAG, based on USGS 1970s series), and soil-slip susceptibility from USGS. Because landslide data in GIS format was not available for the entire county, a model was run using USGS soils and steep slope data to determine landslide risk areas for the entire County. Tan Landslide Susceptibility Maps that depict steep slope areas, landslide formations, and landslide susceptible areas based on a combination of slope, soils and geologic instability were also used in the analysis. As shown in Figure 4.3.5, the location and extent of landslide hazard areas are generally concentrated along canyons near the coastal areas with steep slopes. The western portion of the county shows the soil-slip susceptibility data, while the eastern portion of the county shows the results of the model used to determine landslide risk for areas that were not included in the soil-slip susceptibility model. Housing development on marginal lands and in unstable but highly desirable coastal areas has increased the threat from landslides throughout San Diego County. Based on historical occurrences the potential for a rain-induced landslide is considered likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 57 Figure 4.3.5 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 58 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 59 4.3.7 Liquefaction 4.3.7.1 Nature of Hazard Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking causes loose soils to lose strength and act like viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing strength. Lateral spreads develop on gentle slopes and entails the sidelong movement of large masses of soil as an underlying layer liquefies. Loss of bearing strength results when the soil supporting structures liquefies and causes structures to collapse. 4.3.7.2 Disaster History Liquefaction is not known to have occurred historically in San Diego County, although liquefaction has occurred in the Imperial Valley in response to large earthquakes (Magnitude 6 or greater) originating in that area. Although San Diego is one of several major California cities in seismically active regions, ground failures or damage to structures has not occurred as a consequence of liquefaction. Historically, seismic shaking levels have not been sufficient to trigger liquefaction. Paleoseismic indicators of liquefaction have been recognized locally, and several pre-instrumental (prior to common use of seismographs) earthquakes could have been severe enough to cause at least some liquefaction. 4.3.7.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Recognizing active faults in the region, and the presence of geologically young, unconsolidated sediments and hydraulic fills, the potential for liquefaction to occur has been long recognized in the San Diego area. The regions of San Diego Bay and vicinity are thought to be especially vulnerable. The potential exists in areas of loose soils and/or shallow groundwater in earthquake fault zones throughout the County. Figure 4.3.6 displays the location and extent of areas with a risk of liquefaction. Data used to profile liquefaction hazard included probabilistic PGA data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and a Scenario Earthquake Shake map for Rose Canyon from the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN), along with existing liquefaction hazard areas from local maps (refer to Attachment A for complete data matrix). Liquefaction hazards were modeled as collateral damages of earthquakes using HAZUS-MH, which uses base information and NEHRP soils data to derive probabilistic peak ground accelerations much like the PGA map from USGS. Soils were considered because liquefaction risk may be amplified depending on the type of soil found in a given area. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) rates soils from hard to soft, and give the soils ratings from Type A through Type E, with the hardest soils being Type A, and the softest soils rated at Type E. Liquefaction risk was considered high if there were soft soils (Types D or E) present within an active fault zone. Liquefaction risk was considered low if the PGA risk value was less than 0.3, and hard soils were present (Types A-C). For example, an area may lie in a PGA zone of 0.2, which would be a low liquefaction risk in hard soils identified by the NEHRP. However, if that same PGA value is found within a soft soil such as Type D or E, a PGA of 0.2, when multiplied by 1.4 or 1.7 (amplification values for type D and E soil, shown below), would become a PGA value of at least 0.28 to 0.3. This would increase the liquefaction risk to high. Areas where soil types D or E are located are illustrated in Figure 4.3.6. The potential for liquefaction in San Diego is considered somewhat likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 60 Soil Amplification Factors Soil Type PGA A B C D E 0.1 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.60 2.50 0.2 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.70 0.3 0.80 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.20 0.4 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.10 0.90 0.5 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 61 Figure 4.3.6 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 62 4.3.8 Structure/Wildfire Fire 4.3.8.1 Nature of Hazard A structural fire hazard is one where there is a risk of a fire starting in an urban setting and spreading uncontrollably from one building to another across several city blocks, or within hi-rise buildings. A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels and exposing or possibly consuming structures. They often begin unnoticed and spread quickly. Naturally occurring and non-native species of grasses, brush, and trees fuel wildfires. A wildland fire is a wildfire in an area in which development is essentially nonexistent, except for roads, railroads, power lines and similar facilities. An Urban- Wildland/Urban Interface fire is a wildfire in a geographical area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. Significant development in San Diego County is located along canyon ridges at the wildland/urban interface. Areas that have experienced prolonged droughts or are excessively dry are at risk of wildfires. People start more than 80 percent of wildfires, usually as debris burns, arson, or carelessness. Lightning strikes are the next leading cause of wildfires. Wildfire behavior is based on three primary factors: fuel, topography, and weather. The type, and amount of fuel, as well as its burning qualities and level of moisture affect wildfire potential and behavior. The continuity of fuels, expressed in both horizontal and vertical components is also a determinant of wildfire potential and behavior. Topography is important because it affects the movement of air (and thus the fire) over the ground surface. The slope and shape of terrain can change the speed at which the fire travels, and the ability of firefighters to reach and extinguish the fire. Weather affects the probability of wildfire and has a significant effect on its behavior. Temperature, humidity and wind (both short and long term) affect the severity and duration of wildfires. San Diego County’s topography consists of a semi-arid coastal plain and rolling highlands which, when fueled by shrub overgrowth, occasional Santa Ana winds and high temperatures, creates an ever-present threat of wildland fire. Extreme weather conditions such as high temperature, low humidity, and/or winds of extraordinary force may cause an ordinary fire to expand into one of massive proportions. Large fires would have several indirect effects beyond those that a smaller, more localized fire would create. These may include air quality and health issues, road closures, business closures, and others that increase the potential losses that can occur from this hazard. Modeling for a larger type of fire would be difficult, but the consequences of the three largest San Diego fires this century (October, 203, October 2007 and May 2014) should be used as a guide for fire planning and mitigation. 4.3.8.2 Disaster History Table 4.3-3 lists the most recent major wildfires in San Diego County. Wildland fires prompted five (5) Proclaimed States of Emergency, and Urban/Intermix Fires prompted four (4) Proclaimed States of Emergency in the County of San Diego between 950-2014. In October of 2003 the second-worse wild-land fire in the history of San Diego County destroyed 332,766 acres of land, 3,239 structures and 17 deaths at a cost of $450M. San Diego County’s worst wildfire occurred in October 2007. At the height of the firestorm there were seven fires burning within the County. The fires destroyed 369,000 acres (13% of the County), 2,670 structures, 239 vehicles, and two commercial properties. There were 10 civilian deaths, 23 civilian injuries and 10 firefighter injuries. The cost of fire exceeded $1.5 billion. San Diego County’s third worst wildfire in history, known as the Laguna Fire, destroyed thousands of acres in the backcountry in September of 1970. The fire resulted in the loss or destruction of 383 homes and 1,200 other structures SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 63 ($5.7 million); 225,000 acres of trees and other watershed ($30 million); small dams ($3 million); and bridges and roads ($600,000). The total dollar cost of the Laguna Fire was approximately $40 million. The Bernardo, Poinsettia and Cocos Fires of May, 2014 burned 26,000 acres, destroyed 65 homes and damaged 19 others. Table 4.3-3 Major Wildfires in San Diego County Larger than 5,000 acres Fire Date Acres Burned Structures Destroyed Structures Damaged Deaths Conejos Fire July 1950 62,000 Not Available Not Available 0 Laguna Fire October 1970 190,000 382 Not Available 5 Harmony Fire (Carlsbad, Elfin Forest, San Marcos) October 1996 8,600 122 142 1 La Jolla Fire (Palomar Mtn) September 1999 7,800 2 2 1 Viejas Fire January 2001 10,353 23 6 0 Gavilan Fire (Fallbrook) February 2002 6,000 43 13 0 Pines Fire (Julian, Ranchita) July 2002 61,690 45 121 0 Cedar Fire October 2003 280,278 5,171 63 14 Paradise Fire October 2003 57,000 415 15 2 Otay Fire October 2003 46,291 6 0 0 Roblar (Pendleton) October 2003 8,592 0 0 0 Mataguay Fire* July 2004 8,867 2 0 0 Horse Fire* July 2006 16,681 Not Available Not Available 0 Witch Creek Fire* October 2007 197,990 1,125 77 2 Harris Fire* October 2007 90,440 255 12 5 Poomacha Fire* October 2007 49,410 139 Not Available 0 Ammo Fire* October 2007 21,004 Not Available Not Available 0 Rice Fire* October 2007 9,472 208 Not Available 0 Bernardo, Poinsettia & Cocos Fires May 2014 26,000 65 19 0 * Information gathered from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection website SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 64 4.3.8.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude The wildfire risk maps use the most recent USGS Fire Regime data. Data for Regimes II and IV were utilized to develop the risk tables for the participating jurisdictions. Additional wildland fire hazard maps are available at http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_sandiego. Perimeter maps for the three most significant wildfire events of the past 15 years, the 2003 and 2007 Firestorms and the 2014 North County wildfires, are below. Under current climate conditions, the wildfire threat to property, lives, and ecosystems in the San Diego region is very high. With hotter temperatures and possibly fewer rainy days in the coming decades, vegetation could become drier. As a result, it is likely that San Diego region will see an increase in the frequency and intensity of fires, making the region more vulnerable to devastating fires like the ones seen in 2003 and 2007.17 The fire season could also become longer and less predictable, making firefighting efforts more costly.18 Using the scale described in Section 4.2.3 the potential for a wildfire in the San Diego region is considered highly likely. Building density is also a factor in potential building loss during a wildfire. A recent study in the Ecological Society of America’s publication Ecological Applications19 indicates that the area of the building clusters, the number of buildings in the cluster and building dispersion all contribute to the potential for building loss. While all three factors had a positive influence on the number of structures lost, larger building structures were most strongly associated with building loss. The likeliest reason being that more buildings are exposed. Two other top factors were the number of buildings in the cluster and the distance to the nearest building. In the mediterranean California model the closer the buildings were to each other the less likely they were to be affected. An increase in wildfire also impacts public health. Fire-related injuries and death are likely to increase as wildfires occur more frequently.20 Wildfires can also be a significant contributor to air pollution. Wildfire smoke contains numerous toxic and hazardous pollutants that are dangerous to breath and can worsen lung disease and other respiratory conditions.21 17 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation. 18 Ibid. 19 Alexander, Patricia M., et. al. (2016). Factors related to Building Loss Due to Wildfires in the Conterminous United States. Ecological Applications, 0(0), 1-16. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 65 Figure 4.3.7 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 66 2003 Wildfire Perimeter Map SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 67 October 31, 2007 Wildfire Perimeter Map SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 68 2014 North County Wildfires Perimeter Map SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 69 4.3.9 Extreme Heat 4.3.9.1 Nature of the Hazard Although extreme heat does not cause structural damage like floods, fires, and earthquakes, heat waves claim many lives due to heat exhaustion and heat stroke. According to a California Energy Commission Study, from 1994 to 2009, heat waves have claimed more lives in California than all declared disaster events combined.22 Despite this history, not a single heat emergency was formally proclaimed at the state level or as a federal disaster between 1960 and 2008. The author of an account of a heat wave which killed 739 people in Chicago in July 1995 suggests that the hidden nature of social vulnerability combined with the inconspicuous nature of heat events (unlike floods, fires, and earthquakes) prevent them from being declared as legitimate disasters.23 However, the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan considers extreme heat a legitimate disaster type.24 Extreme heat is exacerbated by the “urban heat island effect”, whereby impervious surfaces, such as concrete and asphalt, absorb heat and result in greater warming in urban areas compared to rural areas. Urban heat islands exacerbate the public health impacts that heat waves have upon the more vulnerable populations.25 San Diego County has among the highest percentages of impervious surfaces in the states, increasing the potential impacts of heat islands.26 In fact, Southern California’s urban centers are warming more rapidly than other parts of the state.27 Extreme heat events put vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, children, chronically ill, and people who work outside at risk of heat-related illnesses and even death. Extreme heat events highlight the importance of thoughtful social vulnerability analysis.28 For example, socially isolated elderly persons are especially vulnerable. People who live in urban areas with high impervious surface coverage and no access to air conditioning are also especially vulnerable. In California, San Diego County ranks second, behind Los Angeles, in absolute numbers of the elderly and children less than five years of age. These two populations are most likely to suffer from heat-related illnesses and heat events.29 Extreme heat also has secondary impacts, such as power outages and poor air quality. Heat events, and the increased use of air conditioning, can lead to power outages, which makes the events even more 22 Messner, Steven, Sandra C. Miranda, Karen Green, Charles Phillips, Joseph Dudley, Dan Cayan, Emily Young. Climate Change Related Impacts in the San Diego Region by 2050. PIER Research Report, CEC‐ 500‐2009‐027‐D, Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 2009. 23 Klinenberg, Eric. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, The University of Chicago, 2002 24 Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (2013) California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 25 Ibid. 26 English et al. (2007). Executive Summary, Heat-Related Illness and Mortality Information for the Public Health Network in California 27 Ibid. 28 Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (2013) California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 29 English et al. (2007). Executive Summary, Heat-Related Illness and Mortality Information for the Public Health Network in California SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 70 dangerous.30 Hotter temperatures may also lead to poorer air quality because ozone formation, a component of smog, increases with higher temperatures.31 4.3.9.2 Disaster History Following the events of 2006 when there was a prolonged period of extreme heat across the state of California, San Diego County developed an Excess Heat Preparedness and Response Plan.32 According to the Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) there have been four extreme heat events in San Diego in the past 18 years resulting in 4 heat related fatalities and 28 heat related injuries. 4.3.9.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude San Diego is facing an increase in the frequency, duration, and strength of heat waves in the coming decades. While greater warming is expected in inland areas, residents of coastal areas are vulnerable when the temperature spikes, because they are less accustomed to the heat and they are less likely to have air conditioning. Research also indicates that heat waves are likely to become more humid in the future and with nighttime temperatures staying high, further stressing public health.33 Extreme warm temperatures in the San Diego region mostly occur in July and August, but as climate warming takes hold, the occurrences of these events will likely begin in June and could continue to take place into September.34 The potential for extreme heat event is considered highly likely. 30 Ibid. 31 USGCRP (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States . Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). United States Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. 32 Messner, Steven, Sandra C. Miranda, Karen Green, Charles Phillips, Joseph Dudley, Dan Cayan, Emily Young. Climate Change Related Impacts in the San Diego Region by 2050. PIER Research Report, CEC‐500‐2009‐027‐D, Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 2009. 33 Gershunov, A., and K. Guirguis (2012), California heat waves in the present and future, Geophysical Research Letters., 39, L18710 34 Messner, Steven, Sandra C. Miranda, Karen Green, Charles Phillips, Joseph Dudley, Dan Cayan, Emily Young. Climate Change Related Impacts in the San Diego Region by 2050. PIER Research Report, CEC‐500‐2009‐027‐D, Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 2009. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 71 4.3.10 Drought/Water Supply 4.3.10.1 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Climate Change and Drought/Water Supply Warming temperatures statewide could result in reduced water supply for the San Diego region. The State Water Project and Colorado River provide 75% to 95% of the water supply for the San Diego region, depending on the year.35 Both of these water supplies originate in mountain snowpack. Over the past 50 years across most of the Southwest, there has been less late-winter precipitation falling as snow, earlier snowmelt, and earlier arrival of most of the year’s streamflow.36 Projections of further warming will result in reduced snowpack, which could translate into reduced water supply for the San Diego region’s cities, agriculture, and ecosystems.37 In fact, studies indicate that San Diego’s sources of water could shrink by 20 percent or more by 2050.38 An additional threat to water supply is the vulnerability of the levees protecting the California Delta, which feeds the State Water Project.39 According to the California Adaptation Planning Guide, jurisdictions in the San Diego region must carefully consider the vulnerability of their water supply.40 At the same time that the San Diego region’s water supply is likely to decrease, water demand is expected to increase approximately 29% by 2050 due to economic growth and population pressures.41 Local water managers also report that higher temperatures could lead to increased demand for water for irrigation. Water shortages could become more frequent and more severe in the future, straining the local economy. The potential for drought in San Diego is highly likely. Off-setting this slightly is the desalinization plant in Carlsbad. The plant, designed to produce 50 million gallons per day, is estimated to provide 8% of the regions water resources by 2020. A U.S. Drought Monitor, using the Palmer Drought Severity Index, can be found at http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ 4.3.10.2 History of Drought in San Diego The depression ear drought of 1929-1934 was the worst drought in California’s history. Its impact was felt statewide. At that time San Diego was self-sufficient relying on local water supplies. The region would not begin to import water until 1947. The drought of 1987-1992 was extremely severe and resulted in the Metropolitan Water District ordered a 50% reduction in water use. The San Diego County Water Authority actually considered banning outdoor water use. The rains of “Miracle March” in 1991 replenished rivers, reservoirs and the Sierra snowpack. 35 Ibid. 36 Garfin, G., G. Franco, H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzalez, T. Piechota, R. Smyth, and R. Waskom, 2014: Ch. 20: Southwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 462-486. doi:10.7930/J08G8HMN. 37 California Adaptation Planning Guide, Understanding Regional Characteristics (2012) 38 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation. 39 California Adaptation Planning Guide, Understanding Regional Characteristics (2012) 40 Ibid. 41 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 72 Another drought occurred in 2007 and lasted until 2011. The latest drought that began in 2012 just ended in 2017 following a series of winter storms that brought heavy rainfall to the state. 4.3.11 Manmade Hazards 4.3.11.1 Nature of Hazard Manmade hazards are distinct from natural hazards in that they result directly from the actions of people. Two types of manmade hazards can be identified: technological hazards and terrorism. Technological hazards refer to incidents that can arise from human activities such as the manufacture, storage, transport, and use of hazardous materials, which include toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and infectious substances. Technological hazards are assumed to be accidental and their consequences unintended. Terrorism, on the other hand, encompasses intentional, criminal, and malicious acts involving weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or conventional weapons. WMDs can involve the deployment of biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons. Conventional weapons and techniques include the use of arson, incendiary explosives, armed attacks, intentional hazardous materials release, and cyber-terrorism (attack via computer). Hazardous Materials Technological hazards involving hazardous material releases can occur at facilities (fixed site) or along transportation routes (off-site). They can occur as a result of human carelessness, technological failure, intentional acts, and natural hazards. When caused by natural hazards, these incidents are known as secondary hazards, whereas intentional acts are terrorism. Hazardous materials releases, depending on the substance involved and type of release, can directly cause injuries and death and contaminate air, water, and soils. While the probability of a major release at any particular facility or at any point along a known transportation corridor is relatively low, the consequences of releases of these materials can be very serious. Some hazardous materials present a radiation risk. Radiation is any form of energy propagated as rays, waves or energetic particles that travel through the air or a material medium. Radioactive materials are composed of atoms that are unstable. An unstable atom gives off its excess energy until it becomes stable. The energy emitted is radiation. The process by which an atom changes from an unstable state to a more stable state by emitting radiation is called radioactive decay or radioactivity. Radiological materials have many uses in San Diego County including: • by doctors to detect and treat serious diseases, • by educational institutions and companies for research, • by the military to power large ships and submarines. With the shutdown of SONGS, radiological materials are no longer used to generate commercial electric power within San Diego County. However, the stored spent fuel that remains on site does pose a hazard. Radioactive materials, if handled improperly, or radiation accidentally released into the environment, can be dangerous because of the harmful effects of certain types of radiation on the body. The longer a person is exposed to radiation and the closer the person is to the radiation, the greater the risk. Although SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 73 radiation cannot be detected by the senses (sight, smell, etc.), it is easily detected by scientists with sophisticated instruments that can detect even the smallest levels of radiation. Under extreme circumstances an accident or intentional explosion involving radiological materials can cause very serious problems. Consequences may include death, severe health risks to the public, damage to the environment, and extraordinary loss of, or damage to, property. Terrorism Following a number of serious international and domestic terrorist incidents during the 1990’s and early 2000’s, citizens across the United States have paid increased attention to the potential for deliberate, harmful terrorist actions by individuals or groups with political, social, cultural, and religious motives. There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism, and it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. However, terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 CFR, Section 0.85). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) further characterizes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. However, the origin of the terrorist or person causing the hazard is far less relevant to mitigation planning than the hazard itself and its consequences. Terrorists utilize a wide variety of agents and delivery systems. 4.3.11.2 Disaster History Hazardous Material Releases Hazardous materials can include toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, infectious substances, and hazardous wastes. The State of California defines a hazardous material as a substance that is toxic, ignitable or flammable, or reactive and/or corrosive. An extremely hazardous material is defined as a substance that shows high acute or chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, bio-accumulative properties, persistence in the environment, or is water reactive (California Code of Regulations, Title 22). “Hazardous waste,” a subset of hazardous materials, is material that is to be abandoned, discarded, or recycled, and includes chemical, radioactive, and biohazardous waste (including medical waste). An accidental hazardous material release can occur wherever hazardous materials are manufactured, stored, transported, or used. Such releases can affect nearby populations and contaminate critical or sensitive environmental areas. Numerous facilities in San Diego County generate hazardous wastes in addition to storing and using large numbers of hazardous materials. There are a total of 12,747 sites with permits to store and maintain chemical, biological and radiological agents, and explosives in the County. Although the scale is usually small, emergencies involving the release of these substances can occur daily at both these fixed sites and on the County’s streets and roadways. The major transit corridors of Interstates 5 and 805 have been the locations of the majority of incidents the Hazardous Incident Response Team (HIRT) has responded to in recent years. Facilities that use, manufacture, or store hazardous materials in California must comply with several state and federal regulations. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III), which was enacted in 1986 as a legislative response to airborne releases of methylisocyanate at Union Carbide plants in Bhopal, India and in Institute, West Virginia. SARA Title III, also known as the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA), directs businesses that handle, SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 74 store or manufacture hazardous materials in specified amounts to develop emergency response plans and report releases of toxic chemicals. Additionally, Section 312 of Title III requires businesses to submit an annual inventory report of hazardous materials to a state-administering agency. The California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2185 in 1987, incorporating the provisions of SARA Title III into a state program. The community right-to-know requirements keep communities abreast of the presence and release of hazardous wastes at individual facilities. Table 4.3-4 shows a breakdown by jurisdiction of facilities in the County with permits to store and maintain chemical, biological and radiological agents, and explosives. Facilities with EPA ID Numbers are facilities that generate hazardous waste. Table 4.3-4 Licensed Hazardous Material Sites by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Facilities with County Environmental Health Hazardous Material Permits Sites with Toxic/Radiologic Hazardous Materials or Large and Complex Sites Sites with Flammable hazardous Materials Carlsbad 409 4 0 Chula Vista 805 5 0 Coronado 77 0 0 Del Mar 47 0 0 El Cajon 679 2 0 Encinitas 290 0 0 Escondido 790 7 0 Imperial Beach 36 0 0 La Mesa 305 1 0 Lemon Grove 111 0 0 National City 369 2 0 Oceanside 523 2 0 Poway 311 0 0 San Diego 5,458 15 2 San Marcos 431 2 0 Santee 227 1 0 Solana Beach 63 0 0 Unincorporated 1,192 9 0 Vista 522 1 0 USMCB Camp Pendleton 102 0 0 TOTAL 12,747 55 2 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 75 Hazardous materials spills and releases in San Diego County have occurred as a result of clandestine drug manufacturing; spills from commercial, military and recreational vessels on the region’s waterways; traffic accidents; sewer breaks and overflows; and various accidents/incidents related to the manufacture, use, and storage of hazardous materials by County industrial, commercial and government facilities. Although the following emergency response history for San Diego County chronicles various hazardous materials releases, the incidents do not necessarily indicate the degree of exposure to the public. There were 504 responses to a hazardous materials release within San Diego County in 2014. Table 4.3-5 lists the numbers buy jurisdiction. Table 4.3-5 County of San Diego Environmental Health Department Hazardous Materials Division HIRT Responses in 2014 City Number of Hazardous Materials Releases Carlsbad 18 Chula Vista 28 Coronado 1 Del Mar 2 El Cajon 26 Encinitas 9 Escondido 22 Imperial Beach 7 La Mesa 8 Lemon Grove 5 National City 15 Oceanside 16 Poway 8 San Diego 220 San Marcos 7 Santee 12 Solana Beach 0 Unincorporated 86 Vista 14 TOTAL RESPONSES IN 2014 504 There has not been significant exposure to the public in San Diego County due to manmade releases of chemical or biological agents, although there have been several smaller-scale incidents. Chemical spills and releases from transportation and industrial accidents have resulted in short-term chemical exposure to individuals in the vicinity of the release. San Diego beaches are routinely closed because of sewage spills and storm run-off. Bacterial levels can increase significantly in ocean and bay waters, especially near storm drain, river, and lagoon outlets, during and after rainstorms. Elevated bacterial levels may continue for a period of up to 3 days depending upon the intensity of rainfall and volume of runoff. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 76 Waters contaminated by urban runoff may contain human pathogens (bacteria, viruses, or protozoa) that can cause illnesses. San Diego experienced its first significant E. coli bacteria outbreak in 10 years after patrons ate tainted food at local area restaurants in 2003. In 1992 and 1993 a similar outbreak occurred in San Diego County, which resulted in the death of a child after he ate tainted food from a Carlsbad fast-food restaurant. Additionally, in the early 1980s a hepatitis outbreak associated with poor food handling techniques resulting in the closure of a major restaurant in Mission Valley and the implementation of a food-handler certification program by the San Diego County Health Department. The only known release of radiological agents in the County was the result of an accident at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). In 1981, an accidental "ignition" of hydrogen gases in a holding tank of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) caused an explosion - which bent the bolts of an inspection hatch on the tank, allowing radioactive gases in the tank to escape into a radioactive waste room. From there, the radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. The plant was shut down for several weeks following the event (W.I.S.E. Vol.3 No.4 p.18). This incident occurred during the plant’s operation of its Unit 1 generator, which has since been decommissioned. No serious injuries occurred. On February 3, 2001 another accident occurred at SONGS when a circuit breaker fault caused a fire that resulted in a loss of offsite power. Published reports suggest that rolling blackouts during the same week in California were partially due to the shutdown of the SONGS reactors in response to the 3-hour fire. Although no radiation was released and no nuclear safety issues were involved, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission sent a Special Inspection Team to the plant site to investigate the accident. Terrorism While San Diego County has not experienced any high profile attacks by groups or individuals associated with international terrorist organizations, the region has been the site of several incidents with domestic origins. Most notable is the August 1, 2003 arson attack on a mixed-use housing and office development under construction in the University City neighborhood. The blaze, which officials estimate caused around $50 million in damage, was allegedly set by the Earth Liberation Front, a radical environmentalist group. San Diego has been linked to the 9-11 attacks in New York City and on the Pentagon; two of the confirmed hijackers of the commercial aircraft used in the attacks took flight school lessons while living in San Diego. San Diego County has received numerous bomb threats to schools, government buildings, religious sites, and commercial facilities over the years. While the majority of bomb threats are hoaxes, authorities have been required to mobilize resources and activate emergency procedures on a fairly regular basis in response. Other Manmade Disasters On September 25th, 1978 San Diego was the scene of one of the worst air disasters in the United States. A mid-air collision between a Cessna 172 and a Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) Boeing 727 caused both planes to crash into the North Park neighborhood below. A total of 144 lives were lost including 7 people on the ground. More than 20 residences were damaged or destroyed. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 77 In 1984, a gunman opened fire in a San Ysidro McDonald’s restaurant, killing 21 people. This event was not considered an act of terrorism as no political or social objectives were associated with this event. 4.3.11.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Information related to the probability and magnitude of manmade hazards is considered sensitive homeland security related information. Consequently, this information is provided in a separate confidential document (Attachment C). The potential for a man-made event is highly likely. 4.4 Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is, and depends on an asset’s construction, contents and the economic value of its functions. This vulnerability analysis predicts the extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a given area on the existing and future built environment. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. Indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct effects. For example, damage to a major utility line could result in significant inconveniences and business disruption that would far exceed the cost of repairing the utility line. 4.4.1 Asset Inventory Hazards that occur in San Diego County can impact critical facilities located in the County. A critical facility is defined as a facility in either the public or private sector that provides essential products and services to the general public, is otherwise necessary to preserve the welfare and quality of life in the County, or fulfills important public safety, emergency response, and/or disaster recovery functions. Figure 4.4-1 shows the critical facilities identified for the County. The critical facilities identified in San Diego County include 57 hospitals and other health care facilities; 289 emergency operations facilities, fire stations, and police stations; 1,057 schools, 3,732 hazardous material sites, 7 transportation systems that include 46 airport facilities, 1,985 bridges, 23 bus and 40 rail facilities; 68 marinas and port facilities, and 1,040 kilometers of highways; utility systems that include 21 electric power facilities, natural gas facilities, crude and refined oil facilities, 13 potable and waste water facilities, and 672 communications facilities and utilities; 56 dams, 124 government office/civic centers, jails, prisons, military facilities, religious facilities, and post offices (Figure 4.4.1). GIS, HAZUS-MH, and other modeling tools were used to map the critical facilities in the county and to determine which would most likely be affected by each of the profiled hazards. San Diego County covers 4,264 square miles with several different climate patterns and types of terrain, which allows for several hazards to affect several different parts of the county and several jurisdictions at once or separately. The hazards addressed are described in Section 4.3. 4.4.2 Estimating Potential Exposure and Losses, and Future Development Trends GIS modeling was used to estimate exposure to population, critical facilities, infrastructure, and residential/commercial properties, from coastal storms/erosion, tsunami, structure fire/wildfire, dam failure, landslide, and manmade hazards. The specific methods and results of all analyses are presented below. The results are shown as potential exposure in thousands of dollars, and as the worst-case scenario. For infrastructure, which has been identified as highways, railways and energy pipelines, the length of SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 78 exposure/impact is given in kilometers. Exposure characterizes the value of structures within the hazard zone, and is shown as estimated exposure based on the overlay of the hazard on the critical facilities, infrastructure, and other structures, which are given an assumed cost of replacement for each type of structure exposed. These replacement costs are estimated using a building square footage inventory purchased from Dun and Bradstreet. The square footage information was classified based on Standard Industrial Code (SIC) and provided at a 2002 census-tract resolution. The loss or exposure value is then determined with the assumption that the given structure is totally destroyed (worst case scenario), which is not always the case in hazard events. This assumption was valuable in the planning process, so that the total potential damage value was identified when determining capabilities and mitigation measures for each jurisdiction. Table 4.4-1 provides abbreviations and average replacement costs used for critical facilities and infrastructure listed in all subsequent exposure/loss tables. Table 4.4-2 provides the total inventory and exposure estimates for the critical facilities and infrastructure by jurisdiction. Table 4.4-3 shows the estimated exposure inventory for infrastructure by jurisdiction. Table 4.4-4 provides an inventory of the maximum population and building exposure by jurisdiction. In addition to estimating potential exposure for structures, at-risk populations were also identified per hazard area. At-risk populations were defined as low-income, disabled and/or elderly and were based upon the 2000 census information. Loss was estimated for earthquake and flood hazards in the County, in addition to exposure. Loss is that portion of the exposure that is expected to be lost to a hazard, and is estimated by referencing frequency and severity of previous hazards. Hazard risk assessment methodologies embedded in HAZUS, FEMA’s loss estimation software, were applied to earthquake and flood hazards in San Diego County. HAZUS (a loss estimation software) integrates with GIS to provide estimates for the potential impact of earthquake and flood hazards by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation. This software contains economic and structural data on infrastructure and critical facilities, including replacement value costs with 2006 square footage and valuation parameters to use in loss estimation assumptions. This approach provides estimates for the potential impact by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation. The HAZUS risk assessment methodology is parametric, in that distinct hazard and inventory parameters (e.g. ground shaking and building types) were modeled to determine the impact (damages and losses) on the built environment. The HAZUS-MH models were used to estimate losses from earthquake and flood hazards to critical facilities, infrastructure, and residential/commercial properties, as well as economic losses on several return period events and annualized levels. Loss estimates used available data, and the methodologies applied resulted in an approximation of risk. The economic loss results are presented as the Annualized Loss (AL) for the earthquake hazard. AL addresses the two key components of risk: the probability of the hazard occurring in the study area and the consequences of the hazard, largely a function of building construction type and quality, and of the intensity of the hazard event. By annualizing estimated exposure values, the AL takes into account historic patterns of frequent smaller events with infrequent but larger events to provide a balanced presentation of the risk. These estimates should be used to understand relative risk from hazards and potential losses. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology, arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from approximations and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis (such as incomplete inventories, demographics, or economic parameters). SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 79 Figure 4.4.1 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 80 Table 4.4-1 Abbreviations and Costs Used for Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Abr. Name Building Type (where applicable) Average Replacement Cost AIR Airport facilities s1l 200,000,000 BRDG Bridges n/a 191,600 BUS Bus facilities c1l 2,000,000 COM Communication facilities and Utilities c1l 2,000,000 ELEC Electric Power facility c1l 10,000,000 EMER Emergency Centers, Fire Stations and Police Stations c1l 2,000,000 GOVT Government Office/Civic Center c1l 2,000,000 HOSP Hospitals/Care facilities s1m 100,000,000 INFR Kilometers of Infrastructure. Includes: Oil/Gas Pipelines (OG) n/a 300 Railroad Tracks (RR) n/a 860 Highway (HWY) n/a 3,860 PORT Port facilities c1l 20,000,000 POT Potable and Waste Water facilities c1l 100,000,000 RAIL Rail facilities c1l 2,000,000 SCH Schools rm1l 1,000,000 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 81 Table 4.4-2 Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT RAIL SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 1 33 0 2 1 7 5 2 153 0 2 0 33 239 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 6,323 0 4,000 10,000 14,000 10,000 200,000 247 0 200,000 0 33,000 677,570Chula Vista Number 0 44 2 2 1 13 9 7 119 1 1 0 75 274 Exposure (x$1000)0 8,430 4,000 4,000 10,000 26,000 18,000 700,000 255 20,000 100,000 0 75,000 965,686CoronadoNumber0201034128000948 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 2,000 0 6,000 8,000 100,000 51 0 0 0 9,000 125,434 Del Mar Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 14 0 0 0 2 24 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 10 0 0 0 2,000 8,968El Cajon Number 1 37 1 2 1 8 7 6 64 0 0 0 47 174 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,089 2,000 4,000 10,000 16,000 14,000 600,000 161 0 0 0 47,000 900,250 Encinitas Number 0 16 0 1 0 6 3 3 85 0 1 7 25 147 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,066 0 2,000 0 12,000 6,000 300,000 145 0 100,000 14,000 25,000 462,211EscondidoNumber0741408888301146234 Exposure (x$1000)0 14,178 2,000 8,000 0 16,000 16,000 800,000 211 0 100,000 2,000 46,000 1,004,389Imperial Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 8 19 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 200,000 2 0 0 0 8,000 216,194 La Mesa Number 0 36 0 1 0 4 4 2 53 0 0 0 25 125 Exposure (x$1000)0 6,898 0 2,000 0 8,000 8,000 200,000 113 0 0 0 25,000 250,011Lemon Grove Number 0 8 0 0 0 2 3 0 24 0 0 0 10 47 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 4,000 6,000 0 60 0 0 0 10,000 21,593National City Number 0 47 1 1 2 4 4 7 37 5 1 3 20 132 Exposure (x$1000)0 9,005 2,000 2,000 20,000 8,000 8,000 700,000 88 100,000 100,000 6,000 20,000 975,093 Oceanside Number 1 43 2 4 0 10 12 11 124 0 1 8 43 259 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 8,239 4,000 8,000 0 20,000 24,000 1,100,000 250 0 100,000 16,000 43,000 1,523,489PowayNumber0451004213400025112Exposure (x$1000)0 8,622 2,000 0 0 8,000 4,000 100,000 98 0 0 0 25,000 147,720 San Diego (City)Number 4 498 12 33 9 89 98 50 959 62 2 5 361 2,182 Exposure (x$1000)800,000 95,417 24,000 66,000 90,000 178,000 196,000 5,000,000 2,168 1,240,000 200,000 10,000 361,000 8,262,585San Marcos Number 0 12 0 2 0 8 3 2 59 0 0 2 28 116 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 4,000 0 16,000 6,000 200,000 149 0 0 4,000 28,000 260,448SanteeNumber015140430330101576 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,874 2,000 8,000 0 8,000 6,000 0 72 0 100,000 0 15,000 141,946 Solana Beach Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 28 0 0 1 9 46 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 46 0 0 2,000 9,000 18,004Unincorporated -Number 33 227 2 44 3 100 3 15 1,334 0 0 0 86 1,847 Rural Exposure (x$1000)6,600,000 43,493 4,000 88,000 30,000 200,000 6,000 1,500,000 4,402 0 0 0 86,000 8,561,895Unincorporated -Number 0 117 0 12 0 40 7 10 320.3 0 1 2 115 624Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 22417.2 0 24000 0 80000 14000 1000000 597.25 0 100000 4000 115000 1,360,014VistaNumber01200094353001040131 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 18,000 8,000 300,000 101 0 0 20,000 40,000 388,400Total Number 40 1,277 23 113 17 323 185 130 12,749 68 11 39 1,022 15,997Total Exposure (x$1000)8,000,000 244,673 46,000 226,000 170,000 646,000 370,000 13,000,000 42,540 1,360,000 1,100,000 78,000 1,022,000 26,305,213 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 82 Table 4.4-3 Inventory of Exposure for Infrastructure Jurisdiction Data HWY Replacen RR Total Carlsbad Number 55 87 11 153 Exposure (x$1000)212 26 9 247Chula Vista Number 61 52 6 119Exposure (x$1000)234 15 6 255CoronadoNumber1216028Exposure (x$1000)46 5 0 51Del Mar Number 1 8 5 14Exposure (x$1000)3 3 4 10El Cajon Number 39 19 7 64Oil/Gas Pipeplines 150 6 6 161EncinitasRailroad Tracks 32 43 10 85Exposure (x$1000)124 13 8 145EscondidoNumber5227383Exposure (x$1000)200 8 3 211Imperial Beach Number 0 4 0 4Exposure (x$1000)1 1 0 2 La Mesa Number 26 16 12 53 Exposure (x$1000)99 5 10 113Lemon Grove Number 14 6 4 24Exposure (x$1000)54 2 4 60National City Number 21 12 4 37Exposure (x$1000)81 4 4 88OceansideNumber574918124Exposure (x$1000)220 15 15 250PowayNumber259034Exposure (x$1000)95 3 0 98San Diego Number 514 354 92 959(City)Exposure (x$1000)1,983 106 79 2,168San Marcos Number 35 15 9 59 Exposure (x$1000)136 4 8 149SanteeNumber1715133Exposure (x$1000)67 4 1 72Solana Beach Number 10 15 3 28Exposure (x$1000)40 4 2 46Unicorporated - Number 1,107 117 110 1,334RuralExposure (x$1000)4,272 35 94 4,402Unicorporated - Number 136 152 33 320 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)523 46 28 597VistaNumber2324753 Exposure (x$1000)88 7 6 101Total Number 10,777 1,352 620 12,749Total Exposure (x$1000)41,601 405 533 42,540 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 83 Table 4.4-4 Inventory of the Maximum Population and Building Exposure by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000)Carlsbad 104,707 43,723 $12,308,025 1,559 $6,986,970 Chula Vista 232,095 77,457 $21,804,146 2,184 $9,788,033 Coronado 23,009 9,541 $2,685,792 470 $2,106,399Del Mar 4,591 2,537 $714,166 220 $985,974 El Cajon 98,205 35,656 $10,037,164 1,360 $6,095,112 Encinitas 64,145 24,848 $6,994,712 1,268 $5,682,796Escondido143,071 47,044 $13,242,886 1,835 $8,223,920 Imperial Beach 28,243 9,859 $2,775,309 346 $1,550,668La Mesa 56,880 25,333 $7,131,240 952 $4,266,578Lemon Grove 25,650 8,824 $2,483,956 365 $1,635,821 National City 56,522 15,776 $4,440,944 892 $3,997,676Oceanside179,626 64,642 $18,196,723 1,964 $8,802,059 Poway 51,126 16,339 $4,599,429 732 $3,280,604 San Diego (City)1,354,013 510,740 $143,773,310 18,862 $84,533,825San Marcos 83,149 27,726 $7,804,869 812 $3,639,140 Santee 56,848 19,681 $5,540,202 582 $2,608,349 Solana Beach 13,547 6,512 $1,833,128 322 $1,443,107Unincorporated - Rural 168,254 60,561 $17,047,922 2,177 $9,756,661 Unincorporated - Urban Core 333,626 108,042 $30,413,823 3,560 $15,954,852Vista96,100 30,707 $8,644,021 1,163 $5,212,217 Total 3,173,407 1,145,548 $322,471,762 41,625 $186,550,763 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 84 4.4.2.1 Coastal Storm/Erosion FEMA FIRM flood hazard data compiled and digitized in 1997 was used to profile the coastal storm/erosion hazard. Specifically, the FEMA FIRM VE zone was used in the hazard modeling process in HAZUS-MH. As discussed earlier, the VE Zone is defined by FEMA as the coastal area subject to a velocity hazard (wave action). The identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on the identified hazard areas, resulting in three risk/exposure estimates: 1) the aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies, 2) lifeline infrastructure and 3) the critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. Table 4.4-5 provides a breakdown of potential coastal storm/coastal erosion exposure by jurisdiction. No losses to critical facilities and infrastructure are expected from these hazards. Approximately 4,600 people may be at risk from coastal storm/coastal erosion hazards in San Diego County. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by coastal storm/coastal erosion in San Diego County include: 331 low-income households and 813 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 85 Table 4.4-5 Potential Exposure from Coastal Storm/Erosion Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000)Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 14 8 $2,252 0 $0Chula Vista 0 0 $0 0 $0 Coronado 580 261 $73,472 1 $4,482 Del Mar 17 10 $2,815 0 $0El Cajon 0 0 $0 0 $0 Encinitas 94 42 $11,823 0 $0Escondido00$0 0 $0Imperial Beach 157 64 $18,016 0 $0 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0 National City 0 0 $0 0 $0 Oceanside 76 54 $15,201 3 $13,445Poway00$0 0 $0 San Diego (City)199 128 $36,032 1 $4,482 San Marcos 0 0 $0 0 $0Santee00$0 0 $0 Solana Beach 402 167 $47,011 2 $8,963Unincorporated - Rural 0 0 $0 0 $0 Unincorporated - Urban Core 0 0 $0 0 $0Vista00$0 0 $0Total1,539 734 $206,621 7 $31,372 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 86 4.4.2.2 Tsunami Tsunami maximum run-up projections were modeled for the entire San Diego County coastline in 2000 by the University of Southern California, and distributed by the CA Office of Emergency Services. The model was a result of a combination of inundation modeling and onsite surveys to show maximum predicted inundation levels due to tsunami. This was a scenario model, which uses a given earthquake intensity and location to determine resulting tsunami effects. The identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on top of this information, resulting in three risk/exposure estimates: 1) the aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies, 2) the aggregated population at risk at the census block level, and 3) the critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. Table 4.4-6 provides a breakdown of potential exposure by jurisdiction, and Table 4.4-7 provides a breakdown of potential exposure to infrastructure and critical facility by jurisdiction. Approximately 37,000 people may be at risk from the tsunami hazard in San Diego County. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by tsunami in San Diego County include: 2,558 low income households and 3,655 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 87 Table 4.4-6 Potential Exposure from Tsunami Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 1,165 535 $150,603 23 $103,079Chula Vista 83 26 $7,319 1 $4,482Coronado8,523 3,367 $947,811 98 $439,207 Del Mar 1,023 542 $152,573 35 $156,860El Cajon 0 0 $0 0 $0 Encinitas 388 178 $50,107 9 $40,335 Escondido 0 0 $0 0 $0Imperial Beach 5,225 2,138 $601,847 97 $434,725 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0National City 1,306 0 $0 5 $22,409 Oceanside 2,108 1,059 $298,109 46 $206,158Poway00$0 0 $0San Diego (City)10,294 6,490 $1,826,935 393 $1,761,308 San Marcos 0 0 $0 0 $0Santee00$0 0 $0Solana Beach 324 135 $38,003 3 $13,445 Unincorporated - Rural 5,154 95 $26,743 0 $0 Unincorporated - Urban Core 35 11 $3,097 1 $4,482 Vista 0 0 $0 0 $0Total35,628 14,576 $4,103,144 711 $3,186,489 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 88 Table 4.4-7 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Tsunami Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TotalCarlsbadNumber020000004000006 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 386 Chula Vista Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,192 Coronado Number 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 18 0 0 0 0 1 23 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 36 0 0 0 0 1,000 7,227 Del Mar Number 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2,385 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,193EscondidoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,001 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 60,000 0 0 0 0 60,384 Oceanside Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 578PowayNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Diego (City)Number 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 49 0 0 0 0 68 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,341 0 0 0 0 2,000 100,000 5 980,000 0 0 0 0 1,083,347 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0UnincorporatedNumber040000001000005RuralExposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 768UnincorporatedNumber000000001000001Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2VistaNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Number 0 23 0 0 0 2 3 1 42 53 1 0 0 2 127 Total Exposure (x$1000)0 4,407 0 0 0 4,000 6,000 100,000 55 1,060,000 100,000 0 0 2,000 1,276,462 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 89 4.4.2.3 Dam Failure Dam inundation zones, compiled by FEMA or the National Inventory of Dams throughout San Diego County, and purchased through SanGIS, show areas that would be flooded if each dam failed. The San Diego County Water Authority provided the San Vicente Dam and Olivenhain Dam inundation maps. Olivenhain Dam is the newest dam in San Diego County, and had not yet been filled at the time of preparation of this report. Inundation areas for Olivenhain Dam however were identified and modeled as high risk. The identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on top of this information, resulting in three risk/exposure estimates: 1) the aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies, 2) the aggregated population at risk at the census block level, and 3) the critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. Table 4.4-8 provides a breakdown of potential exposure by jurisdiction, and Table 4.4-9 provides a breakdown of potential exposure to infrastructure and critical facility by jurisdiction. Approximately 368,000 people are at risk from the dam failure hazard. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the dam failure hazard in San Diego County include 13,689 low-income households and 24,316 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 90 Table 4.4.8 Potential Exposure from Dam Failure Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 4,113 1,951 $549,207 49 $219,603 Chula Vista 8,635 2,973 $836,900 190 $851,523 Coronado 0 0 $0 0 $0 Del Mar 1,139 612 $172,278 47 $210,640 El Cajon 0 0 $0 0 $0 Encinitas 1,204 425 $119,638 35 $156,860 Escondido 47,700 14,323 $4,031,925 766 $3,432,982 Imperial Beach 5,526 1,880 $529,220 42 $188,231 La Mesa 1,701 731 $205,777 19 $85,152 Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0 National City 1,998 496 $139,624 184 $824,633 Oceanside 33,755 11,437 $3,219,516 285 $1,277,285 Poway 47 16 $4,504 1 $4,482 San Diego (City)75,686 28,036 $7,892,134 1,206 $5,404,930 San Marcos 2,481 829 $233,364 59 $264,420 Santee 20,815 6,968 $1,961,492 267 $1,196,614 Solana Beach 40 17 $4,786 2 $8,963 Unincorporated - Rural 14,512 3,686 $1,037,609 135 $605,030 Unincorporated - Urban Core 21,862 7,304 $2,056,076 277 $1,241,431 Vista 553 215 $60,523 16 $71,707 Total 241,767 81,899 $23,054,569 3,580 $16,044,486 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 91 Table 4.4-9 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Dam Failure Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TotalCarlsbadNumber0400000070000112 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,775Chula Vista Number 0 16 0 0 1 1 1 2 23 0 0 0 0 1 45 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,066 0 0 10,000 2,000 2,000 200,000 60 0 0 0 0 1,000 218,126 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 13 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2,579 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 1 0 0 3 28 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 100,000 0 0 3,000 103,971EscondidoNumber03311048648001115118 Exposure (x$1000)0 6,323 2,000 2,000 0 8,000 16,000 600,000 149 0 0 100,000 2,000 15,000 751,472Imperial Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,000 3,192La Mesa Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 11 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 395Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0National City Number 0 26 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 1 0 0 1 2 53 Exposure (x$1000)0 4,982 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 63 20,000 0 0 2,000 2,000 31,044OceansideNumber117010320250000756 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 3,257 0 2,000 0 6,000 4,000 0 62 0 0 0 0 7,000 222,319PowayNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Diego (City)Number 0 120 0 1 1 8 12 2 286 0 1 0 1 12 444Exposure (x$1000)0 22,992 0 2,000 10,000 16,000 24,000 200,000 605 0 100,000 0 2,000 12,000 389,597San Marcos Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,196SanteeNumber012130420670100696 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 2,000 6,000 0 8,000 4,000 0 130 0 100,000 0 0 6,000 128,429 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0UnincorporatedNumber1420105006800105123RuralExposure (x$1000)200,000 8,047 0 2,000 0 10,000 0 0 211 0 0 100,000 0 5,000 325,258 Unincorporated Number 0 22 0 0 0 6 2 2 76 0 0 0 0 15 123Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 4,215 0 0 0 12,000 4,000 200,000 140 0 0 0 0 15,000 235,356VistaNumber020001001000004 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,384Total Number 2 306 2 7 2 33 29 12 664 1 3 2 3 70 1,136Total Exposure (x$1000)400,000 58,630 4,000 14,000 20,000 66,000 58,000 1,200,000 1,465 20,000 300,000 200,000 6,000 70,000 2,418,094 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 92 4.4.2.4 Earthquake, Liquefaction and Earthquake-Induced Landslides The data used in the earthquake hazard assessment were: 100-, 250-, 500-, 750-, 1000-, 1500-, 2000-, and 2500- year return period USGS probabilistic hazards. Soil conditions for San Diego County as developed by USGS were also used, which allowed for a better reflection of amplification of ground shaking that may occur. The HAZUS software model, which was developed for FEMA by the National Institute of Building Services as a tool to determine earthquake loss estimates, was used to model earthquake and flood for this assessment. This software program integrates with a GIS to facilitate the manipulation of data on building stock, population, and the regional economy with hazard models. PBS&J updated this model in 2003 to HAZUS-MH (Multiple Hazard), which can model earthquake and flood, along with collateral issues associated with each model, such as liquefaction and landslide with earthquakes. This software was not released prior to the beginning of the planning process; however, PBS&J performed vulnerability and loss estimation models for earthquakes and flood for this project using the newer model. Additionally, the earthquake risk assessment explored the potential for collateral hazards such as liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides. Three cases were examined, one case with shaking only, a second case with liquefaction potential, and a third with earthquake-induced landslides. Once the model was complete, the identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on top of this information, resulting in three risk/loss estimates: 1) the aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies, 2) the aggregated population at risk at the census block level, and 3) the critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. Results for residential and commercial properties were generated as annualized losses, which average all eight of the modeled return periods (100-year through 2500-year events). For critical facility losses it was helpful to look at 100- and 500-year return periods to plan for an event that is more likely to occur in the near-term. In the near term, a 500-year earthquake would cause increased shaking, liquefaction and landslide, which would be expected to increase loss numbers. Exposure for annualized earthquake included buildings and population in the entire county because a severe or worst case scenario earthquake could affect any structure in the County. Furthermore, the annualized earthquake loss table also shows potential collateral exposure and losses from liquefaction and landslide separately; this is the additional loss from earthquake due to liquefaction or landslide caused by earthquakes and should be added to the shaking-only loss values to get the correct value. (The collateral liquefaction and landslide loss results for critical facilities were included with earthquake in Tables 4.4-11 and 4.4-12, to plan for an event that is more likely to occur in the near-term as discussed above). Table 4.4-10 provides a breakdown of potential exposure and losses due to annualized earthquake events by jurisdiction. Tables 4.4-11 and 4.4-12 provide a breakdown of infrastructure and critical facility losses from 100-year and 500-year earthquakes, respectively. Approximately 2,800,000 people may be at risk from the annualized earthquake and earthquake-induced liquefaction hazards. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the earthquake hazard in San Diego County include 13,689 low-income households and 24,316 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 93 Table 4.4-10 Potential Exposure and Losses from Annualized Earthquake Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count **Potential Loss from Shaking (x$1000) **Potential Additional Loss from Liquefaction (x$1000) **Potential Additional Loss from Landslide (x$1000) Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count **Potential Loss from Shaking (x$1000) **Potential Additional Loss from Liquefaction (x$1000) **Potential Additional Loss from Landslide (x$1000) Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 104,707 43,723 2,649 0 524 12,308,025 1,559 998 0 352 6,986,970 Chula Vista 232,095 77,457 3,086 332 586 21,804,146 2,184 772 50 262 9,788,033 Coronado 23,009 9,541 1,309 156 208 2,685,792 470 224 0 75 2,106,399 Del Mar 4,591 2,537 235 0 46 714,166 220 110 0 27 985,974 El Cajon 98,205 35,656 1,739 0 319 10,037,164 1,360 726 0 218 6,095,112 Encinitas 64,145 24,848 1,962 0 536 6,994,712 1,268 659 0 209 5,682,796 Escondido 143,071 47,044 2,743 0 399 13,242,886 1,835 1,149 0 339 8,223,920Imperial Beach 28,243 9,859 680 149 94 2,775,309 346 87 8 34 1,550,668 La Mesa 56,880 25,333 1,026 0 121 7,131,240 952 318 0 82 4,266,578 Lemon Grove 25,650 8,824 454 0 56 2,483,956 365 95 0 32 1,635,821 National City 56,522 15,776 874 56 203 4,440,944 892 420 0 132 3,997,676Oceanside179,626 64,642 4,336 646 1,156 18,196,723 1,964 849 34 293 8,802,059 Poway 51,126 16,339 776 0 141 4,599,429 732 257 0 82 3,280,604 San Diego (City)1,354,013 510,740 32,046 1,648 8,721 143,773,310 18,862 12,428 725 4,231 84,533,825 San Marcos 83,149 27,726 934 0 113 7,804,869 812 518 0 153 3,639,140Santee56,848 19,681 1,076 0 279 5,540,202 582 252 0 108 2,608,349 Solana Beach 13,547 6,512 573 62 108 1,833,128 322 312 15 84 1,443,107 Unincorporated- Rural 168,254 60,561 886 0 152 17,047,922 2,177 149 0 43 9,756,661Unincorporated- Urban Core 333,626 108,042 8,963 1 2,113 30,413,823 3,560 1,123 0 329 15,954,852 Vista 96,100 30,707 1,597 0 251 8,644,021 1,163 411 0 116 5,212,217 Total 3,173,407 1,145,548 $67,943 $3,050 $16,126 $322,471,762 $41,625 $21,860 $832 $7,202 $186,550,763 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 94 Table 4.4-11 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 100-Year Earthquake Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City)Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated -Number 15 30 1 19 0 26 0 8 437 0 0 1 0 28 565 Rural Exposure (x$1000)3,000,000 5,748 2,000 38,000 0 52,000 0 800,000 1,647 0 0 100,000 0 28,000 4,027,395 Unincorporated -Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 15 30 1 19 0 26 0 8 437 0 0 1 0 28 565 Total Exposure (x$1000)3,000,000 5,748 2,000 38,000 0 52,000 0 800,000 1,647 0 0 100,000 0 28,000 4,027,395 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 95 Table 4.4-12 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 500-Year Earthquake Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 1 33 0 2 1 7 5 2 153 0 2 0 0 33 239 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 6,323 0 4,000 10,000 14,000 10,000 200,000 247 0 200,000 0 0 33,000 677,570Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CoronadoNumber01010241190000937 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 2,000 0 4,000 8,000 100,000 30 0 0 0 0 9,000 123,222 Del Mar Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 14 0 0 0 0 2 24 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 10 0 0 0 0 2,000 8,968El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 16 0 1 0 6 3 3 85 0 1 0 7 25 147 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,066 0 2,000 0 12,000 6,000 300,000 145 0 100,000 0 14,000 25,000 462,211EscondidoNumber07114088883011146232 Exposure (x$1000)0 13,604 2,000 8,000 0 16,000 16,000 800,000 211 0 100,000 100,000 2,000 46,000 1,103,815Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0OceansideNumber143240101211124010843259 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 8,239 4,000 8,000 0 20,000 24,000 1,100,000 250 0 100,000 0 16,000 43,000 1,523,489PowayNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Diego (City)Number 2 115 3 15 4 24 35 4 239 47 1 0 5 68 562 Exposure (x$1000)400,000 22,034 6,000 30,000 40,000 48,000 70,000 400,000 421 940,000 100,000 0 10,000 68,000 2,134,455San Marcos Number 0 12 0 2 0 8 3 2 59 0 0 0 2 28 116 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 4,000 0 16,000 6,000 200,000 149 0 0 0 4,000 28,000 260,448 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Solana Beach Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 28 0 0 0 1 9 46 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 47 0 0 0 2,000 9,000 18,005 Unincorporated -Number 30 188 2 31 2 76 1 12 1,145 0 0 4 0 63 1,554RuralExposure (x$1000)6,000,000 36,021 4,000 62,000 20,000 152,000 2,000 1,200,000 3,818 0 0 400,000 0 63,000 7,942,838Unincorporated -Number 0 39 0 9 0 20 3 6 165 0 1 0 2 45 290 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 7472.4 0 18000 0 40000 6000 600000 252 0 100000 0 4000 45000 820,725VistaNumber012000943530001040131 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 18,000 8,000 300,000 101 0 0 0 20,000 40,000 388,400 Total Number 34 540 8 69 7 172 82 52 2,167 47 7 5 36 411 3,637Total Exposure (x$1000)6,800,000 103,464 16,000 138,000 70,000 344,000 164,000 5,200,000 5,681 940,000 700,000 500,000 72,000 411,000 15,464,145 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 96 4.4.2.5 Flood Digitized 100-year and 500-year flood maps with base flood elevation (BFE) from the FEMA FIRM program for most of the areas were utilized for this project. Census blocks with non-zero population and non-zero dollar exposure that intersect with these polygons were used in the analysis. For the areas that did not include BFE information, a base flood elevation was estimated for the final purpose of computing the flood depth at different locations of the region as follows: • Transect lines across the flood polygon (perpendicular to the flow direction) were created using an approximation method for Zone A flood polygons. Zone A is the FEMA FIRM Zone that is defined as the 100-year base flood. • A point file was extracted from the line (Begin node, End node and center point). The Zonal operation in the GIS tool Spatial Analyst (with the point file and a digital elevation model [DEM]) was used to estimate the ground elevation in the intersection of the line with the flood polygon borders. The average value of the End and Begin point of the line was calculated. This value was assumed as the base flood elevation for each transect. A surface model (triangulated irregular network, or TIN) was derived from the original transect with the derived BFE value and the flood polygon. This TIN file approximated a continuous and variable flood elevation along the flood polygon. A grid file was then derived from the TIN file with the same extent and pixel resolution of the DEM (30-meter resolution). The difference of the flood elevation grid file and the DEM was calculated to produce an approximate flood depth for the whole study area. HAZUS-MH based damage functions, in a raster format, were created for each of the occupancies present in the census blocks. A customized Visual Basic (VBA) script was written to assign the ratio of damage expected (function of computed flood depth) for each type of occupancy based on the HAZUS-MH damage functions. HAZUS- MH exposure values ($) in raster format were created using Spatial Analyst. Since not all areas in the census blocks are completely within the flood area, the exposure at risk was weighted and estimated accordingly based on the number of pixels in flood area. Losses were then estimated through multiplication of damage ratio with the exposure at risk for each block. Losses were then approximated based on 100- and 500-year losses (high and low hazards). Table 4.4-13 provides a breakdown of potential exposure and losses by jurisdiction for 100-year flood, and Table 4.4-14 provides a breakdown of infrastructure and critical facility losses for 100-year flood by jurisdiction. Table 4.4-15 provides a breakdown of potential exposure and losses by jurisdiction from 500- year flood, and Table 4.4-16 provides a breakdown of potential infrastructure and critical facility losses by jurisdiction. The loss tables also provide a breakdown of loss ratios for commercial and residential properties by jurisdiction. These loss ratios are determined by dividing the loss values by the exposure values for each jurisdiction, and give a perspective of the potential losses for each jurisdiction for this hazard. For example, a loss ratio value of 0.4 in El Cajon would mean that 40% of the exposed buildings in El Cajon would be lost due to a 100- or 500-year flood. Approximately 134,000 people may be at risk from the 100-year flood hazard. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the 100-year flood hazard in San Diego County include 8,424 low-income households and 15,144 elderly persons. Approximately 215,000 people are at risk from the 500-year flood hazard. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the 500-year flood hazard in San Diego County include 13,689 low-income households and 24,316 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 97 4.4.2.5.1 Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program Most jurisdictions within San Diego County participate in the National Flood Insurance program. Specific details for each participating jurisdiction are listed below. City of Carlsbad The City of Carlsbad has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1974. Participation in the NFIP allows FEMA to authorize the sale of flood insurance (up to program limits) for businesses and residents within the appropriate flood risk zones. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) delineating base flood elevations and flood risk zones and provides requirements to be adopted by the City. Their maps were updated in 2012. City of Chula Vista The City of Chula Vista participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, allowing FEMA to authorize the sale of flood insurance (up to program limits) for businesses and residents within the appropriate flood risk zones. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps delineating base flood elevations and flood risk zones and provides requirements to be adopted by the City. The Chula Vista Municipal Code has been amended to include the language required by FEMA. City of Coronado The City of Coronado participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, allowing FEMA to authorize the sale of flood insurance (up to program limits) for businesses and residents within the appropriate flood risk zones. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) delineating base flood elevations and flood risk zones and provides requirements to be adopted by the City. City of Del Mar The City of Del Mar participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, allowing FEMA to authorize the sale of flood insurance (up to program limits) for businesses and residents within the appropriate flood risk zones. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) identifying base flood elevations and flood risk zones and provides requirements. All FEMA requirements have been adopted by the City. City of El Cajon The City of El Cajon is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the City and as designated by FEMA. The City of El Cajon manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. City of Encinitas Encinitas participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and is required to adopt and enforce floodplain ordinances that meet FEMA’s requirements. In return the NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available in areas that are prone to flooding (have at least 1% chance of flooding annually). Without Federally backed insurance for flooding, homeowners either can’t find flood insurance or the rate is very high. The NFIP is a Federal program administered by FEMA that provides flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard mapping. The City of Encinitas Engineering Department SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 98 manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to address questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Encinitas received updated maps last year. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. The Floodplain Management Regulations in Chapter 23.40 of the Encinitas Municipal Code meet or exceed FEMA guidelines and requirements. City of Escondido The City of Escondido does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As part of their property insurance policy the City does purchase flood coverage. The City has a $30,000,000 limit with a deductible of either $250,000 or $100,000 depending upon the specific flood zone. City of Imperial Beach The City of Imperial Beach participates in the NFIP. The staff member with the key role in the program is the Floodplain Administrator. The Administrator determines if a proposed structure would be situated within an area of special flood hazard (usually a 100-year floodplain or floodway) as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). They are usually along the oceanfront, bay-front, or river valley. It is rare if the City receives a building permit application to build within a floodplain. When that occurs, the Administrator requires the finish floor elevation to be above the base flood elevation. In addition there would be a requirement for the applicant’s engineer to submit a hydrology study that would show the proposed structure would not raise the base flood elevation. The requirements in the City of Imperial beach follow the rules, regulations and guidelines of the National Flood Insurance Program. City of La Mesa The City of La Mesa is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the City and as designated by FEMA. The City of La Mesa manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. City of Lemon Grove The City of Lemon Grove is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the City and as designated by FEMA. The City of Lemon Grove manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. City of National City The City of National City is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City of National City manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements, State of SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 99 California Department of Water Resources Model Floodplain. Management Ordinance and the City of National City Floodplain Ordinance, and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. City of Oceanside The City of Oceanside participates in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. The program is monitored through our City Engineering Department which manages the permitting of developments and improvements in the floodplain areas. These areas are identified by Flood Maps that are updated by FEMA. The City has been part of this program since 1991 with our last assessment in 1996. City of Poway The City of Poway participates in the National Flood insurance Program (NFIP). Participation in the NFIP is required to provide our citizens with Federally-subsidized flood insurance. The City’s responsibility, as a NFIP participant, is to adopt a floodplain ordinance regulate development in the 100 year floodplain. Any development in the floodplain requires a Floodplain Development permit issued by the City. They estimate there are over 900 residential structures located in the 100-year floodplain. The City of Poway also participates in the Community Rating System (CRS) program which provides our citizens with a 10% reduction in their flood insurance premiums. The amount of reduction is based on our floodplain management activities that are over and above the minimum required by FEMA. City of San Diego The City of San Diego is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City of San Diego manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. City of San Marcos The City of San Marcos is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City of San Marcos has adopted a floodplain management ordinance in accordance with the FEMA’s rules and regulations. The City manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the guidelines and requirements provided in said ordinance and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. City of Santee The City of Santee is a participant in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 100 FEMA. The City of Santee manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance that meets or exceeds FEMA guidelines and requirements. The City of Santee keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. City of Solana Beach The City of Solana Beach is a participant in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City also has a Municipal Code (Chapter 17.80; FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION OVERLAY ZONE). This ordinance references the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The City of Solana Beach is currently working with FEMA to ensure their program remains current. City of Vista The City of Vista is a participant in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City of Vista manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance that meets or exceeds FEMA guidelines and requirements. The City of Vista keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. County of San Diego The County of San Diego participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To qualify for flood insurance, new construction and substantial improvement to structures located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) within the County must meet minimum standards established by the NFIP. Additionally, FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) program enables communities to earn credits for tasks and activities above and beyond minimum NFIP standards. The County has been a participating member under the CRS since September 2007, and has twice successfully reduced insurance premiums in San Diego by five percent. To ensure that the County’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance reflects the most current standards set forth by the NFIP and to implement higher regulations for development of new or substantially improved structures located within the SFHA, the County’s DPW Flood Control Engineering Group has begun the process of updating the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Fire Protection Districts and Municipal Water Districts Special districts do not directly participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Residents of the Fire protection Districts or Water Agencies participate in the NFIP through the process set up by the jurisdiction (City or County) they reside in. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 101 Table 4.4-13 Potential Exposure and Losses from 100-Year Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000)Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 6,906 3,045 $857,168 102 $457,133 Chula Vista 5,947 2,395 $674,193 153 $685,700 Coronado 2,853 1,227 $345,401 30 $134,451 Del Mar 813 435 $122,453 42 $188,231 El Cajon 1,870 657 $184,946 36 $161,341 Encinitas 653 234 $65,871 22 $98,597 Escondido 8,367 2,599 $731,619 101 $452,652 Imperial Beach 1,206 408 $114,852 14 $62,744 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 105 34 $9,571 2 $8,963 National City 2,854 893 $251,380 118 $528,841 Oceanside 19,007 6,715 $1,890,273 217 $972,529 Poway 2,518 814 $229,141 47 $210,640 San Diego (City)36,042 12,191 $3,431,767 523 $2,343,929 San Marcos 2,377 794 $223,511 70 $313,719 Santee 1,873 572 $161,018 46 $206,158 Solana Beach 1,124 574 $161,581 13 $58,262 Unincorporated - Rural 7,276 3,661 $1,030,572 137 $613,993 Unincorporated - Urban Core 10,125 3,358 $945,277 195 $873,932 Vista 1,988 635 $178,753 94 $421,280 Total 113,904 41,241 $11,609,342 1,962 $8,793,095 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 102 Table 4.4-14 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 100-Year Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 27 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 1,000 2,169Chula Vista Number 0 12 0 0 0 1 1 1 13 0 0 0 0 1 29 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 100,000 25 0 0 0 0 1,000 107,324 Coronado Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2,198 Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 578El Cajon Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 10 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,387 Encinitas Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 10 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,771 Escondido Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 15 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,781 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 National City Number 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 1 0 0 0 1 20 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 24 20,000 0 0 0 1,000 24,557 Oceanside Number 1 17 0 1 0 2 3 0 28 0 0 0 0 5 57 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 3,257 0 2,000 0 4,000 6,000 0 53 0 0 0 0 5,000 220,310 Poway Number 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,341 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3,343 San Diego (City)Number 0 74 1 3 0 0 2 1 66 49 0 0 1 3 200 Exposure (x$1000)0 14,178 2,000 6,000 0 0 4,000 100,000 99 980,000 0 0 2,000 3,000 1,111,278 San Marcos Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 13 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 14 0 0 0 0 2,000 202,589 Santee Number 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,724 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1,726 Solana Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 Unincorporated Number 3 36 0 1 0 4 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 12 107RuralExposure (x$1000)600,000 6,898 0 2,000 0 8,000 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 12,000 629,073 Unincorporated Number 0 14 0 0 0 1 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 34Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 2,682 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 6,733 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 5 0 0 0 2,000 0 6,005 Total Number 4 201 1 5 0 10 10 4 239 50 1 0 2 35 562 Total Exposure (x$1000)800,000 38,512 2,000 10,000 0 20,000 20,000 400,000 504 1,000,000 100,000 0 4,000 35,000 2,430,016 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 103 Table 4.4-15 Potential Exposure and Losses from 500-Year Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000)Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 6,996 3,086 $868,709 104 $466,097 Chula Vista 25,564 9,180 $2,584,170 405 $1,815,089 Coronado 3,868 1,715 $482,773 46 $206,158 Del Mar 1,062 567 $159,611 47 $210,640 El Cajon 17,608 6,457 $1,817,646 278 $1,245,913 Encinitas 678 243 $68,405 23 $103,079 Escondido 32,516 9,994 $2,813,311 336 $1,505,851 Imperial Beach 3,408 1,178 $331,607 35 $156,860 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 131 41 $11,542 2 $8,963 National City 8,584 2,735 $769,903 259 $1,160,760 Oceanside 37,323 12,878 $3,625,157 368 $1,649,266 Poway 4,690 1,540 $433,510 79 $354,054 San Diego (City)85,289 28,438 $8,005,297 1,126 $5,046,394 San Marcos 2,609 875 $246,313 77 $345,091 Santee 2,994 967 $272,211 60 $268,902 Solana Beach 1,250 648 $182,412 16 $71,707 Unincorporated - Rural 8,950 4,426 $1,245,919 151 $676,737 Unincorporated - Urban Core 11,357 3,785 $1,065,478 213 $954,602 Vista 4,639 1,553 $437,170 144 $645,365 Total 259,516 90,306 $25,421,139 3,769 $16,891,527 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 104 Table 4.4-16 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 500-Year Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TotalCarlsbadNumber06000000200000127 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 1,000 2,169Chula Vista Number 0 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 30 1 0 0 0 3 56 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,449 0 0 10,000 2,000 2,000 100,000 48 20,000 0 0 0 3,000 140,497CoronadoNumber010000102000004 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2,198Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2,578El Cajon Number 0 13 1 0 1 2 3 3 9 0 0 0 0 8 40 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,491 2,000 0 10,000 4,000 6,000 300,000 19 0 0 0 0 8,000 332,510EncinitasNumber0400000060100011 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,771 Escondido Number 0 20 0 0 0 2 5 2 14 0 0 0 0 11 54 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,832 0 0 0 4,000 10,000 200,000 31 0 0 0 0 11,000 228,863 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 National City Number 0 12 0 0 0 1 2 0 11 1 0 0 0 2 29 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 27 20,000 0 0 0 2,000 30,327 Oceanside Number 1 21 0 2 0 4 4 1 37 0 0 0 1 6 77 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 4,024 0 4,000 0 8,000 8,000 100,000 77 0 0 0 2,000 6,000 332,100 Poway Number 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1,000 4,535 San Diego (City)Number 0 119 2 3 0 2 8 3 122 49 1 0 1 5 315 Exposure (x$1000)0 22,800 4,000 6,000 0 4,000 16,000 300,000 229 980,000 100,000 0 2,000 5,000 1,440,030 San Marcos Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 14 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 14 0 0 0 0 2,000 202,781 Santee Number 0 9 0 2 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 17 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,724 0 4,000 0 0 2,000 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7,729 Solana Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 Unincorporated Number 3 39 0 1 0 4 1 0 56 0 0 0 0 13 117RuralExposure (x$1000)600,000 7,472 0 2,000 0 8,000 2,000 0 193 0 0 0 0 13,000 632,665 Unincorporated Number 0 15 0 0 0 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 38 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 2,874 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 58 0 0 0 0 1,000 7,932 Vista Number 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 4 14 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 0 10 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 14,202 Total Number 4 294 3 8 2 21 29 12 349 51 2 0 3 57 835 Total Exposure (x$1000)800,000 56,330 6,000 16,000 20,000 42,000 58,000 1,200,000 753 1,020,000 200,000 0 6,000 57,000 3,482,083 Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 105 4.4.2.6 Rain-Induced Landslide Steep slope and soils data from SANDAG, as well as data from the State of California, U.S. Geological Survey and HAZUS for all of San Diego County were combined and modeled to determine areas susceptible to rain-induced landslides. Soils that are prone to movement were determined from the database, and combined with areas that have greater than 25% slope, which are prone to sliding. The combination of these two factors gives a general idea of landslide susceptibility. Localized hard copy maps developed by Tan were also reviewed. The TAN landslide susceptibility modeling takes into account more information, such as past landslides, landslide-prone formations, and steep slope. The identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on top of this information, resulting in three risk/exposure estimates: 1) the aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies, 2) the aggregated population at risk at the census block level, and 3) the critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. Table 4.4-17 provides a breakdown of potential exposure for high-risk rain-induced landslide hazard by jurisdiction, and Table 4.4-18 provides a breakdown of infrastructure and critical facility exposure for high risk. Table 4.4-19 provides a breakdown of potential exposure for moderate risk rain-induced landslide by jurisdiction, and Table 4.4-20 provides a breakdown of potential infrastructure and critical facility exposure for moderate risk. Approximately 505,000 people may be at risk from the rain-induced landslide hazard. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the rain-induced landslide hazard in San Diego County include 22,346 low-income households and 57,564 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 106 Table 4.4-17 Potential Exposure from Rain-Induced Landslide Hazard (High Risk) by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 455 204 $57,426 2 $8,963 Chula Vista 0 0 $0 0 $0 Coronado 0 0 $0 0 $0 Del Mar 0 0 $0 0 $0 El Cajon 35 22 $6,193 0 $0 Encinitas 24 7 $1,971 0 $0 Escondido 751 295 $83,043 2 $8,963 Imperial Beach 0 0 $0 0 $0 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 2 0 $0 0 $0 National City 0 0 $0 0 $0 Oceanside 0 0 $0 0 $0 Poway 2 0 $0 0 $0 San Diego (City)137,095 48,049 $13,525,794 1,072 $4,804,382 San Marcos 1,441 457 $128,646 4 $17,927 Santee 35 12 $3,378 0 $0 Solana Beach 0 0 $0 0 $0 Unincorporated - Rural 9,130 3,573 $1,005,800 93 $416,798 Unincorporated - Urban Core 1,509 314 $88,391 4 $17,927 Vista 92 32 $9,008 1 $4,482 Total 150,571 52,965 $14,909,648 1,178 $5,279,443 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 107 Table 4.4-18 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Rain-Induced Landslide Hazard (High Risk) by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City)Number 0 17 0 10 0 6 4 0 93 0 0 0 0 22 152 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,257 0 20,000 0 12,000 8,000 0 221 0 0 0 0 22,000 65,478 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 Santee Number 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 0 3 0 2 0 3 1 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 35RuralExposure (x$1000)0 575 0 4,000 0 6,000 2,000 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 12,657 Unincorporated Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 10Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8,000 8,003 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Number 0 20 0 13 0 10 5 0 121 0 0 0 0 30 199Total Exposure (x$1000)0 3,832 0 26,000 0 20,000 10,000 0 306 0 0 0 0 30,000 90,138 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 108 Table 4.4-19 Potential Exposure to Rain-Induced Landslide Hazard (Moderate Risk) by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 57 30 $8,445 0 $0 Chula Vista 2 1 $282 1 $4,482 Coronado 0 0 $0 0 $0 Del Mar 0 0 $0 0 $0 El Cajon 39 13 $3,660 1 $4,482 Encinitas 6 1 $282 0 $0 Escondido 171 71 $19,987 2 $8,963 Imperial Beach 0 0 $0 0 $0 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0 National City 7 2 $563 0 $0 Oceanside 0 0 $0 0 $0 Poway 0 0 $0 0 $0 San Diego (City)10 3 $845 0 $0 San Marcos 970 286 $80,509 0 $0 Santee 0 0 $0 0 $0 Solana Beach 0 0 $0 0 $0 Unincorporated - Rural 23,197 4,188 $1,178,922 89 $398,871 Unincorporated - Urban Core 35,499 11,039 $3,107,479 389 $1,743,381 Vista 11 2 $563 0 $0 Total 59,969 15,636 $4,401,534 482 $2,160,179 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 109 Table 4.4-20 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Rain-Induced Landslide Hazard (Moderate Risk) by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CoronadoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0EncinitasNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PowayNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Diego (City)Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 1 20 0 0 0 3 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 4 67RuralExposure (x$1000)200,000 3,832 0 0 0 6,000 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 4,000 213,940 Unincorporated Number 0 29 0 0 0 8 2 1 36 0 0 0 2 12 90Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 5,556 0 0 0 16,000 4,000 100,000 71 0 0 0 4,000 12,000 141,628VistaNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Number 1 50 0 0 0 11 2 1 75 0 0 0 2 16 158Total Exposure (x$1000)200,000 9,580 0 0 0 22,000 4,000 100,000 179 0 0 0 4,000 16,000 355,759 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 110 4.4.2.7 Wildfire/Structure Fire Wildfire loss estimates were determined using the USGS LANDFIRE model because data for the CDF- FRAP model was being revised and would not be available for this revision. The LANDFIRE model provides five different Fire Regimes. In the model, fire threat is a combination of factors including; 1) historical fire regime and fire regime condition class, 2) existing vegetation, and 3) topography. These factors were combined to create five fire regime classes ranging from little or no threat to extreme. The regime classes are: Fire Regime I - 0-35 year frequency and low to mixed severity Fire Regime II - 0-35 year frequency and high severity Fire regime III - 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity Fire Regime IV - 35-100 + year frequency and high severity Fire Regime V - 200+ year frequency and high severity The model uses spatial data in the ARC Grid format which includes existing vegetation types, historical vegetation data, and fire behavior fuel models. It also incorporates natural and human-caused changes. Fuel is considered to be any material that can burn and is further defined as live and dead biomass. Fuel loading is the dry weight of a fuel component per unit area, typically kilogram per square meter. Other factors such as surface-to-volume ratio, packing ratio and heat content are also considered42. LANDFIRE uses the Fuel Characterization Classification System (FCCS) developed by Sandberg and others (2001) which summarizes fuel loading using canopy, shrub, surface and ground fuel stratifications. It also uses a fuel loading model developed specifically for LANDFIRE. This uses a broad classification of fuel beds based on fuel loading that accounts for variability of loading within fuel components43. Wildfire can create a multi-hazard effect, where areas that are burned by wildfire suddenly have greater flooding risks because the vegetation that prevented erosion is now gone. Watershed from streams and rivers will change and floodplain mapping may need to be updated. Also, air quality issues during a large- scale fire would cause further economic losses than only the structural losses described below. Road closures and business closures due to large-scale fires would also increase the economic losses shown below. Areas burned during the 2007 firestorm that are susceptible to flooding or debris flow as a result of a significant rain event have been mapped and these maps have been provided to the appropriate jurisdictions. Tables 4.4-21 and 4.4-22 provide a breakdown of potential exposure to Fire Regimes II and IV. These two regimes provide the greatest risk to the San Diego region. 42 Keane, Robert F., Tracey Frescino, Matthew C. Reeves, and Jennifer L. Long, Mapping Wildland Fuel Across Large Regions for the LANDFIRE prototype Project, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175. 2006 43 Ibid. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 111 Table 4.4-21 Potential Exposure from Extreme Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction FIRE REGIME GROUPS II AND IV - POPULATION TOTAL Buildings at Risk Building Count Exposure (x$1,000) Square Footage Exposure (x$1,000) Exposure (x$1,000) Carlsbad 99,892 43,157 12,148,696 29,541 10,339,342 22,488,038 Chula Vista 227,269 72,446 20,393,549 24,923 8,722,910 29,116,459 Coronado 22,740 9,263 2,607,535 3,372 1,180,036 3,787,571 Del Mar 3,791 2,288 644,072 2,055 719,363 1,363,435 El Cajon 96,248 32,872 9,253,468 18,121 6,342,347 15,595,815 Encinitas 57,529 23,980 6,750,370 15,107 5,287,475 12,037,845 Escondido 134,425 43,388 12,213,722 20,384 7,134,378 19,348,100 Imperial Beach 25,831 9,466 2,664,679 1,477 517,032 3,181,711 La Mesa 56,037 24,608 6,927,152 10,150 3,552,605 10,479,757 Lemon Grove 25,538 8,689 2,445,954 2,777 971,934 3,417,887 National City 57,267 15,144 4,263,036 9,300 3,255,165 7,518,201 Oceanside 157,029 60,356 16,990,214 17,827 6,239,477 23,229,691 Poway 43,624 15,054 4,237,701 12,366 4,328,138 8,565,839 San Diego (City)1,244,722 486,276 136,886,694 262,238 91,783,418 228,670,112 San Marcos 79,610 25,994 7,317,311 14,638 5,123,300 12,440,611 Santee 45,353 16,283 4,583,665 5,307 1,857,498 6,441,162 Solana Beach 12,004 5,986 1,685,059 5,292 1,852,269 3,537,328 Vista 89,520 29,418 8,281,167 18,919 6,621,623 14,902,790 Unincorporated-Rural 88,262 27,785 7,821,478 12,481 4,368,416 12,189,894 Unincorporated-Urban 335,301 111,685 31,439,328 29,983 10,494,099 41,933,427 Padre Dam MWD 83,399 30,088 8,469,772 11,692 4,092,373 12,562,145 Valley Center MWD 22,390 7,410 2,085,915 3,023 1,058,187 3,144,102 Alpine FPD 12,885 4,814 1,355,141 1,355 474,178 1,829,319 Rancho Santa Fe FPD 24,260 10,052 2,829,638 4,463 1,562,217 4,391,855 San Miguel FPD 114,949 39,482 11,114,183 9,036 3,162,580 14,276,763 TOTAL1 2,901,990 1,064,138 299,554,847 516,259 180,690,824 480,245,671 1Total includes municipalities and unincorporated area only; FPDs and MWDs are excluded from the total to avoid multiple counting of items. Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at RiskExposed PopulationJurisdiction SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 112 Table 4.4-22 Potential Exposure from Very High Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 3,219 1,294 $364,261 33 $147,896Chula Vista 9,048 2,795 $786,793 3 $13,445Coronado190$0 0 $0 Del Mar 7 5 $1,408 0 $0El Cajon 97 36 $10,134 2 $8,963 Encinitas 1,267 424 $119,356 14 $62,744 Escondido 846 328 $92,332 14 $62,744Imperial Beach 65 0 $0 0 $0 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 188 79 $22,239 1 $4,482National City 0 0 $0 0 $0 Oceanside 1,402 470 $132,305 7 $31,372Poway937305$85,858 17 $76,189San Diego (City)20,153 6,990 $1,967,685 208 $932,194 San Marcos 2,236 818 $230,267 8 $35,854Santee22289$25,054 3 $13,445 Solana Beach 76 33 $9,290 1 $4,482 Unincorporated - Rural 47,816 18,209 $5,125,834 658 $2,948,959 Unincorporated - Urban Core 41,461 10,036 $2,825,134 180 $806,706 Vista 654 217 $61,086 7 $31,372 Total 129,713 42,128 $11,859,032 1,156 $5,180,845 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 113 Table 4.4-23 Potential Exposure from High Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 9,255 4,298 $1,209,887 72 $322,682Chula Vista 3,840 1,224 $344,556 18 $80,671Coronado00$0 0 $0 Del Mar 16 9 $2,534 1 $4,482El Cajon 118 42 $11,823 3 $13,445 Encinitas 1,159 419 $117,949 18 $80,671 Escondido 1,660 654 $184,101 17 $76,189Imperial Beach 37 7 $1,971 0 $0 La Mesa 404 177 $49,826 1 $4,482 Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0National City 9 2 $563 5 $22,409 Oceanside 2,795 849 $238,994 21 $94,116Poway3,069 976 $274,744 55 $246,494San Diego (City)30,997 10,710 $3,014,865 280 $1,254,876 San Marcos 11,312 3,578 $1,007,207 30 $134,451Santee2,658 938 $264,047 18 $80,671Solana Beach 50 22 $6,193 1 $4,482 Unincorporated - Rural 8,518 3,197 $899,956 108 $484,024 Unincorporated - Urban Core 8,068 2,504 $704,876 76 $340,609 Vista 792 277 $77,976 12 $53,780Total84,757 29,883 $8,412,065 736 $3,298,531 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 114 Table 4.4-24 Potential Exposure from Moderate Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 76,454 31,464 $8,857,116 1,229 $5,508,009Chula Vista 169,128 57,512 $16,189,628 1,963 $8,797,577Coronado18,868 8,097 $2,279,306 428 $1,918,168 Del Mar 3,332 1,836 $516,834 178 $797,743El Cajon 97,629 35,464 $9,983,116 1,348 $6,041,332 Encinitas 55,064 21,388 $6,020,722 1,103 $4,943,315 Escondido 134,126 43,671 $12,293,387 1,745 $7,820,567Imperial Beach 26,346 9,139 $2,572,629 310 $1,389,327 La Mesa 56,195 25,030 $7,045,945 946 $4,239,688 Lemon Grove 25,058 8,606 $2,422,589 361 $1,617,894National City 55,054 15,749 $4,433,344 881 $3,948,378 Oceanside 161,361 58,273 $16,403,850 1,824 $8,174,621Poway43,815 14,007 $3,942,971 610 $2,733,837San Diego (City)1,251,231 473,008 $133,151,752 17,500 $78,429,750 San Marcos 60,659 20,218 $5,691,367 735 $3,294,050Santee50,473 17,705 $4,983,958 535 $2,397,710Solana Beach 11,413 5,585 $1,572,178 303 $1,357,955 Unincorporated - Rural 71,028 24,474 $6,889,431 792 $3,549,506 Unincorporated - Urban Core 255,909 86,104 $24,238,276 2,970 $13,310,649 Vista 90,913 28,908 $8,137,602 1,106 $4,956,760Total2,714,056 986,238 $277,625,997 36,867 $165,226,834 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 115 Table 4.4-25 Potential Exposure from Wildfire (Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme Combined) Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 88,928 37,056 $10,431,264 1,334 $5,978,588Chula Vista 182,033 61,536 $17,322,384 1,984 $8,891,693Coronado18,887 8,097 $2,279,306 428 $1,918,168 Del Mar 3,355 1,850 $520,775 179 $802,224El Cajon 97,844 35,542 $10,005,073 1,353 $6,063,740 Encinitas 57,495 22,232 $6,258,308 1,135 $5,086,730 Escondido 136,697 44,680 $12,577,420 1,776 $7,959,499Imperial Beach 26,448 9,146 $2,574,599 310 $1,389,327 La Mesa 56,599 25,207 $7,095,771 947 $4,244,170 Lemon Grove 25,246 8,685 $2,444,828 362 $1,622,375National City 55,063 15,751 $4,433,907 886 $3,970,786 Oceanside 165,558 59,592 $16,775,148 1,852 $8,300,108 Poway 47,823 15,289 $4,303,854 682 $3,056,519San Diego (City)1,302,402 490,708 $138,134,302 17,989 $80,621,301 San Marcos 74,207 24,614 $6,928,841 773 $3,464,354Santee53,353 18,732 $5,273,058 556 $2,491,825Solana Beach 11,539 5,640 $1,587,660 305 $1,366,919 Unincorporated - Rural 140,648 51,134 $14,394,221 1,745 $7,820,567 Unincorporated - Urban Core 307,689 99,272 $27,945,068 3,249 $14,561,043Vista92,372 29,407 $8,278,071 1,125 $5,041,913Total2,944,186 1,064,170 $299,563,855 38,970 $174,651,849 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 116 Table 4.4-26 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from Extreme Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TotalCarlsbadNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CoronadoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0EncinitasNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0EscondidoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City)Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 2 22 1 14 0 5 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 2 160RuralExposure (x$1000)400,000 4,215 2,000 28,000 0 10,000 0 0 415 0 0 0 0 2,000 446,630 Unincorporated Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 2 22 1 14 0 5 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 2 166Total Exposure (x$1000)400,000 4,215 2,000 28,000 0 10,000 0 0 426 0 0 0 0 2,000 446,641 Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 117 Table 4.4-27 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from Very High Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 7 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 100,000 3 0 0 0 2,000 104,195Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1,000 1,001CoronadoNumber00000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3EncinitasNumber01000000100002 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 193 Escondido Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 196Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4PowayNumber00000000300014 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1,000 1,008 San Diego (City)Number 0 8 0 2 0 0 1 0 58 0 0 0 3 72 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 4,000 0 0 2,000 0 134 0 0 0 3,000 10,667 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1SanteeNumber00000000100001 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Unincorporated - Number 13 105 2 34 0 50 0 5 665 0 0 0 23 897RuralExposure (x$1000)2,600,000 20,118 4,000 68,000 0 100,000 0 500,000 2,173 0 0 0 23,000 3,317,291 Unincorporated - Number 0 9 0 0 0 6 1 2 75 0 0 0 6 99Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 1,724 0 0 0 12,000 2,000 200,000 82 0 0 0 6,000 221,806VistaNumber00000000100012 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 Total Number 13 125 2 36 0 56 3 8 815 0 0 0 37 1,095Total Exposure (x$1000)2,600,000 23,950 4,000 72,000 0 112,000 6,000 800,000 2,417 0 0 0 37,000 3,657,367 Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 118 Table 4.4-28 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from High Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 3 22 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 3,000 3,027 Chula Vista Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,195CoronadoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Encinitas Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 7 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,576EscondidoNumber000100007000008 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2,005 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 Oceanside Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 2,208PowayNumber0200000070000110 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,405 San Diego (City)Number 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 8 75 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,491 0 6,000 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 8,000 16,582 San Marcos Number 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 4,000 0 2,000 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6,196SanteeNumber000100002000003 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2,005Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 4 17 0 2 0 3 1 0 136 0 0 0 0 2 165RuralExposure (x$1000)800,000 3,257 0 4,000 0 6,000 2,000 0 446 0 0 0 0 2,000 817,703 Unincorporated Number 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 2 16 0 0 1 0 0 26Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 1,150 0 0 0 2,000 0 200,000 21 0 0 100,000 0 0 303,171VistaNumber000001002000014 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,000 3,001 Total Number 4 45 0 9 0 6 2 2 255 0 1 1 0 16 341Total Exposure (x$1000)800,000 8,622 0 18,000 0 12,000 4,000 200,000 648 0 100,000 100,000 0 16,000 1,259,270 Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 119 Table 4.4-29 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from Moderate Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 1 19 0 2 1 7 4 1 89 0 1 0 0 18 143 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 3,640 0 4,000 10,000 14,000 8,000 100,000 153 0 100,000 0 0 18,000 457,793Chula Vista Number 0 39 2 2 1 11 8 7 85 0 1 0 0 59 215 Exposure (x$1000)0 7,472 4,000 4,000 10,000 22,000 16,000 700,000 165 0 100,000 0 0 59,000 922,638CoronadoNumber01010341120000931 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 2,000 0 6,000 8,000 100,000 12 0 0 0 0 9,000 125,204 Del Mar Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 20 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 7 0 0 0 0 2,000 8,965 El Cajon Number 1 37 1 2 1 8 7 6 61 0 0 0 0 47 171 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,089 2,000 4,000 10,000 16,000 14,000 600,000 153 0 0 0 0 47,000 900,242EncinitasNumber01101063372000723126 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,108 0 2,000 0 12,000 6,000 300,000 127 0 0 0 14,000 23,000 359,235EscondidoNumber06711068868010143204 Exposure (x$1000)0 12,837 2,000 2,000 0 12,000 16,000 800,000 187 0 100,000 0 2,000 43,000 990,024 Imperial Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 8 18 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 200,000 2 0 0 0 0 8,000 216,194 La Mesa Number 0 36 0 1 0 4 4 2 52 0 0 0 0 25 124 Exposure (x$1000)0 6,898 0 2,000 0 8,000 8,000 200,000 112 0 0 0 0 25,000 250,010Lemon Grove Number 0 8 0 0 0 2 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 10 46 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 4,000 6,000 0 58 0 0 0 0 10,000 21,591National City Number 0 46 1 1 2 4 4 7 37 0 1 0 2 20 125 Exposure (x$1000)0 8,814 2,000 2,000 20,000 8,000 8,000 700,000 87 0 100,000 0 4,000 20,000 872,901 Oceanside Number 1 37 2 4 0 10 9 11 103 0 1 0 7 37 222 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,089 4,000 8,000 0 20,000 18,000 1,100,000 206 0 100,000 0 14,000 37,000 1,508,295 Poway Number 0 40 1 0 0 3 1 1 22 0 0 1 0 22 91 Exposure (x$1000)0 7,664 2,000 0 0 6,000 2,000 100,000 60 0 0 100,000 0 22,000 239,724San Diego (City)Number 4 445 12 22 8 85 95 49 750 3 2 2 5 339 1,821 Exposure (x$1000)800,000 85,262 24,000 44,000 80,000 170,000 190,000 4,900,000 1,686 60,000 200,000 200,000 10,000 339,000 7,103,948San Marcos Number 0 11 0 0 0 7 3 2 54 0 0 0 2 20 99 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,108 0 0 0 14,000 6,000 200,000 136 0 0 0 4,000 20,000 246,244 Santee Number 0 14 1 1 0 3 2 0 27 0 1 0 0 15 64 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,682 2,000 2,000 0 6,000 4,000 0 60 0 100,000 0 0 15,000 131,742 Solana Beach Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 27 0 0 0 1 9 44 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 44 0 0 0 2,000 9,000 16,002 Unincorporated Number 13 72 0 5 3 35 2 5 383 0 0 1 0 38 557RuralExposure (x$1000)2,600,000 13,795 0 10,000 30,000 70,000 4,000 500,000 1,289 0 0 100,000 0 38,000 3,367,085 Unincorporated Number 0 96 0 1 0 30 7 6 194 0 1 1 2 100 438Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 18,394 0 2,000 0 60,000 14,000 600,000 415 0 100,000 100,000 4,000 100,000 998,808VistaNumber01200084348000938122 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 16,000 8,000 300,000 95 0 0 0 18,000 38,000 382,394Total Number 20 1,002 21 44 16 236 173 114 2,118 3 9 5 36 882 4,679Total Exposure (x$1000)4,000,000 191,983 42,000 88,000 160,000 472,000 346,000 11,400,000 5,056 60,000 900,000 500,000 72,000 882,000 19,119,039 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 120 Table 4.4-30 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from (Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme Combined) Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 1 20 0 2 1 7 5 2 110 0 1 0 0 23 172 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 3,832 0 4,000 10,000 14,000 10,000 200,000 183 0 100,000 0 0 23,000 565,015 Chula Vista Number 0 40 2 2 1 11 8 7 95 0 1 0 0 61 228 Exposure (x$1000)0 7,664 4,000 4,000 10,000 22,000 16,000 700,000 185 0 100,000 0 0 61,000 924,849 Coronado Number 0 1 0 1 0 3 4 1 12 0 0 0 0 9 31 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 2,000 0 6,000 8,000 100,000 13 0 0 0 0 9,000 125,204 Del Mar Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 20 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 7 0 0 0 0 2,000 8,965 El Cajon Number 1 37 1 2 1 8 7 6 63 0 0 0 0 47 173 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,089 2,000 4,000 10,000 16,000 14,000 600,000 159 0 0 0 0 47,000 900,248 Encinitas Number 0 15 0 1 0 6 3 3 76 0 1 0 6 25 136 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,874 0 2,000 0 12,000 6,000 300,000 130 0 100,000 0 12,000 25,000 460,004 Escondido Number 0 68 1 2 0 6 8 8 76 0 1 1 1 43 214 Exposure (x$1000)0 13,029 2,000 4,000 0 12,000 16,000 800,000 197 0 100,000 100,000 2,000 43,000 1,092,226 Imperial Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 8 19 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 200,000 2 0 0 0 0 8,000 216,194 La Mesa Number 0 36 0 1 0 4 4 2 53 0 0 0 0 25 125 Exposure (x$1000)0 6,898 0 2,000 0 8,000 8,000 200,000 113 0 0 0 0 25,000 250,010 Lemon Grove Number 0 8 0 0 0 2 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 10 46 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 4,000 6,000 0 58 0 0 0 0 10,000 21,591 National City Number 0 47 1 1 2 4 4 7 37 0 1 0 2 20 126 Exposure (x$1000)0 9,005 2,000 2,000 20,000 8,000 8,000 700,000 87 0 100,000 0 4,000 20,000 873,093 Oceanside Number 1 38 2 4 0 10 10 11 112 0 1 0 7 37 233 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,281 4,000 8,000 0 20,000 20,000 1,100,000 226 0 100,000 0 14,000 37,000 1,510,506 Poway Number 0 42 1 0 0 3 1 1 31 0 0 1 0 24 103 Exposure (x$1000)0 8,047 2,000 0 0 6,000 2,000 100,000 89 0 0 100,000 0 24,000 242,137 San Diego Number 4 466 12 27 8 85 96 49 859 3 2 3 5 350 1,966 (City)Exposure (x$1000)800,000 89,286 24,000 54,000 80,000 170,000 192,000 4,900,000 1,912 60,000 200,000 300,000 10,000 350,000 7,231,198 San Marcos Number 0 12 0 2 0 8 3 2 56 0 0 0 2 20 105 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 4,000 0 16,000 6,000 200,000 142 0 0 0 4,000 20,000 252,441 Santee Number 0 14 1 2 0 3 2 0 30 0 1 0 0 15 68 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,682 2,000 4,000 0 6,000 4,000 0 65 0 100,000 0 0 15,000 133,748 Solana Beach Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 28 0 0 0 1 9 45 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 46 0 0 0 2,000 9,000 16,004UnincorporatedNumber301942413883101,184 0 0 3 0 63 1,618RuralExposure (x$1000)6,000,000 37,170 4,000 82,000 30,000 176,000 6,000 1,000,000 3,908 0 0 300,000 0 63,000 7,702,078 Unincorporated Number 0 111 0 1 0 37 8 10 285 0 1 2 2 106 561 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 21,268 0 2,000 0 74,000 16,000 1,000,000 518 0 100,000 200,000 4,000 106,000 1,523,785 Vista Number 0 12 0 0 0 9 4 3 50 0 0 0 9 40 127 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 18,000 8,000 300,000 96 0 0 0 18,000 40,000 386,395 Total Number 37 1,172 23 89 16 298 178 124 3,192 3 10 10 35 937 6,114 Total Exposure (x$1000)7,400,000 224,555 46,000 178,000 160,000 596,000 356,000 12,400,000 8,136 60,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 70,000 937,000 24,435,691 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 121 4.4.2.8 Manmade Hazards Vulnerability assessment information for manmade hazards is considered sensitive homeland security information and is provided in a separate confidential document (Attachment A). 4.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Assessment It should be noted that individual risk assessment maps were completed for each of the 18 participating incorporated cities as well as the unincorporated County. Hazard profile maps were created at a local (1:2,000) scale, complete with land use information, critical facility information, infrastructure and hazard areas for each of the 19 jurisdictions. Jurisdictional HMWG leads were presented copies of these maps to provide to their Local Mitigation Planning teams. The local teams utilized these maps to help identify their jurisdictional Goals, Objectives, and Mitigation Measures. Several of the local goals, objectives, and action items identified in the proceeding section (Section 5) relate directly to these risk assessment maps. Due to concern of sensitivity of information depicted on these localized maps, only the County-scale maps are included in the Plan. 4.5.1 Analysis of Land Use San Diego County covers 4,264 square miles and is located in the southernmost corner of the state, bordering Mexico and the Pacific Ocean. There are 18 jurisdictions in the County with a total of over 888 thousand households in the region and a total population of 2,813,833 (2000 Census Bureau data). Existing land use data (Figure 4.5.1) was utilized in the hazard profiling process. Forecast land use information for 2030 from the Regional Economic Development Information system (REDI) was evaluated in analyzing future development trends. Existing land use consists of mainly residential, commercial and industrial in the western (urban core) portion of the county. The eastern area (unincorporated rural) is spotted with residential surrounded by park and ‘not in use’ areas. The forecast land use describes residential land use becoming the most predominant land use in the urban core of the county and expanding largely into the eastern portion of the county. In the eastern portion of the county, Native American Reservations and parks will make up the rest of the land use designations. Within the county, there are 18 incorporated jurisdictions and the County jurisdiction, all of which contributed to the risk assessment analyses for the San Diego County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Wildfire and flood were identified as the most significant risks to the County, however, all hazards are addressed in the Mitigation Plan. Each jurisdiction has unique hazard situations that require additional or unique mitigation measures. The loss estimates are summarized above in tables that show potential total exposure and/or losses for each jurisdiction. The Mitigation Strategy (Section 5) approaches each jurisdiction separately. 4.5.2 Analysis of Development Trends The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a regional planning body whose membership includes all 18 incorporated cities and the County of San Diego. SANDAG plays a key role in regional coordination efforts. In 2004 the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted a Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) that provides a strategic framework for the San Diego Region. It encourages cities and the county to increase residential and employment concentrations in areas with the best existing and future transit connections, and to preserve important open spaces “Smart Growth”). City general plans are being aligned with the RCP as they are revised. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 122 Many of the jurisdictions in San Diego County are close to being “built-out” under their general plans. A few representative examples will illustrate the trends throughout the region: • The City of San Diego has less than four percent (4%) of its land available for development. For the City of San Diego this means that the focus is now on how to reinvest in existing communities (City of San Diego General Plan, March 2008). The City’s General Plan takes hazard mitigation into consideration in the Public Facilities, Services and Safety Element by discussing disaster preparedness (preparation for natural and man-made disasters as well as preparations for restoration of municipal services) and seismic safety. • The City of Poway’s Plan calls for the preservation of open space and the maintenance of the City’s rural character. (Poway Comprehensive Plan: General Plan). Accordingly, future development “in Poway should be concentrated in parts of the City other than the rural hillside areas and existing open space should be protected.” This is intended to limit growth to the “enhancement of existing developed and developing areas.” • The City of National City has only 0.8% (113 acres) of land vacant and available for development. It has adopted the SANDAG Smart Growth concept. Additional opportunities for future development may include a change to an existing use within a built-up area, rebuilding sites with more intense uses or building on under-utilized sites. (City of National City General Plan, Chapter 2 Land Use). • The City of Chula Vista also subscribes to the SANDAG Smart Growth concept. Chula Vista was one of the fastest growing cities in the State during the 1990s and the early initial years of the 21st century. This growth occurred mostly in the eastern portion of the City on large, vacant tracts of land. Western Chula Vista is for the most part already developed. Chula Vista’s emphasis is shifting from the development of vacant lands in the eastern portion of the City to revitalizing the already developed areas. “Redevelopment will play a prominent role in the City’s evolution” (City of Chula Vista General Plan, Chapter Five, Land Use Element). • The City of Encinitas still contains a number of underdeveloped or undeveloped areas that can accommodate additional homes or businesses. It is the intent of the City to achieve a balanced and functional mix of development consistent with the long-range goals, objectives and values of the City (City of Encinitas General Plan April, 2013). Among the things the City seeks to accomplish with this plan the “reduction of loss of life, injury, and property damage that might result from flooding, seismic hazards and other natural and man-made hazards that need to be • The County of San Diego will manage growth in the unincorporated areas through the use of zoning regulations, building codes and the permit process (San Diego County General Plan). Hazard mitigation measures to minimize landslides, flooding, and other natural and man-made hazards are found in the plan. The 2010 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan has been included into the General Plan by reference. The result of this is that much of the new development in the near term will occur in the unincorporated portion of San Diego County. In the near future development trends will shift towards the redevelopment of urban cores. Hazards mapped in these areas include wildfire, flood, earthquake, and dam failure. The two most prevalent hazards related to development trends appear to be the increasing density in downtown San Diego near the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (earthquake and liquefaction hazard) and the expansion of the urban/wildland interface by new development throughout the county, but especially in east and south county (wildfire hazard). It should also be noted that high-rise residential and commercial development has SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 123 increased significantly in the downtown San Diego and Golden Triangle areas and these developments present a potential new type of structural fire hazard risk. The population is estimated to increase to approximately 4.4 million by 2050 (SANDAG, 2010). The forecast land use describes residential land use becoming the most predominant land use in the urban core of the county and expanding largely into the eastern portion of the county. The original plan predicted that near term development (that development that would occur over the course of the four year life of the plan) would be concentrated mostly in the unincorporated urban core and the southeastern portion of San Diego County in and around the City of Chula Vista. For the first few years this prediction appeared to be accurate. Beginning in 2008, the economic downturn resulted in a significant slow-down within the region in terms of growth and caused a very large downturn in median home prices. It is estimated that the downturn resulted in a $4 billion loss to San Diego County as a result of the change it caused in consumer spending habits. The median price of a home in San Diego County dropped from approximately $600,000 in 2006 to approximately $400,000 in 2012. The current median price of home is $488,000 up approximately since 2014. 2008 saw the unemployment rate rise to 7.6% in San Diego with the loss of 56,500 jobs by January of 2009. This was the worst job loss in San Diego since 1974. In 2008 there were fewer than 3000 residential building permits issued. The normal average is 14,000. By April of 2009 the total number of unemployed in San Diego had reached 135,000, for and unemployment rate of 8.6%. (National Association of Counties “A Snapshot of Large, Urban Counties” April, 2009). Current unemployment rate for the San Diego region is 4.6%, down from 5.1% in August 2015. Since September 2014 there has been an increase of 46,900 nonfarm jobs in San Diego. 4.5.2.1 Data Limitations It should be noted that the analysis presented here is based upon “best available data”. See Appendix B for a complete listing of sources and their unique data limitations (if any). Data used in updates to this plan should be reassessed upon each review period to incorporate new or more accurate data if/when possible. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 124 This page intentionally left blank. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions 125 5.1 Overview After each participating jurisdiction reviewed the Risk Assessment (Section 4), jurisdictional leads met with their individual Local Planning Groups (LPG) to identify appropriate jurisdictional-level goals, objectives, and mitigation action items. This section of the Plan incorporates 1) mitigation goals and objectives, 2) mitigation actions and priorities, 3) an implementation plan, and 4) documentation of the mitigation planning process for each of the twenty one (21) participating jurisdictions. Each of these steps is described as follows. 5.1.1 Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives Each jurisdiction reviewed hazard profile and loss estimation information presented in Section 4 and utilized this as a basis for developing mitigation goals and objectives. Mitigation goals are defined as general guidelines explaining what each jurisdiction wants to achieve in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are typically long-range, policy-oriented statements representing jurisdiction-wide visions. Objectives are statements that detail how each jurisdiction’s goals will be achieved, and typically define strategies or implementation steps to attain identified goals. Other important inputs to the development of jurisdiction-level goals and objectives include performing reviews of existing local plans, policy documents, and regulations for consistency and complementary goals, as well as soliciting input from the public. 5.1.2 Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions Mitigation actions that address the goals and objectives developed in the previous step were identified, evaluated, and prioritized. These actions form the core of the mitigation plan. Jurisdictions conducted a capabilities assessment, reviewing existing local plans, policies and regulations for any other capabilities relevant to hazard mitigation planning. An analysis of their capability to carry out these implementation measures with an eye toward hazard and loss prevention was conducted. The capabilities assessment required an inventory of each jurisdiction’s legal, administrative, fiscal and technical capacities to support hazard mitigation planning. After completion of the capabilities assessment, each jurisdiction evaluated and prioritized their proposed mitigations. As part of this process, each city and the County reviewed the actions detailed in the 2010 plan to see if they were completed, had been dropped due to issues such as lack of political support or lack of funding or were on-going and should be continued in the new plan. The status of each jurisdiction’s action items is detailed in Appendix C. Also considered were changes in development, mitigation efforts and priorities. Each participant used their local planning group to evaluate alternative mitigation actions by considering the implications of each action item. One potential method available to the cities to accomplish this was the STAPLEE method. The STAPLEE criteria are a tool used to assist communities in deciding which actions to include in their implementation strategy. The criteria are designed to account for a wide range of factors that affect the appropriateness of an action. STAPLEE considers the following criteria: SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions 126 • Social: Community acceptance, public support, adverse effects on population segments, health/welfare/safety impacts, and financial effects • Technical: Technical feasibility, long term effectiveness, and secondary impacts • Administrative: Staff, funding, and maintenance capabilities • Political: Political support, local champion, and public support • Legal: State authority, existing local authority, and potential opposition • Economic: Benefits, costs, and availability of outside funding • Environmental: impact on environment and endangered species, local regulations and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations. Local planning groups are comprised of individuals from the various jurisdictional departments brining their experience and knowledge of the region, the jurisdiction and local constraints to assist in the evaluation of the hazards and the development of mitigations strategies, goals and objectives. Individual LPG membership is discussed in each jurisdictions section of this chapter. Each jurisdiction also considered the following: ease of implementation; multi-objective actions; time for implementation and post-disaster mitigation feasibility. Utilizing the above information, each community ranked the possible action items on a prioritization scale of high, medium, and low. A High ranking indicated that the hazard has a high probability of occurrence and/or a severe impact on the community. The Medium ranking indicated a moderate potential for occurrence or impact. Those hazards with a low probability of occurrence but with a potentially high impact were also ranked as medium. The Low ranking indicates that the potential for the event to occur is remote and/or the impact of the event is minimal to the community. Only those hazards that received a high or moderate ranking were considered in the mitigation planning process. Many of these hazards were ranked differently by individual jurisdictions. For example, tsunamis received a relatively high ranking among coastal jurisdictions while inland jurisdictions did not consider them for mitigation action. All jurisdictions rated wildfire high (based on the firestorms of 2003 and 2007). Flooding and Earthquake (based on the known faults within the County) were also rated high by all participants. Table 5.X-1 Summary of Potential Hazard-Related Exposure/Loss formed the initial ranking basis for the individual participants. The hazards selected by each jurisdiction for mitigation actions are included in their section of this Chapter. In all cases the actions selected are prioritized based on the benefit of the action compared to the cost (in terms of funding, staff time, time to complete) of conducting that action. Those actions that will provide the most benefits in the least amount of time with available resources were selected as the highest priorities. That is not to say the other actions are not considered important. It merely indicates that we set out to complete what we could with current resources. The other actions will be completed as additional resources become available. There were nine Goals established by the HMWG. They are listed below (in the order of importance assigned by the jurisdictions): 1. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to geologic hazards (includes Earthquakes, landslides, liquefaction, etc.). 2. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to structure fire/wildfire. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions 127 3. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to flooding/dam failure. 4. Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation. 5. Improve hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, State, local and tribal governments. 6. Promote disaster resistant existing and future development. 7. Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less vulnerable to hazards. 8. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to coastal erosion/coastal bluff failure/storm surge/Tsunami. 9. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to severe weather. Each jurisdiction then identified and prioritized actions. They listed those with the highest short to medium term priorities. Not all jurisdictions included all the goals. Some jurisdictions included unique goals (such as minimizing losses by prompt resumption of City operations and restoration of City services). Others split the goals into multiple ones (i.e., some have a separate earthquake goal as opposed to a geologic hazard goal). An implementation schedule, funding source and coordinating individual or agency are identified for each prioritized action item. Each jurisdiction prepared a strategy for implementing the mitigation actions identified in the previous step. The implementation strategies identify who is responsible for which action, what kind of funding mechanisms and other resources are available or will be pursued, and when the strategies will be completed. In combination, the goals, objectives, actions and implementation strategies form the body of each jurisdiction’s Plan. The following subsections present individual Plans for each of the 19 jurisdictions as well as the Fire Protection District. 5.2 Regional Considerations The Risk Assessment (Section 4) indicates that each participating jurisdiction is susceptible to a variety of potentially serious hazards in the region. This had been recognized and formally addressed as early as the 1960s. At that time all of the cities and the County formed a Joint Powers Agreement which established the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization (Organization) and the Unified Disaster Council (UDC) which is the policy making group of the Organization. It also created the Office of Disaster Preparedness (now OES), which is staff to the Organization. The Organization’s approach to emergency planning has been comprehensive, i.e., planned for and prepared to respond to all hazards: natural disasters, man-made emergencies, and war-related emergencies, utilizing the State of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions 128 (SEMS), the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as well as a coordinated Incident Command System. OES is the agency charged with developing and maintaining the San Diego County Operational Area Emergency Plan, which is considered a preparedness document. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that in addition to having emergency response and emergency preparedness documents, regions should develop and maintain a document outlining measures that can be taken before a hazard event occurs that would help minimize the damage to life and property. The UDC assigned OES the role of coordinating the development of the Plan as a multi-jurisdictional plan. The Plan includes specific goals, objectives, and mitigation action items each of the participating jurisdictions developed that will help minimize the effects of the specified hazards that potentially affect their jurisdiction. Some overall goals and objectives shared some commonalities (including promoting disaster-resistant future development; increasing public understanding, support, and demand for effective hazard mitigation; building and supporting local capacity and commitment to continuously becoming less vulnerable to hazards; and improving coordination and communication with federal, state, local and tribal governments). However, the specific hazards and degree of risk vary greatly between the different jurisdictions; and the mix of other goals and objectives, and most action items are unique to each jurisdiction. Consequently, the goals, objectives and action items in this Plan are presented by individual jurisdiction and special district. It is also envisioned that these mitigation actions will be implement on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. However, UDC and OES will provide general oversight to this process to help reduce duplication of efforts between jurisdictions as appropriate, and to spearhead coordination of initiatives and action items that could be accomplished more efficiently on a regional level. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 129 5.21 County of San Diego The Unincorporated portion of the County of San Diego (County) reviewed a set of jurisdictional-level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. In addition, LPGs were supplied with exposure/loss estimates for the County summarized in Tables 5.21-1a and 5.21-1b. See Section 4.0 for additional details. Table 5.21-1a Summary of Potential Hazard-Related Exposure/Loss in the County (Urban) Residential Commercial Critical Facilities Hazard Type Exposed Population Number of Residential Buildings Potential Exposure/ Loss for Residential Buildings (x$1,000) Number of Commercial Buildings Potential Exposure/ Loss for Commercial Buildings (x$1,000) Number of Critical Facilities Potential Exposure for Critical Facilities (x$1,000) Coastal Storm / Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sea Level Rise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dam Failure 21,862 7,304 2,056,076 277 1,241,431 123 235,356 Earthquake (Annualized Loss - Includes shaking, liquefaction and landslide components) 333,626* 108,042* 8,963* 3,560* 15,954,852* 290* 820,725* Flood (Loss) 100 Year 10,125 3,358 945,277 195 873,932 34 6,733 500 Year 11,357 3,785 1,065,478 213 954,602 38 7,932 Rain-Induced Landslide High Risk 1,509 314 88,391 4 17,927 10 8,003 Moderate Risk 35,499 11,039 3,107,479 389 1,743,381 12 141,628 Tsunami 35 11 3,097 1 4,482 1 2 Wildfire / Structure Fire Fire Regime II & IV 335,301 111,685 31,439,328 29,983 10,494,099 561 1,523,785 * Represents 250-year earthquake value under three earthquake scenarios (shake only, shake and liquefaction, and shake and landslide). SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 130 Table 5.21-1b Summary of Potential Hazard-Related Exposure/Loss in the County (Rural) Residential Commercial Critical Facilities Hazard Type Exposed Population Number of Residential Buildings Potential Exposure/ Loss for Residential Buildings (x$1,000) Number of Commercial Buildings Potential Exposure/ Loss for Commercial Buildings (x$1,000) Number of Critical Facilities Potential Exposure for Critical Facilities (x$1,000) Coastal Storm / Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dam Failure 14,512 3,686 1,037,609 135 605,030 123 325,258 Earthquake (Annualized Loss - Includes shaking, liquefaction and landslide components) 168,254* 60,561* 17,047,922* 2,177* 9,756,661* 1,554* 7,942,838* Flood (Loss) 100 Year 7,276 3,661 1,030,572 137 613,993 107 629,073 500 Year 8,950 4,426 1,245,919 151 676,737 117 632,685 Rain-Induced Landslide High Risk 9,130 3,573 1,005,800 93 416,798 35 12,657 Moderate Risk 23,197 4,188 1,178,922 89 398,871 67 213,940 Tsunami 5,154 95 26,743 0 0 5 768 Wildfire / Structure Fire Fire Regime II & IV 88,262 27,785 7,821,478 12,481 4,368,416 1,618 7,702,078 * Represents 500-year earthquake value under three earthquake scenarios (shake only, shake and liquefaction, and shake and landslide). SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 131 After reviewing the localized hazard maps and exposure/loss table above, the following hazards were identified by the County LPG as their top five. • Fire • Hazardous Materials Release • Flood • Earthquake • Manmade Hazards 5.21.1 Capabilities Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides the County’s fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.21.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The following is a summary of existing departments in the County and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of the County, as shown in Table 5.21-2, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. • San Diego County Planning Development Services Maintain and protect public health, safety and well-being. Preserve and enhance the quality of life for County residents by maintaining a comprehensive general plan and zoning ordinance, implementing habitat conservation programs, ensuring regulatory conformance and performing comprehensive community outreach. Advanced Planning Division: Provides land use and environmental review, maintains a comprehensive general plan and zoning ordinance, issues land use and building permits, and enforces building and zoning regulations. It is also responsible for long-range planning through development and implementation of a comprehensive County General Plan. Building Division: Review site and building plans for compliance with all applicable codes. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 132 Code Compliance Division: Enforces building, grading, zoning, brushing and clearing, junk, graffiti, signs, abandoned vehicle complaints and noise control. Land Development Division: Provides engineering and review services for construction and development projects throughout the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Project Planning Division: reviews “discretionary” projects. Those are projects that builders and homeowners cannot do “by right,” but which may be approved by PDS’s director, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors if the projects meet certain conditions. Discretionary projects include lot splits, major subdivisions and conditionally- permitted uses. They also process applicants' requests for General Plan Amendments and Zoning changes. • San Diego County Department of Public Works Preserve, enhance and promote quality of life and public safety through the responsible development of reliable and sustainable infrastructure and services. Land Development Division: Provides engineering and review services for construction and development projects throughout the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Services such as Stormwater, Flood Control, Map Processing, Cartography, Surveys, the Geographic and Land Information Systems and dealing with land development issues are the daily job of this division. The division processes more than 5,000 permits each year. Transportation Division: Roads Section is the most visible part of DPW, responding to requests for services ranging from pothole repair to tree trimming. Traffic Engineering provides traffic management and determines the need for stop signs and traffic lights. Route Locations updates the County’s General Plan Circulation Element, provides transportation planning support and more. County Airports include eight unique facilities scattered throughout the area. McClellan-Palomar Airport provides commercial service to Los Angeles and Phoenix; Ramona Airport is home to the busiest aerial firefighting base in the USA; and, the County Sheriff's air force, ASTREA, is based at Gillespie Field. Engineering Services Division: The division includes Wastewater, Flood Control, Design Engineering, Environmental Services, Construction Engineering, Materials Lab, Project Management and Flood Control Engineering and Hydrology. The Director of Public Works has assigned the Deputy Director of Engineering Services as the County Engineer and Flood Control Commissioner. Management Services Division: This division provides a variety of services to department employees and the public. It includes Personnel, Financial Services, Communications, Recycling, Inactive Landfills and Management Support. Special Districts serve small areas in unincorporated areas providing a variety of services to residents in rural areas. • San Diego County Housing & Community Development Improve the quality of life in our communities – helping needy families find safe, decent and affordable housing and partnering with property owners to increase the supply and availability of SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 133 affordable housing. The Department provides many valuable services to both property owners and tenants and strives to create more livable neighborhoods that residents are proud to call home. Key service programs include: improving neighborhoods by assisting low-income residents, increasing the supply of affordable, save housing and rehabilitating both business and residential properties in San Diego County. They serve the communities of: Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) provides funding to agencies or businesses that provide a benefit to low and moderate income persons, prevent or eliminate slums and blight, or meet needs having a particular urgency. In addition to funding housing and shelter programs, the County also allocates grant funds toward various community improvements in the Urban County area. These include Developer Incentive programs, Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS and the Emergency Solutions Grant program. Participating cities, community residents, nonprofit organizations and other county departments may submit grant proposals. • County of San Diego Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Mission: To ensure that all residents of and visitors to San Diego County receive timely and high quality emergency medical services, specialty care, prevention services, disaster preparedness and response. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is a branch of the Health and Human Services Agency's Public Health Services. It is the 'local EMS agency' (LEMSA) as defined in California law. Part of San Diego County EMS is the Disaster Medical Health Emergency Preparedness unit. This unit coordinates with emergency management agencies, community organizations, medical providers, prehospital provider agencies (fire/EMS), hospitals, clinics, skilled nursing facilities, businesses and other partners in developing public health and disaster preparedness by dissemination of risk assessments, trainings and public health guidance. • County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services The Office of Emergency Services (OES) coordinates the overall county response to disasters. OES is responsible for alerting and notifying appropriate agencies when disaster strikes; coordinating all agencies that respond; ensuring resources are available and mobilized in times of disaster; developing plans and procedures for response to and recovery from disasters; and developing and providing preparedness materials for the public. Function: To protect life and property within the San Diego County Operational Area in the event of a major emergency or disaster by: 1) Alerting and notifying appropriate agencies when disaster strikes; 2) Coordinating all Agencies that respond; 3) Ensuring resources are available and mobilized in times of disaster; 4) Developing plans and procedures for response to and recovery from disasters and 5) Developing and providing preparedness materials for the public. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 134 • County of San Diego Sheriff’s Department The San Diego County Sheriff's Department is the chief law enforcement agency in San Diego County. The department is comprised of approximately 4,000 employees, both sworn officers and professional support staff. The department provides general law enforcement, detention and court services for the people of San Diego County in a service area of approximately 4,200 square miles. In addition, the department provides specialized regional services to the entire county, including the incorporated cities and the unincorporated areas of the county. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department provides contract law enforcement services for the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach and Vista. In these cities the Sheriff's Department serves as their police department, providing a full range of law enforcement services including patrol, traffic and investigative services. In the unincorporated (non-city) areas, the Sheriff's Department provides generalized patrol and investigative services. The California Highway Patrol has the primary jurisdiction for traffic services in unincorporated areas. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department operates seven detention facilities. Male arrestees are booked at the San Diego Central Jail and Vista Detention Facility, while female arrestees are booked at the Las Colinas and Vista Detention Facilities. The remaining jails house inmates in the care of the Sheriff. • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalFIRE is an emergency response and resource protection department that responds to more than 5,600 wildland fires that burn over 172,000 acres in the State each year. In addition, department personnel respond to more than 350,000 other emergency calls, including structure fires, automobile accidents, medical aid, swift water rescues, civil disturbance, search and rescue, floods, and earthquakes. CalFIRE is the State’s largest fire protection organization, whose fire protection team includes extensive ground forces, supported by a variety of fire-fighting equipment. CalFIRE has joined with Federal and local agencies to form a statewide mutual aid system. This system insures a rapid response of emergency equipment by being able to draw on all available resources regardless of jurisdiction. CalFIRE is responsible for wildland fire protection within the District’s State Responsibility Areas, even though the Fire District is the first responder to an incident. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 135 Table 5.21-2 County of San Diego: Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Y/N Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management practices Y Department of Planning & Land Use (DPLU)/ Lead Planner B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Y DPLU/Building Inspectors C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or manmade hazards Y D. Floodplain manager Y E. Surveyors Y DPLU & Department of Public Works (DPW)/ Surveyor, Lead F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards Y G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Y DPLU GIS Manger and DPW GIS Manager H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community Y County Science Advisory Board I. Emergency manager Y Office of Emergency Services / Emergency Services Coordinator J. Grant writers N Departments determine their own level of service. The legal and regulatory capabilities of the County are shown in Table 5.21-3, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of the County. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the County’s building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordnances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 136 Table 5.21-3 County of San Diego: Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Local Authority (Y/N) Does State Prohibit (Y/N) A. Building code Y N B. Zoning ordinance Y N C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Y N D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain management, storm water management, hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard setback requirements) Y N E. Growth management ordinances (also called “smart growth” or anti-sprawl programs) Y N F. Site plan review requirements Y N G. General or comprehensive plan Y N H. A capital improvements plan Y N I. An economic development plan Y J. An emergency response plan Y N K. A post-disaster recovery plan Y L. A post-disaster recovery ordinance N M. Real estate disclosure requirements Y N 5.21.3 Fiscal Resources Table 5.21-4 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to the County such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard- prone areas. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 137 Table 5.21-4 County of San Diego: Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Yes Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes I. Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas Yes 5.21.4 Goals, Objectives and Actions Listed below are the County’s specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the County has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction’s current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the County’s planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, County representatives met with consultant staff and/or OES to specifically discuss these hazard-related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Representatives of numerous County departments involved in hazard mitigation planning, including Fire, Police, and Public Works provided input to the County LPG. The County LPG members were: • Tom Amabile, County OES • Dave Cammal, DEH • Jason Batchelor, Planning and Development Services • Gitanjali Shinde, DPW • Lisa Prus, San Diego County Water Authority • Donna Johnson, HHSA, EMS Once developed, County staff submitted the plan to Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and FEMA for approval. Once approved the plan will be taken to the Unified Disaster Council and then to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors for adoption. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 138 A public survey was posted on all participating agencies websites from March through July 2014. Over 500 responses were received. The survey results are in Appendix D. An email address was also provided on the webpage to allow the public to submit questions and/or suggestions. This email address was checked daily. The following sections present the hazard-related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by the County’s LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials and residents. 5.21.4.1 Goals The County of San Diego has developed the following 13 Goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan (See Attachment A for Goals 12, and 13). Goal 1. Promote Disaster-resistant future development. Goal 2. Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation. Goal 3. Build and support local capacity and commitment to become less vulnerable to hazards. Goal 4. Enhance hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, state, local and tribal governments. “Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and County-owned facilities, due to”: Goal 5. Dam Failure Goal 6. Earthquakes and Liquefaction Goal 7. Coastal Storm/Erosion/Tsunami Goal 8. Landslides Goal 9. Floods Goal 10. Structural Fire/Wildfire Goal 11. Extreme Weather and Drought Goal 12. Manmade Hazards Goal 13. Hazardous Materials Release 5.21.4.2 Objectives and Actions The County of San Diego developed the following broad list of objectives and actions to assist in the implementation of each of their 11 identified goals. The County of San Diego developed objectives to assist in achieving their hazard mitigation goals. For each of these objectives, specific actions were developed SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 139 that would assist in their implementation. A discussion of the prioritization and implementation of the action items is provided in Section 5.21.5. Goal 1: Promote disaster-resistant future development. New, Existing or Both Objective 1.A: Facilitate the development or updating of general plans and zoning ordinances to limit development in hazard areas. Action 1.A.1 Update General Plan as necessary. Both Action 1.A.2 Attract and retain qualified, professional and experienced staff. Both Action 1.A.3 Continue to identify high hazard areas using GIS. Both Objective 1.B: Facilitate the adoption of building codes that protect existing assets and restrict new development in hazard areas. Action 1.B.1 Review Codes as necessary. New Objective 1.C: Facilitate consistent enforcement of general plans, zoning ordinances, and building codes. Action 1.C.1 Staff enforcement personnel to a level to ensure compliance. Both Action 1.C.2 Develop and coordinate permits for all agencies. Both Action 1.C.3 Continue to utilize multi-agency permitting and enforcement team. Both Objective 1.D: Limit future development in hazardous areas Action 1.D.1 Development should be in harmony with existing topography. Both Action 1.D.2 Development patterns should respect environmental characteristics. New Action 1.D.3 Clustering should be encouraged. New Action 1.D.4 Development should be limited in areas of known geologic hazards. New Action 1.D.5 Development in floodplains shall be limited to protect lives and property. New Action 1.D.6 High fire hazard areas shall have adequate access for emergency vehicles. Both Objective 1.E: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about new development and build-out potential in hazard areas. Action 1.E.1 Continue to utilize Geographic Information Systems (GIS) capabilities to identify hazards. Both Action 1.E.2 Continue to develop and update data sets that are necessary to test hazard scenarios and mitigation tools. Both Objective 1.F: Increase public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation for new developments. Action 1.F.1 Continue to gain public acceptance for avoidance policies in high hazard areas. Both Action 1.F.2 Continue public education efforts to publicize and adopt the appropriate hazard mitigation measures. Both Action 1.F.3 Help create demand for hazard resistant construction and site planning. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 140 Goal 2: Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation. New, Existing or Both Objective 2.A: Educate the public to increase awareness of hazards and opportunities for mitigation actions. Action 2.A.1 Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions. Both Action 2.A.2 Continue to provide information to the public on the County website. Both Action 2.A.3 Heighten public awareness of hazards by using the County Communications Office. Both Action 2.A.4 Gain public acceptance for avoidance policies in high hazard areas. Both Action 2.A.5 Identify hazard specific issues and needs. Both Action 2.A.6 Help create demand for hazard resistant construction and site planning. Both Action 2.A.7 Promote partnerships between the state, counties, local and tribal governments to identify, prioritize and implement mitigation actions. Both Action 2.A.8 Promote County’s “Know Your Hazards” app. Both Objective 2.B: Promote partnerships between the state, counties, local and tribal governments to identify, prioritize, and implement mitigation actions. Action 2.B.1 Develop, maintain and improve lasting partnerships. Both Action 2.B.2 Support the County Fire Safe Council. Both Action 2.B.3 Promote cooperative vegetation Management Programs that incorporate hazard mitigation. Both Objective 2.C: Promote hazard mitigation in the business community. Action 2.C.1 Increase awareness and knowledge of hazard mitigation principles and practices. Both Action 2.C.2 Encourage businesses to develop and implement hazard mitigation actions. Both Action 2.C.3 Identify hazard-specific issues and needs. Both Objective 2.D: Monitor and publicize the effectiveness of mitigation actions implemented countywide. Action 2.D.1 Continue to use the County website to publicize mitigation actions. Both Action 2.D.2 Continue to create marketing campaigns. Both Action 2.D.3 Continue to determine mitigation messages to convey. Both Action 2.D.4 Continue to establish budget and identify funding sources for mitigation outreach. Both Action 2.D.5 Continue to develop and distribute brochures, CDs and other publications. Both Objective 2.E: Provide education on hazardous conditions. Action 2.E.1 Continue to support public and private sector symposiums. Both Action 2.E.2 Coordinate production of brochures, informational packets and other handouts. Both Action 2.E.3 Develop partnerships with the media on hazard mitigation. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 141 Goal 3: Build and support local capacity and commitment to become less vulnerable to hazards. New, Existing or Both Objective 3.A: Increase awareness and knowledge of hazard mitigation principles and practice among local officials. Action 3.A.1 Use County Communications Office/County News Center to promote mitigation actions. Both Action 3.A.2 Conduct meetings with key elected officials to determine local issues and concerns. Both Action 3.A.3 Continuously demonstrate the importance of pre-disaster mitigation planning to the Board of Supervisors and other public officials. Both Objective 3.B: Develop hazard mitigation plan and provide technical assistance to implement plan. Action 3.B.1 Coordinate the update of the multi-jurisdictional plan. Both Action 3.B.2 Continue to have the County Working Group update and monitor the plan. Both Objective 3.C: Limit growth and development in hazardous areas. Action 3.C.1 Update GIS mapping to identify hazardous areas. Both Action 3.C.2 Continue to enforce trespassing regulations in high-risk areas. Both Action 3.C.3 Update General Plan and zoning regulations to reflect hazardous areas. Both Action 3.C.4 Support transfer of development rights in hazard prone areas. Both Objective 3.D: Management of wildland vegetative communities to promote less hazardous conditions. Action 3.D.1 Continue to use GIS to inventory by type and vegetation age class. Both Action 3.D.2 Continue to define target class ranges. Both Action 3.D.3 Continue to develop partnerships within the communities to fix age class ranges. Both Objective 3.E: Improve the County’s ability to manage in pre and post-disaster scenarios as well as respond effectively during the event. Action 3.E.1 Train multiple staff members for each position in the Op Area EOC Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 142 Goal 4: Enhance hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, state, local and tribal governments. New, Existing or Both Objective 4.A: Establish and maintain closer working relationships with state agencies, local and tribal governments. Action 4.A.1 Continue the program of multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and exercises to enhance hazard mitigation. Both Action 4.A.2 Leverage resources and expertise that will further hazard mitigation efforts. Both Action 4.A.3 Update the multi-jurisdictional/multi-hazard mitigation plan to include tribal governments and special districts. Both Action 4.A.4 Maintain multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and exercises to enhance hazard mitigation. Both Objective 4.B: Encourage other organizations to incorporate hazard mitigation activities. Action 4.B.1 Continue to encourage tribal governments to become part of the HIRT JPA. Both Action 4.B.2 Establish and maintain lasting partnerships. Both Action 4.B.3 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort. Both Objective 4.C: Improve the County’s capability and efficiency at administering pre- and post-disaster mitigation. Action 4.C.1 Maintain consistency with the State in administering recovery programs. Both Action 4.C.2 Continue to work to establish a requirement that all hazard mitigation projects submitted to the State must be reviewed by the County. Both Action 4.C.3 Continue to improve coordination with the State Hazard Mitigation Office in dealing with local issues. Both Objective 4.D: Support a coordinated permitting activities process. Action 4.D.1 Develop notification procedures for all permits that support affected agencies. Both Action 4.D.2 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort. Both Action 4.D.3 Continue to exchange resources and work with local and regional partners. Both Objective 4.E: Coordinate recovery activities while restoring and maintaining public services. Action 4.E.1 Maintain two damage assessment teams. Both Action 4.E.2 Maintain activation and reporting procedures for the damage assessment teams. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 143 Goal 5: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to dam failure. New, Existing or Both Objective 5. A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to dam failure Action 5.A.1 Update dam inundation plans, at a minimum every ten years. Both Action 5.A.2 Continue to participate in community awareness meetings Both Action 5.A.3 Continue to develop and distribute printed publications to the communities concerning hazards. Both Objective 5.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of a dam failure. Action 5.B.1 Continue to identify hazard-prone structures. Existing Action 5.B.2 Continue to construct barriers around structures. Both Action 5.B.3 Encourage structural retrofitting. Existing Objective 5.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate dam failure (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers, US Bureau of Reclamation, and California Department of Water Resources). Action 5.C.1 Continue to revise development ordinances to mitigate effects of development on wetland areas. Both Action 5.C.2 Incorporate and maintain valuable wetlands in open space preservation programs. Both Action 5.C.3 Review and revise, as necessary, sediment and erosion control regulations. Both Objective 5.D: Protect floodplains from inappropriate development. Action 5.D.1 Strengthen existing development regulations to discourage land uses and activities that create hazards. New Action 5.D.2 Plan and zone for open space, recreational, agricultural, or other low-intensity uses within floodway fringes. New Goal 6: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to earthquakes and liquefaction. New, Existing or Both Objective 6.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to earthquakes. Action 6.A.1 Update Building Codes to reflect current earthquake standards. Both Action 6.A.2 Continue to participate in community awareness meetings. Both Action 6.A.3 Continue to develop and distribute printed publications to the communities concerning hazards. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 144 Goal 6: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to earthquakes and liquefaction. New, Existing or Both Objective 6.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of earthquakes. Action 6.B.1 Continue to identify hazard-prone structures through GIS modeling. Both Action 6.B.2 Ensure new construction critical facilities are designed to function after a major earthquake. New Action 6.B.3 Continue to study ground motion, landslide, and liquefaction. Both Objective 6.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate earthquake hazards. Action 6.C.1 Identify projects for pre-disaster mitigation funding. Both Action 6.C.2 Continue to implement an ongoing public seismic risk assessment program. Both Action 6.C.3 Continue to collaborate with Federal, State and local agencies’ mapping efforts. Both Objective 6.D: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from earthquakes. Action 6.D.1 Continue to assess countywide utility infrastructure with regard to earthquake risk. Both Action 6.D.2 Develop and implement an incentive program for seismic retrofits. Existing Action 6.D.3 Continue to encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work. Both Objective 6.E: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of liquefaction. Action 6.E.1 Identify hazard-prone structures through GIS modeling. Existing Action 6.E.2 Build critical facilities that function after a major earthquake. New Action 6.E.3 Study ground motion, landslide and liquefaction. Both Goal 7: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to coastal storm/erosion/tsunami. New, Existing or Both Objective 7.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to coastal storms/erosion. Action 7.A.1 Continue to coordinate with coastal cities to develop a comprehensive plan. Both Action 7.A.2 Participate in community awareness meetings. Both Action 7.A.3 Develop and distribute printed publications to the communities concerning hazards. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 145 Goal 7: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to coastal storm/erosion/tsunami. New, Existing or Both Objective 7.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of coastal storms/erosion. Action 7.B.1 Retrofit structures to strengthen resistance to damage. Existing Action 7.B.2 Continue to encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work. Both Action 7.B.3 Seek pre-disaster mitigation funding for coastal erosion projects. Both Objective 7.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate severe coastal storms/erosion. Action 7.C.1 Continue to review and update plans that would include coordination with cities, special districts and county departments. Both Action 7.C.2 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort. Both Action 7.C.3 Continue to develop and publish evacuation procedures to the public. Both Objective 7.D: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from coastal storms/erosion. Action 7.D.1 Using GIS continue to identify hazard-prone structures. Both Action 7.D.2 Continue to incorporate information and recommendations from coastal cities into the hazard mitigation plan. Both Goal 8: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities /infrastructure, and public facilities due to landslide. New, Existing or Both Objective 8.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to landslide. Action 8.A.1 Continue to identify potential areas based upon historical data. Both Action 8.A.2 Continue to participate in community awareness meetings. Both Action 8. A.3 Continue to develop and distribute printed publications to the communities concerning hazards. Both Objective 8.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of landslide. Action 8.B.1 Study and improve storm drains for landslide prone areas. Both Action 8.B.2 Develop, adopt and enforce effective building codes and standards. New Action 8.B.3 Seek pre-disaster mitigation funding for landsides prevention projects. Both Objective 8.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate landslide. Action 8.C.1 Continue to review and update plans that would include coordination with cities, special districts and county departments. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 146 Goal 8: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities /infrastructure, and public facilities due to landslide. New, Existing or Both Action 8.C.2 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort. Both Action 8.C.3 Develop and publish evacuation procedures to the public. Both Objective 8.D: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from landslide. Action 8.D.1 Identify hazard-prone structures through GIS modeling. Both Action 8.D.2 Implement hazard awareness program. Both Goal 9: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to floods. New, Existing or Both Objective 9.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to floods. Action 9.A.1 Continue to review and compare existing flood control standards, zoning and building requirements. Both Action 9.A.2 Identify flood-prone areas by using GIS. Both Action 9.A.3 Adopt policies that discourage growth in flood-prone areas. Both Objective 9.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of floods within the 100-year floodplain. Action 9.B.1 Assure adequate funding to restore damaged facilities to 100-year flood design. Both Action 9.B.2 Update storm water system plans and improve storm water facilities in high- risk areas. Both Action 9.B.3 Plan for evacuation in case of major hazard event. Both Objective 9.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate floods (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers, US Bureau of Reclamation, and California Department of Water Resources). Action 9.C.1 Develop a flood control strategy that ensures coordination with Federal, State and local agencies. Both Action 9.C.2 Improve hazard warning and response planning. Both Objective 9.D: Minimize repetitive losses caused by flooding. Action 9.D.1 Identify those communities that have recurring losses. Both Action 9.D.2 Develop project proposals to reduce flooding and improve control in flood prone areas. Both Action 9.D.3 Acquire properties, when feasible, on floodway to prevent development. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 147 Goal 9: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to floods. New, Existing or Both Objective 9.D: Minimize repetitive losses caused by flooding. Action 9.D.4 Seek pre-disaster mitigation funding. Both Objective 9.E: Address perceived data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from flooding. Action 9.E.1 Continue to encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work. Both Action 9.E.2 Increase participation and improve compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Both Action 9.E.3 Develop and implement hazard awareness program. Both Goal 10: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to structural fire/wildfire. New, Existing or Both Objective 10.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.A.1 Update the County Consolidated Fire Code as necessary. Both Action 10.A.2 Develop model Weed Abatement and Fuel Modification Ordinances. Both Action 10.A.3 Utilize GIS as an information tool. Both Action 10.A.4 Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate structural fire/wildfire. Both Action 10.A.5 Continue to develop partnerships for a countywide vegetation management program. Both Objective 10.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.B.1 Enforce standardized Defensible Space Clearance distances. Both Action 10.B.2 Work with community-based groups to pilot chipping programs. Both Action 10.B.3 Continue to research options to provide low cost insurance to cover landowners who allow prescribed burning on their lands. Both Objective 10.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.C.1 Establish a continuing wildland fire technical working group. Both Action 10.C.2 Continue to develop partnerships for a countywide vegetation management program. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 148 Goal 10: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to structural fire/wildfire. New, Existing or Both Objective 10.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.C.3 Report annually to the Board of Supervisors on the progress of fire mitigation strategies. Both Objective 10.D: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.D.1 Identify Urban/wildland fire interface areas. Both Action 10.D.2 Use GIS to map fire risk areas. Both Action 10.D.3 Implement public education program to address fire dangers and corrective measures. Both Goal 11: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities /infrastructure, and public facilities due to extreme weather and drought. New, Existing or Both Objective 11.A: Educate the community about drought, its potential impacts and individual mitigation techniques that they can engage in to help prevent drought or reduce the impact of drought. Action 11.A.1 Encourage residents to adopt drought tolerant landscaping or xeriscape practices. Both Action 11.A.2 Promote use of reclaimed water for all landscaping efforts. Both Action 11.A.3 Support groundwater recycling efforts. Both Objective 11.B: Protect vulnerable populations from the effects of extreme heat Action 11.B.1 Support regional efforts to prepare for excessive heat events Both Action 11.A.2 Participate in “Excessive Heat Emergency Awareness” events and exercise heat emergency plans as established by HHSA, AIS, EMS, and PHS. Both Action 11.A.3 Continue to provide “Cool Zones” during excessive heat events. Both 5.21.5 Prioritization and Implementation of Action Items Once the comprehensive list of jurisdictional goals, objectives, and action items listed above was developed, the proposed mitigation actions were prioritized using STAPLEE criteria. This step resulted in a list of acceptable and realistic actions that address the hazards identified in each jurisdiction. This prioritized list of action items was formed by the LPG. The prioritized actions below reflect progress in local mitigation efforts as well as changes in development. The Disaster Mitigation Action of 2000 (at 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206) requires the development of an action plan that not only includes prioritized actions but one that includes information on how the prioritized SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 149 actions will be implemented. Implementation consists of identifying who is responsible for which action, what kind of funding mechanisms and other resources are available or will be pursued, and when the action will be completed. The top 11 prioritized mitigation actions as well as an implementation strategy for each are: Action Item #1: Update Operational Area Emergency Operational Plan and associated Annexes Coordinating Individual/Organization: The Office of Emergency Services (OES) will work with the 18 incorporated cities and participating special districts to revise and update the Plan Potential Funding Source: FEMA Grants/ General Funds for County and Cities. Implementation Timeline: January 2019 – January 2020 Action Item #2: Develop and maintain public education and outreach programs related to actions residents can take to mitigate hazards they may face. (Annual defensible space education/outreach; terrorism prevention; erosion control, etc.) Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES and County Communications Office (CCO) Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State Grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #3: Review the County Consolidated Fire Code annually and update as necessary Coordinating Individual/Organization: Planning and Developmental Services and County Fire Authority Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State Grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 - January 2023 Action Item #4: Streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort in regional planning efforts by coordinating emergency management activities with regional stakeholders by facilitating meetings on a regular basis with regional emergency managers, campus emergency managers, DOD partners, Voluntary Agencies Active in Disaster, and faith-based partners. Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES, County Departments, local military, healthcare agencies and the 18 incorporated cities Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #5: Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions throughout the region Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/PDS/County Fire Authority/CCO/County Technology Office (CTO) Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants. Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #6: Review Building Codes to reflect current earthquake standards annually and update as necessary Coordinating Individual/Organization: Planning and Developmental Services Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State Grants. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 150 Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #7: Support public and private sector symposiums that emphasize hazard mitigation planning Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/County Departments/Cities/Private Sector Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State Grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #8: Maintain multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and annual exercises to enhance hazard mitigation Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/County Departments/All 18 Cities/appropriate Private Sector Agencies Potential Funding Source: Grant Funded Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #9: Review and update annually regional emergency plans, Concept of Operation plans, protocols, and standard operational processes. Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/appropriate county Departments/All 18 Cities/Special Districts Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants. Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #10: Encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work through outreach events, social media, paid media and earned media. Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/CCO/CTO Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #11: Develop a Climate Action Plan. Coordinating Individual/Organization: Land Use and Environment Group/OES Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 SECTIONSIX Plan Maintenance 151 This section of the Plan describes the formal process that will ensure that the Plan remains an active and relevant document. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the Plan annually and producing a plan revision every five years. This section describes how the county and cities will integrate public participation throughout the plan maintenance process. Finally, this section includes an explanation of how jurisdictions intend to incorporate the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan into existing planning mechanisms such as the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, and Building Codes. 6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan 6.1.1 Plan Monitoring The HMWG participants will be responsible for monitoring the plan annually for updates to jurisdictional goals, objectives, and action items. If needed, these participants will coordinate through the County OES to integrate these updates into the Plan. County OES will be responsible for monitoring the overall Plan for updates on an annual basis. 6.1.2 Plan Evaluation The Plan is evaluated by County OES and by each participating jurisdiction annually to determine the effectiveness of programs, and to reflect changes in land development or programs that may affect mitigation priorities. This includes re-evaluation by HMWG leads (or their select jurisdictional representative) based upon the initial STAPPLEE criteria used to draft goals, objectives, and action items for each jurisdiction. County OES and city representatives also review the goals and action items to determine their relevance to changing situations in the county, as well as changes in State or Federal regulations and policy. County OES and jurisdictional representatives review the risk assessment portion of the Plan to determine if this information should be updated or modified, given any new available data. The coordinating organizations responsible for the various action items will report on the status of their projects, the success of various implementation processes, difficulties encountered, success of coordination efforts, and which strategies should be revised. Any updates or changes necessary will be forwarded to County OES for inclusion in further updates to the Plan. The HMWG and each Local Mitigation Planning Team meet annually to discuss the status of the Plan. 6.1.3 Plan Updates Since the plan’s original adoption in 2005 the HMWG has participated in an annual review. This process was continued after the adoption of the 2010 plan. The review details all mitigation actions that were deferred, begun, continued or completed during that calendar year. In the past five years there has been considerable progress made with the successful completion of the vast majority of the action items developed by the participating jurisdictions. Appendix C details the status of the action items from the 2010 plan. This review process has been effective in identifying gaps and shortfalls in funding, support, and other resources. It has also allowed for the re-prioritization of specific actions as circumstances change. It allows each participating jurisdiction to maintain the plan as a living document. This review process has enabled the HMWG to improve the document by eliminating actions that have been completed, adding new actions that have been identified since the plans adoption and reprioritizing other actions to reflect new priorities SECTIONSIX Plan Maintenance 152 and/or constraints. The negative side of this review process is that it is time consuming, pulling staff away from their day-to-day responsibilities. County OES will continue to be the responsible agency for updates to the Plan. All HMWG participants will continue to be responsible to provide OES with jurisdictional-level updates to the Plan annually or when/if necessary as described above. Every five years the plan will be updated and submitted to Cal OES and FEMA for review. 6.1.4 Implementation through Existing Programs County and local jurisdictions have implemented many of the recommended action items through existing programs and procedures. Participants use the Plan as a baseline of information on the natural hazards impacting their jurisdictions. They have also been able to refer to existing institutions, plans, policies and ordinances defined for each jurisdiction in Section 5 of the Plan (e.g., General Plan, Comprehensive Plan). Participants are incorporating the Hazard Mitigation Plan into their General Plans and/or Comprehensive Plans as those plans come up for review and revision. 6.1.5 Continued Public Involvement The 2010 was posted on the Hazard Mitigation page of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services webpage. The public was encouraged to comment on the plan online. Once approved, the revised plan will be posted on the hazard mitigation page of the County website. A dedicated email address is provided to the public to provide comments on the plan. In addition, at the beginning of the revision process a survey was posted on all participating jurisdiction’s webpages to determine the best way to meet the needs and desires of the community. The survey results are in Appendix D. The participating jurisdictions and special districts continue to be dedicated to involving the public directly in the review process and updates of the Plan. A maintenance committee made up of a representative from County OES and a representative from each participating jurisdiction is responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the Plan as described above. During all phases of plan maintenance the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback. A copy of the Plan is available for review on the County OES website. Participating jurisdictions also have links from their website to the Plan. In addition, hard copies of the plan are catalogued and kept at all of the appropriate agencies in the county. The existence and location of these copies is also posted on the county website. To facilitate public comments, the site contains an email address for the public’s use which is monitored on a daily basis by County OES. Any questions or comments received on this website are forwarded to the appropriate member(s) of the HMWG for their review and response. County OES also tracks these public comments on the plan. A press release requesting public comments is also issued for each update, and after each evaluation. We are also using social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to notify the public of any changes they should be aware of. These notifications direct people to the website where the public can review proposed changes. Coupled with the dedicated email address for comments, this provides the public a simple and easily accessible to allow them to express their concerns, opinions, or ideas about any updates/changes that are proposed to the Plan. The County OES will continue to be responsible for publicize any changes to the Plan and maintaining public involvement. SECTIONSIX Plan Maintenance 153 SECTIONSIX Plan Maintenance 154 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONSEVEN References 155 SECTION 7 REFERENCES ABAG Dam Failure Inundation Hazards Guide, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/dfguide.html Bainbridge, David 1997. The Flood Next Time. The San Diego Earth Times Web Page: http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1097/et1097s1.html California Department of Boating and Waterways and SANDAG, 1994. Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region, Volumes I and II. Edited by Reinhard E. Flick, PhD. California Earthquake History 1769-Present Earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/sca/ca_eqs.php City of Fort Collins Dam Failure Webpage, http://www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/oem/dam-failure.php California Coastal Commission Draft Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance (2013) http://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slr/guidance/CCC_Draft_SLR_Guidance_PR_10142013.pdf California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 1990. Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake, San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area. Special Publication 100. California Department of Water Resources, Dam Safety, http://www.water.ca.gov/damsaefty/docs/fault.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2013. “Indicators of Climate Change in California.” Climate Education Partners, 2014. “San Diego, 2050 Is Calling. How Will We Answer?” County of San Diego, Department of Sanitation and Flood Control. Storms in San Diego County. FEMA 2002. State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide. September 2002, FEMA 386-1. FEMA 1999. HAZUS 99 Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology User Manual-ArcView. Developed by FEMA through arrangements with National Institute of Building Sciences. Frankel, Arthur, Mueller, Charles, Barnhard, Theodore, Perkins, David, Leyendecker, E.V., Dickman, Nancy, Hanson, Stanley, and Hopper, Margaret, 1997, Seismic-hazard maps for the conterminous United States, Map C - Horizontal Peak Acceleration with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-131-C. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/data.html Garfin, G., G. Franco, H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzalez, T. Piechota, R. Smyth, and R. Waskom, 2014: Ch. 20: Southwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 462-486. doi:10.7930/J08G8HMN. SECTIONSEVEN References 156 Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 2003. Interim Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for California Local Governments. Prepared for the DRC April 21-23, 2003. Hawk, R.N., and Christiansen, T.P., 1991, City of San Diego Ordinances and Regulations with Respect to Geotechnical and Geological Hazards, in Environmental Perils, San Diego Region, Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., editors, San Diego Association of Geologists Higbee, Melissa, Daniel Cayan, Sam Iacobellis, Mary Tyree (2014). Report from San Diego Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Training Workshop #1: Climate Change and Hazards in San Diego. ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www.icleiusa.org/library/documents/training-workshop-report/view Institute for Business and Life Safety, Tampa FL, July 2008 Mega Fires: The Case for Mitigation, The Witch Creek Fire, October 21-31, 2007 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Leighton & Associates, 1983, Seismic Safety Study for the City of San Diego, City of San Diego General Plan Journal of San Diego History 2002. Dry Rivers, Dammed Rivers and Floods: An Early History of the Struggle Between Droughts and Floods in San Diego. Winter 2002, Volume 48, Number 1. http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/hill.htm National Association of Counties April 2009. “A Snapshot of the Impact of the Recession on Large, Urban Counties”. Office of Emergency Services 2014. Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan. San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation San Diego Natural History Museum Web Page 2003. Faults and Earthquakes in San Diego County. Thomas A. Demere, Ph.D: Curator of Paleontology. http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdfaults.html Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (2012). http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 South Carolina Emergency Management Division. South Carolina Emergency Operations Plan Appendix 4 South Carolina Dam Failure and Preparedness Plan. February 2009 SECTIONSEVEN References 157 Stroh, Robert C. editor., 2001: Coastal processes and Engineering Geology of San Diego, California, San Diego Association of Geologists, Sunbelt Publications U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1993. Tsunamis affecting the West Coast of the United States 1806-1992. KGRD 29. Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 19-67. doi:10.7930/J0KW5CXT. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-1 APPENDIX A: HAZARD MITIGATION WORKING GROUP MEETING AGENDAS AND SUMMARIES Group Meeting #1: Wednesday February 11, 2014, 9:00 AM Meeting Summary Tom Amabile (TA) gave an introduction that discussed the working group goals. The group went around and identified themselves and their agencies. The audience consisted of representatives from the 18 incorporated cities, the County of San Diego and various local water agencies as well as from several fire protection districts. Special Districts represented were: • Alpine Fire Protection District • Lakeside Fire Protection District • Padre Dam Municipal Water District • Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District • San Diego County Water Authority • Sweetwater Authority • Valley Center Water District • Vista Irrigation District TA gave a PowerPoint™ presentation discussing the goals of the San Diego County Multi- Jurisdiction Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan), the objectives of DMA 2000, the hazard mitigation planning process and the steps involved in developing the Plan achieving the goals. The presentation included a discussion of the methodology that will be used to revise the Plan for San Diego County. It was stressed that participation from special districts, especially fire protection districts and water districts was strongly encouraged and welcome. As explained in the PowerPoint presentation the goals of the hazard mitigation planning process consists of: 1. Identifying a. Risk of loss of life and property damage due to man-made and natural disasters b. Options for mitigation to lower or eliminate those risks c. Available resources and capabilities to implement mitigation actions d. Risks to San Diego County: i. Coastal storms/erosion ii. Dam Failure iii. Drought iv. Earthquakes v. Flooding vi. Hazardous Materials\ vii. Landslides viii. Terrorism ix. Tsunamis APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-2 x. Wildfires 2. Planning Process a. Basic Steps i. Establish planning area a. Identify partnerships i. Regional organizations ii. Local governments iii. Special Districts iv. Tribal governments ii. Build the planning team a. Identify Team Members i. Board of Supervisors/City Councils ii. Code Enforcement iii. Community Development iv. Fire v. Law Enforcement vi. Emergency Management vii. Floodplain Administrators viii. GIS ix. Public Information x. Public Works xi. Special Districts xii. Stormwater Management xiii. Special Districts xiv. Transportation b. Each participating jurisdiction will have a local planning team i. Focus on issues specific to that jurisdiction ii. One or two members will also be part of the regional planning team c. Responsibilities include: i. Attend meetings ii. Collect data iii. Make decisions on the planning process and content iv. Submit required worksheets v. Review plan drafts vi. Assist with coordination of public involvement and plan adoption iii. Create an outreach strategy a. Three tiers i. Planning Team ii. Stakeholders APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-3 iii. General Public b. Successful Outreach i. Informs and educates ii. Invites interested parties tro contribute iii. Identifies conflicts iv. Incorporated different perspectives v. Provides data and information that improves the final plan vi. Ensures transparency and builds trust vii. Maximizes opportunities c. Outreach Methods i. Community Events ii. News articles iii. Presentations to local governments iv. Questionnaires/Surveys v. Public forums vi. Social media vii. Community specific meetings viii. Website d. Document the process iv. Review community capabilities a. Existing authorities, polices, programs and resources b. Core Capabilities i. Planning ii. Public information and warning iii. Operational coordination iv. Community resilience v. Long-term vulnerability reduction vi. Risk and disaster resilience assessment vii. Threats and hazards identification c. National Flood Insurance Program d. Community Capabilities i. Plans ii. Studies iii. Reports iv. Technical Information v. For each jurisdiciton v. Conduct risk assessment a. Describe hazards b. Identify community assets i. People ii. Economic iii. Built Environment iv. Cultural resources APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-4 v. Future development vi. Natural Environment c. Analyze Risk i. Exposure Analysis ii. Historical Analysis iii. Scenario Analysis iv. GIS Hazard Mapping d. Summarize vulnerability vi. Develop a mitigation strategy a. Goals –What we want to achieve b. Actions – Specific projects and activities to meet those goals\ c. Action Plan – Describes how mitigation actions will be implemented d. Develop the Plan i. Finalize goals and objectives ii. Identify mitigation measures iii. Evaluate mitigation measures iv. Prioritize mitigation measures e. Document the plan vii. Keep the plan current viii. Adopt the plan ix. Create a safe and resilient community a. Focus on quality, not quantity b. Develop strong messaging c. Encourage local champions d. Identify funding and assistance The presentation also entailed an explanation of the benefits and requirements of participating in the Hazard Mitigation Plan process. The special districts were told that this was an excellent time for them to become engaged with the hazard mitigation planning process. Because the plan was set for revision, they could become part of the process and have their plans incorporated into the multi- jurisdictional plan by simply participating and developing a plan. TA went on to describe the benefits of having a plan, specifically the ability to apply for hazard mitigation grants. He explained that the grant process was competitive and having a hazard mitigation plan did not guarantee a grant award. The schedule of work group meeting was discussed. The work group will meet monthly to begin with. The next meeting date was schedule for March 5, 2014. At that meeting all participating jurisdictions (cities, county and special districts) will begin the actual process of updating and revising the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-5 Group Meeting #2: Thursday May 28, 2009, 10:00 AM AGENDA Introductions Schedule GIS’s Role in the Planning Process Planning Process – Where Are We Now? GIS – Assessing Risks – Step 1/Identify Hazards What’s Next? Next Meeting – Time and Location June 25, 2009 0900 – 1200 OES Tom Amabile (TA) gave an introduction that discussed the working group goals. The group went around and identified themselves and their agencies. The audience consisted of representatives from the incorporated cities, the County of San Diego, various local water agencies and fire protection districts. Agencies represented at the meeting were: City of Poway City of El Cajon City of La Mesa City of Lemon Grove City of San Diego City of San Marcos City of Vista Alpine FPD Lakeside FPD Rancho Santa Fe FPD San Miquel FPD Padre Dam MWD San Diego County Water Authority Sweetwater Authority Valley Center MWD Vista Irrigation District GIS’ Role in the Planning Process Geographic Information System (GIS) is essential for hazard mitigation planning. It can incorporate multiple and diverse data sources and provide an easily understood visual presentation of even the most complex data. GIS provides a modeling capability, allowing us to ask “What If” questions. Finally, it allows the data to be easily disseminated in the form of tables, maps, charts, etc. It works by putting the available data in layers that can then be rectified and so they will overlay and allow queries to be run. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-6 We need to identify all available data sources. There is a listing of sources in Appendix B of the current Hazmit plan. Please review them and if you have additional appropriate data files that are not currently being used for this project, please let Tom Amabile know so they can be incorporated in to the HAZUS modeling that will be done. If there are data layers identified that are no longer valid, please let Tom know that was well. Planning Process We have organized our resources by establishing a planning team, and are working towards assessing community support and engaging the public. Currently, we are assessing our risk. This is accomplished by identifying hazards and profiling them to assess likely hood of occurrence and potential severity. We can eliminate hazards with a low risk (little chance of occurrence or for damage from the event), those with little potential for mitigation and those that already have mitigation efforts underway. We will look at events that have resulted in a Local Proclamation of Emergency, a Gubernatorial Proclamation or a Presidential Declaration. They will be categorized by: Type Date Location Expenditures Damages Description We will also look at undeclared events looking for the same data above. Once that is complete we can inventory assets to determine their vulnerability to these hazards and identify potential loses. Once that is complete we will develop the mitigation plan. To do this we will identify goals and objectives, establish and prioritize mitigation measures, prepare an implementation strategy and document the plan. The final step will be to implement the plan. That will require adoption of the approved plan by all participating jurisdictions and implementation of plan recommendations. Each year we will evaluate the results and modify the recommendations to reflect completed tasks adding new tasks to the prioritized list as appropriate. It is anticipated that we will begin the next revision of the complete plan in 2019. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-7 Assessing Risk Hazards currently addressed in the plan are: Earthquakes Wildfires Flooding Landslide Drought Tsunami Hazardous materials Coastal storm/erosion Dam failure Terrorism Potential additions to the 2015 plan are: Drought/Water Supply Extreme Heat Other extreme weather events A discussion of the identified hazards and potential new hazards took place. The consensus was that we would merge liquefaction with earthquake and merge radioactive materials release with hazardous materials release. There will also be a new hazard listed to encompass potential impacts from climate change that was identified as “Extreme Weather/Drought”. OES is finishing up a survey on Survey Monkey that will released to the public by the end of March and will be available to them for six weeks (FEMA requires a minimum response time of four weeks). This will be the start of the Public Outreach effort. We will conduct the survey upfront, before making/finalizing the plan, so ideas/comments from the public can be incorporated into the planning process and the draft plan. Each jurisdiction is requested to provide a link to the survey on their website, to allow for as much public outreach as possible. The County of San Diego will issue a press release to notify the public and encourages each jurisdiction to do the same. The County’s press release will be made available to all participating jurisdictions. What’s Next? It is expected that each jurisdiction will, with the assistance of their local hazmit working group, begin to focus on aspects specific to their jurisdiction. Part of this process will be “Ground-truthing,” I.e., each individual jurisdiction must confirm the data being used is accurate and acceptable to them. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-8 Part of this process will be to profile the hazards. While the County’s GIS staff will model this, each city/special district will need to review the results to ensure they are appropriate for that jurisdiction. Homework Everyone is requested to: Review the data matrix in Appendix B Review the hazard maps Review FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (on the CD provided last meeting. It is also available on line at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31598?id=7209 Complete the 4 Worksheets form the handbook Group Meeting #3: June 24, 2014, AGENDA Introductions Schedule Mitigation Strategy Goals,- Consistent with hazards identified Goals from 2010 Plan Actions Local Plans and regulations Structure/Infrastructure projects Natural Systems protection Education & Awareness programs Preparedness Actions Mitigating Actions Action Prioritization Implementation Incorporate into existing plans & Policies Integrate with other community objectives, using existing mechanisms. Think pre and post-disaster mitigation Updating Mitigation Strategy Evaluate implementation progress Explain changes in priorities Communicating Mitigation Action Plan to the Public What’s Next ? Run HAZUS analysis Develop Maps and Tables APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-9 Begin development of mitigation strategy Homework Review goals and objectives in 2010 plan Begin update local goals, objectives and actions. Next Meeting – August 26, 2014 10 AM Meeting Summary Tom Amabile gave an introduction that discussed the working group goals. Members went around the room and introduced themselves. Tom Amabile reviewed the time-line for the project. He then reviewed the goals, objects and actions that will be listed in the plan; Goals are guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They must be consistent with the hazards identified. Objectives connect actions to the goals, and Actions are specific measurable projects and activities that help achieve the goal. Mitigation actions which include changes to local plans and regulations, structure/infrastructure projects, natural systems protection and education and awareness programs. Preparedness actions to reduce or eliminate long-term risk and lessen the need for preparedness and/or response resources in the future. These actions include mutual aid agreements, purchasing communications equipment and developing mass notification capabilities. The Action Plan describes how mitigation actions will be prioritized and implemented. Goals and Objectives identified in the current plan were presented. They are: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets due to geologic hazards Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets due to structure fire/wildfire Reduce the possibility of losses to existing assets due to flooding/dam failure Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation Improve hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, State, local and tribal governments Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets due to geologic hazards Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets due to structure fire/wildfire Reduce the possibility of losses to existing assets due to flooding/dam failure Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation Improve hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, State, local and tribal governments There was discussion regarding changing or modifying these goals and objectives. Each participating jurisdiction is free to modify them to meet their needs. The process for identifying mitigation actions was discussed. It includes: Review of the risk assessment APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-10 Capabilities assessment Evaluation and prioritization of mitigation actions Implementation Updating mitigation strategy Communicating the action plan to key officials and the public Action Items OES/County: Run HAZUS analysis Develop maps and tables. All jurisdictions: Begin development of Mitigation Strategy. All other meetings between individual jurisdictions were conducted via telephone or in person between the city/special district and OES. Group Meeting #4: September 16, 2014, AGENDA Introductions Schedule Survey results Review of Hazards Review of Over-arching Mitigation Goals Development of Additional Goals Homework Assignment What’s Next? Meeting Summary Tom Amabile gave an introduction that discussed the working group goals. Members went around the room and introduced themselves. Tom Amabile reviewed the time-line for the project. The results of the on-line survey were discussed: 534 people responded to the survey. Carlsbad - 44 National City - 2 Coronado - 1 Oceanside - 14 Chula Vista - 31 Poway - 28 Del Mar - 28 San Diego - 69 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-11 El Cajon - 13 San Marcos - 76 Encinitas - 17 Santee - 13 Escondido - 5 Solana Beach - 109 Imperial Beach - 0 Vista - 29 La Mesa - 9 Unincorporated - 41 Lemon Grove - 4 Other - 1 75% were unaware a regional HazMit plan exists 61% had been impacted by a disaster 86% said they were concerned about being impacted. Biggest hazards: Wildfire/Structure Fire – 41% Earthquake - 31% Drought – 8% Climate Change – 4% Coastal Storm/Erosion – 3% Next biggest hazards: Earthquake – 33% Wildfire/Structure Fire – 17% Drought – 16% Terrorism – 3% Climate Change – 3% 6.87 % live or have a business in a flood plain 9.23 % have flood insurance, 10.17 % aren’t sure if they do or not If they don’t have flood insurance it is because Not in flood plain – 58% Home/business elevated or protected – 19% Never floods – 4% Too expensive – 5% 3 Most common steps local government can take Increase awareness Conduct more exercises/drills Add resources (more fire assets, helicopters, CERT, etc.) Other concerns Getting emergency information Government needs to be eco-friendly Rated six categories on level of importance: Category Importance Very Somewhat Not Prevention 76% 21% 2% Property Protection 55% 39% 6% Public Awareness 77% 21% 2% APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-12 Nat. Resources 65% 29% 6% Emerg. Services 88% 11% 1% Structural Projects 54% 38% 8% Review of Hazards Tom Amabile reviewed the hazards in the revised plan: Coastal Storm/Erosion/Tsunami/Sea Level Rise 8 local proclamations of emergencies Coastline heavily developed/populated Prone to erosion Sea level rise predicted to be between 3 and 12 inches by 2030. Dam Failure Over 30 significant dams in the County Most over 35 years old Increased downstream development Drought Not originally in plan (reliance on imported water reduces our risk from local drought) State-wide drought puts us at risk Floods Large portions of the County within 100 year flood plain 2 proclaimed emergencies in last 15 years Moderate rainfall results in urban/flash floods on routine basis Hazardous Materials Over 100 licensed sites within the region Regional HazMat team responds to hundreds of calls each year. Landslide Landslide prone areas found throughout the county Most recent damaging landslide was 2007 in La Jolla. 111 homes evacuated, 40 found to be uninhabitable due to ground instability and 7 suffered significant damage. Terrorism Every major metropolitan area is susceptible to a terrorist event Wildfire/Structure Fire Occur frequently – significant wildfires breakout routinely 5 proclaimed emergencies due to wildfire between 2003 and 2014 Drought increases the risk due to low fuel moisture. Hazards Not in the Plan Avalanche Hailstorm Nuclear Materials Release (removed due to SONGS decommissioning) Severe Winter Storms Volcano APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-13 Windstorm Existing Objectives: Reduce vulnerability to: Geologic hazards (earthquake, landslides, liquefaction, etc.) Wildfires/structure fires Flooding/dam failure Coastal erosion/coastal bluff failure/storm surge/tsunami/sea level rise Severe Weather (including extreme heat) Increase public support for hazard mitigation Improve hazard mitigation coordination between all levels of government Promote disaster resistant existing and future development Build and support local capacity Need to develop a goal for drought Homework Review current goals and objectives for your jurisdiction Delete completed items Add new items Identify 5 to 10 priority action items Start Date Agency/department responsible Cost/Funding source Estimated completion date Short description of the project Please provide to Tom by 10/15/14 Next Meeting date to be determined. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-14 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-15 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-16 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-17 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-18 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-19 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-20 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-21 APPENDIX B Data Matrix B-1 APPENDIX B: DATA MATRIX NAME SOURCES QUERY (IF ANY)NOTES (INCL. CREDITS) Coastal Storm/Erosion HYD_FLOODPL FLD_ZONE = 'VE'Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Tsunami HYD_TSUNAMI_INUNDATION_AREA California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), University of Southern California (USC) and California Geological Survey (CGS) Dam Failure HYD_DAM_INUNDATION California Office of Emergency Services and County of San Diego 100-Year Earthquake HAZUS, USGS Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; HAZUS); soil from U.S. Geological Survey VS30 data - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/vs30/custom.php 500-Year Earthquake HAZUS, USGS Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; HAZUS); soil from U.S. Geological Survey VS30 data - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/vs30/custom.php Rose Canyon M6.9 Scenario USGS U.S. Geological Survey 100-Year Flood HYD_FLOODPL FLOOD_PLAI = 'FP100' OR FLOOD_PLAI = 'FW100'Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 500-Year Flood HYD_FLOODPL FLOOD_PLAI = 'FP500'Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Rain-Induced Landslide (High Risk)GEO_LANDSLIDE_CN soil_slip_risk = 'High' OR state_landslide_cat = 'Most Susceptible' OR GABRO_SLOPE = 'YES' State of California, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; HAZUS) and County of San Diego Rain-Induced Landslide (Moderate Risk)GEO_LANDSLIDE_CN (soil_slip_risk = 'Moderate' OR state_landslide_cat = 'Marginally Susceptible') AND GABRO_SLOPE = '' State of California, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; HAZUS) and County of San Diego Fire Regime Group II LANDFIRE <= 35 Year Fire Return Interval, Replacement Severity U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Fire Regime Group IV LANDFIRE 35 - 200 Year Fire Return Interval, Replacement Severity U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Extreme Heat Cal-Adapt Maximum temperature - MONTHLY - August 2020 - A2 GFDL California Energy Commission (CEC) - http://cal-adapt.org/ Sea Level Rise (Coastal Flooding)Areas inundated by unimpeded Pacific coastal flooding under a scenario of 1.4-meter (55-inch) sea-level rise Pacific Institute -- http://www2.pacinst.org/ Sea Level Rise (MHHW)Area inundated by mean higher high water (MHHW) under 1.4-meter (55-inch) sea-level rise scenario Pacific Institute -- http://www2.pacinst.org/ APPENDIX C Implementation Status C-1 APPENDIX C: IMPLEMENTATION STATUS County of San Diego Priority Action Item Number Description Status 1. 3.B.1 Update Operational Area Plan. Completed. 2. 2.D.4 Continue to develop and maintain public education and outreach programs. Completed. On-going. 3. 10.A.1 Update the County Consolidated Fire Code every three years. On-going. 4. 4.B.3 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of efforts. On-going. 5. 2.A1 Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions. Completed. On-going. 6. 6.A.1 Update Building Codes to reflect current earthquake standards. Completed. On-going 7. 2.E.1 Support public and private sector symposiums. On-going. 8. 4.A.4 Maintain multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and exercises to enhance hazard mitigation. Completed. On-going 9. 4.A.3 Continue to review and update plans that would include coordination with cities, special districts and County departments. Completed, on-going. 10. Attach A 1.E.1 Continue to encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work. Completed, on-going. APPENDIX D Survey Results D-1 APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESULTS FOR SD MULTIJURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVISION There were 532 respondents for this survey. Of those people: • 271 chose to provide their name • 267 provided their e-mail • 222 provided their phone number All of the 532 Respondents provided the cities or communities in which they live and work. Although there were respondents from all areas of the county: • The majority of people stated they live and/or work in the northern part of the county (Example: Solana Beach, Del Mar, Carlsbad, Encinitas, etc.) • Western and Central San Diego (Example: City of San Diego, Point Loma, etc.) had many respondents, but much less than North County • There was only a handful of Respondents who claimed to be from the South Bay and Eastern area of the county (Example: Chula Vista, Bonita, Lakeside, Lemon Grove, etc.). Almost everyone stated they were responding to this survey as a Resident. (524 Answered; 8 Skipped) • 96.56% (506 Responders) responded as a Resident. • 2.67% (14 Responders) responded as a Community Organization. • 0.57% (3 Responders) responded as a Local Business. • 0.19% (1 Responders) responded as a Non-profit Organization. According to the responses to question 4, “Are you aware of the San Diego Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan developed in 2004 and revised in 2010?” (529 Answered; 3 Skipped) • 25.52% YES • 74.48% NO. When asked, “Have you ever experienced or been impacted by a disaster?” (529 Answered; 3 Skipped) • 4.54% answered YES • 38.94% answered NO. • 56.52% answered YES and explained what the disaster was. Of those people who provided details, earthquakes and having to evacuate their homes due to wild fires was the most common answer. Question 6 asked, “How concerned are you about the possibility of your community being impacted by a disaster?” (527 Answered; 5 Skipped) • 18.41% are Extremely Concerned • 31.31% are Very Concerned APPENDIX D Survey Results D-2 • 35.86% are Moderately concerned • 13.09% are only Slightly concerned • 1.33% are Not at all concerned Question 7 asked people to select the one hazard they think is the highest threat to their neighborhood. (523 Answered; 9 Skipped): • 41.49% - Structure/Wild Land Fires • 31.17% - Earthquake • 8.03% - Drought • 5.54% - Other (Examples: too much government regulation, Tornadoes, Power outage) • 3.63% - Climate change • 2.87% - Coastal Storms/Erosion • 1.34% - Tsunami • 1.15% - Extreme heat • 0.96% - Pandemic • 0.96% - Landslide • 0.76% - Severe Winter Storm • 0.76% - Terrorism • 0.38% - Extreme Wind • 0.19% - Nuclear accident • 0.19% - Hazardous Materials Incident • 0.19% - Dam Failure • 0.19% - Flood • 0.19 % - Oil or Gas line failure • 0.00% - Liquefaction. Question 8 had people choose the hazard they think is the second highest threat to their neighborhood. (513 Answered; 19 Skipped): • 32.55% - Earthquake • 16.96% - Structure/Wild Land Fire • 16.37% - Drought • 3.70% - Other • 3.31% - Terrorism • 3.31% - Climate Change • 3.12% - Coastal Storms/Erosion • 2.73% - Extreme Heat • 2.73% - Severe Winter Storm • 2.53% - Landslide • 2.53% - Pandemic • 2.14% - Extreme Wind APPENDIX D Survey Results D-3 • 1.95% - Oil or Gasoline Failure • 1.95 – Tsunami • 1.56% - Flood • 0.78% - Hazardous Materials Incident • 0.78% - Dam Failure • 0.58% - Nuclear Accident • 0.39% - Liquefaction In reference to the question, “Is your home or business located in a flood plain?” (524 Answered; 8 Skipped) • 6.87% of people have a home or business that is located in a floodplain • 93.13% said they do not have a home or business in a flood plain The following question asked, “Do you have flood insurance?” (531 Answered; 1 Skipped) • 9.23% of people said they do have flood insurance • 60.80% said they do not have flood insurance • 10.17% of people said they do not know if they have flood insurance When asked people why they do not have flood insurance (469 Answered; 63 Skipped) • 58.21% said they do not have flood insurance because their home or business is not located in a flood plain • 18.76% of people do not have flood insurance because their home/business is elevated or otherwise protected • 4.26% claim it is not necessary because it never floods • 4.90% said flood insurance is too expensive • 3.10% said they have never really considered getting flood insurance • 5.76% have “other reasons”. The majority of people who chose other as their answer explained they do not have flood insurance because they rent or because flood insurance is too expensive. When asked, “Have you taken any actions to make your home, business or neighborhood more resistant to hazards?”(526 Answered; 6 Skipped) • 60.27% of people who answered said they have taken actions to make their home, business, or neighborhood more resistant to hazards • 39.73% have not taken any action The following question asked if they are interested in making their home, business or neighborhood more resistant to hazards (523 Answered; 9 Skipped) • 85.09% of people are interested in making their home, business, or neighborhood more resistant to hazards • 14.91% are not interested APPENDIX D Survey Results D-4 When people were asked what the most effective way to receive information about how to make their home, business, or neighborhood more resistant to hazards (520 Answered; 12 Skipped): • 52.12% said email • 13.08% answered internet • 8.85% answered Mail • 7.88% said Television • 7.88% Public workshops • 4.81% selected Social Media • 3.65% said Newspaper • 1.73% said Radio The follow up question was, “Do you require assistance in receiving information?” (528 Answered; 4 Skipped) • 97.92% Do not require assistance in receiving information • 2.08% Require assistance Question 16 asks people to give their opinion in reference to what are some steps the local government could take to reduce or eliminate the risk of future hazard damages in their neighborhood. (405 Answered; 127 Skipped) • The 3 most common answers people gave were: Increase public emergency awareness/education, conduct more mock disaster drills, and increase emergency resources and equipment (more fire depts., helicopters, C.E.R.T., etc.). • Other steps which were suggested were: improve AlertSanDiego.org, monitor people’s water usage and inspect homes for safe property practices, and for the cities and county to better maintain land/forestry. When asked if there are any other issues regarding the reduction of risk and loss associated with hazards or disasters in the community that are important, many people continue to comment about how they are not well informed on how to react in the event of an emergency or disaster (234 Answered; 298 Skipped): • People feel there is not an effective means to disseminate emergency information. • Another common topic in people’s response to this question is their concern as to what the cities/county is doing to be eco-friendly. The final question asks people, in their opinion, to rate the level of importance of the six broad categories of community-wide activities. (529 Answered; 3 Skipped) 1. Prevention – Administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are constructed. (Example – Planning and zoning building codes, etc.) a. Very Important: 76.15% b. Somewhat Important: 21.56% c. Not Important: 2.29% APPENDIX D Survey Results D-5 2. Property Protection – Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard area (Example – Retrofits, relocation, acquisition, etc.) a. Very Important: 55.05% b. Somewhat Important: 39.43% c. Not Important: 5.52% 3. Public Education and Awareness – Actions to inform and educate residents, elected officials and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them (Example – Outreach, real estate disclosure, school-age and adult education. a. Very Important: 76.57% b. Somewhat Important: 21.71% c. Not Important: 1.71% 4. Natural Resources Protection – Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems (Examples – Erosion control, stream restoration, etc.) a. Very Important: 64.63% b. Somewhat Important: 29.25% c. Not Important: 6.12% 5. Emergency Services – Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event (Example – Warning systems, protection of official facilities, etc.) a. Very Important: 88.80% b. Somewhat Important: 10.63% c. Not Important: 0.57% 6. Structural Projects – Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard (Example – Dams, floodwalls, seawalls, etc.) a. Very Important: 53.82% b. Somewhat Important: 37.98% c. Not Important: 8.21% ATTACHMENT D ORDINANCE NO. 583 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AMENDING SECTION 39, WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PROGRAM, OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES WHEREAS, California Water Code Section 10632, which became effective on January 1, 2019, requires the District, as an urban water supplier, to prepare and adopt a Water Shortage Contingency Plan as part of its Urban Water Management Plan to help maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions; and WHEREAS, the District’s Code of Ordinances, Section 39, is currently titled, Water Shortage Response Program, and details the District’s Urban Water Management Plan and the regulations to be implemented during times of water shortages or emergencies; and WHEREAS, the District’s Code of Ordinances Section 39 must be amended to include the regulations in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and specifically the response measures under each of the six levels of drought response actions required by California Water Code Section 10632; and WHEREAS, Section 39 of the District’s Code of Ordinances as amended will be titled, Drought Response Conservation Program. ATTACHMENT D NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of Otay Water District that the District’s Code of Ordinances Section 39, Water Shortage Response Program, be amended to reflect the title, Drought Response Conservation Program, and to reflect the changes shown per Exhibit 1 to this Ordinance; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the amendment to the District’s Code of Ordinances Section 39, shall become effective July 1, 2021 (see Exhibit 2). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District at a regular meeting duly held this 2nd day of June 2021, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________ President ATTEST: __________________________ District Secretary Exhibit 1 39-1 SECTION 39. WATER SHORTAGEDROUGHT RESPONSE CONSERVATION PROGRAM 39.01 DECLARATION OF NECESSITY AND INTENT (a) This Section establishes water management requirements that are in addition to any permanent water waste prohibitions and are necessary to conserve water, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, prevent unreasonable use of water, prevent unreasonable method of use of water within the District in order to assure adequate supplies of water to meet the needs of the public, and further the public health, safety, and welfare, recognizing that water is a scarce natural resource that requires careful management not only in times of a water shortage, but at all times. (b) This Section establishes regulations to be implemented during times of declared water shortages, or declared water shortage emergencies. It establishes foursix levels of drought response actions to be implemented in times of shortage, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening water shortagedrought conditions and decreasing available supplies. (c) The Level 1 water shortagecondition drought response condition practicesmeasures are voluntary and will be reinforced through local and regional public education and awareness measures that may be funded in part by the District. Beginning at the level 2 Water Shortage Response Condition, the District may implement water shortage pricing. When a water shortageDuring drought response Level 2 condition is declaredLevels 2 through 6, all conservation practicesmeasures and water-use restrictions may become mandatory and become increasingly restrictive in order to attain escalating conservation goals. (d) During a Water ShortageDrought Response Level 32 condition or higher, the water conservation practicesmeasures, and water use restrictions established by this ordinance are mandatory and violations are subject to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and remedies specified in Section 72 of this ordinance. Exhibit 1 39-2 39.02 DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROGRAM (a) The following words and phrases whenever used in this Section shall have the meaning defined in this sub- section: 1. “Grower” refers to those engaged in the growing or raising, in conformity with recognized practices of husbandry, for the purpose of commerce, trade, or industry, or for use by public educational or correctional institutions, of agricultural, horticultural or floricultural products, and produced: (1) for human consumption or for the market, or (2) for the feeding of fowl or livestock produced for human consumption or for the market, or (3) for the feeding of fowl or livestock for the purpose of obtaining their products for human consumption or for the market. “Grower” does not refer to customers who purchase water subject to the Metropolitan Interim Agricultural Water Program or the Water AuthorityWater Authority’s Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. 2. “Water Authority” means the San Diego County Water Authority. 3. “DMP” means the Water Authority’s Drought Management Plan in existence on the effective date of this Section and as readopted or amended from time to time, or an equivalent plan of the Water Authority to manage or allocate supplies during shortages. 4 3. “Metropolitan” means the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 4. “Permanent water use efficiency measures” means any permanent water use efficiency measure adopted by the District Board of Directors. 5. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, public or private entity, public or private association, public or private agency, government agency or institution, school district, college, university, or any other user of water provided by the District. Exhibit 1 39-3 6. “WSCP” means the Water Authority’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan or the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as specified, in existence on the effective date of this ordinance and as readopted or amended from time to time, or an equivalent plan of the Water Authority to manage or allocate supplies during shortages. 39.03 APPLICATION (a) The provisions of this Section apply to any person in the use of any water provided by the District. (b) This Section is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement any provision of federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff. Refer to the local jurisdiction or Regional Water Quality Control Board for information on any storm water ordinances and storm water management plans. (c) Nothing in this Section is intended to affect or limit the ability of the District to declare and respond to an emergency, including an emergency that affects the ability of the District to supply water. (d) The provisions of this Section do not apply to use of water from private wells or to recycled water. (e) Nothing in this Section shall apply to use of water that is subject to a special supply program, such as the Metropolitan Interim Agricultural Water Program or the Water Authority Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. Violations of the conditions of special supply programs are subject to the penalties established under the applicable program. A person using water subject to a special supply program and other water provided by the District is subject to this Section in the use of the other water. At all times, the following practices shall be in effect: Exhibit 1 39-4 1. Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. Similarly, stop water flows onto non-targeted areas, such as adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, or structures. ; 2. Serve and refill water in restaurants and other food service establishments only upon request. ; 3. Offer guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments the option of not laundering towels and linens daily.; 4. Use only re-circulated water in fountains or other decorative water features.; 5. Wash automobiles with a hose equipped only with a positive shut-off nozzle. ; 6. Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians only with recycled water. ; 7. Repair all water leaks within forty-eight (48) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the General Manager or designee.; 8. Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm or for forty-eight (48) hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field.; 9. No washing down of paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, drive waysdriveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. WATER SHORTAGE 39.04 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 1 – SUPPLY WATCH CONDITION (a) A Water ShortageDrought Response Level 1 condition is also referred to as a “Supply Watch” condition. A Level 1 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to water shortagedrought or other supply reductions, there is a Exhibit 1 39-5 reasonable probability there will be supply shortages and that a consumer demand reduction of up to ten (10) percent is required in order to ensure that sufficient supplies will be available to meet anticipated demands. The General Manager shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 1 and take action to implement the Level 1 conservation practices identified in this Section. (b) During a Drought Response Level 1 condition, the District will increase its public education and outreach efforts to emphasize increased public awareness of the need to implement the water conservation practices noted above and the following water conservation practices. The same water conservation practices may become mandatory if the District declares a Level 2 Drought Alert condition: 1. Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for thirty (30) days. 2. Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. 3. Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. 54. Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. Exhibit 1 39-6 65. Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. 39.05 WATER SHORTAGEDROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 2 – SUPPLY ALERT CONDITION (a) A Water ShortageDrought Response Level 2 condition is also referred to as a “Supply Alert” condition. A Level 2 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to cutbacks caused by water shortagedrought or other reduction in supplies, a consumer demand reduction of 11up to twenty (20) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors mayshall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 2 condition and implement the mandatory Level 2 conservation practicesmeasures identified in this sectionSection of the ordinance. The District may decide to implement some or all of the Level 1 practices. (b) All persons using District water shall make every effort to comply with Level 1 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 2 condition, and shall also to comply with the following additional conservation measures: 1. Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than three (3) assigned days per week. on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply to homeowner’s vegetable gardens, fruit trees, commercial growers, or nurseries. 2. Limit lawn watering and landscape irrigation using sprinklers to no more than fifteen (15ten (10) minutes per watering station per day. During the months of November through April, landscape irrigation shall not exceed seven (7) minutes per water watering station per assigned day. Watering times may need to be shortened to avoid run-off. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems using water efficient devices, including but not limited to: weather -based controllers, drip/micro-irrigation systems, rotating sprinkler nozzles and stream rotor sprinklers. Exhibit 1 39-7 3. Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. WATER SHORTAGE 4. Stop operating fountains or similar decorative water features unless recycled water is used. 39.06 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 3 – SUPPLYDROUGHT CRITICAL CONDITION (a) A Water ShortageDrought Response Level 3 condition is also referred to as a “Supply Critical” condition. A Level 3 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by water shortagedrought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of between 21 and 40up to thirty (30) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors mayshall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 3 condition and implement the Level 3 conservation practicesmeasures identified in this Section. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1 and Level 2 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 3 condition and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than two (2) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. During the months of November through April, landscape irrigation is limited to no more than once per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply to commercial growers or nurseries. Exhibit 1 39-8 2. Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. 3. 3Stop filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of a water shortage response level under this Section. 4. Stop operating non-residential ornamental fountains or similar decorative water features unless recycled water is used. 5. Stop washing vehicles except at commercial carwashes that re-circulate water, or by high pressure/low volume wash systems. If a commercial car wash cannot accommodate the vehicle because of the vehicle size or type, such as RVs, horse trailers, boats, and commercial vehicles, customers will be allowed to wash vehicles using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system. (c) Upon the declaration of a Level 3 condition, the District may suspend new potable water service and statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) except under the following circumstances: 1. A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; or 2. The project is necessary to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare; or 3. The applicant provides substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a Exhibit 1 39-9 new water meter(s) to the satisfaction of the District. This provision shall not be construed to preclude the resetting or turn-on of meters to provide continuation of water service or to restore service that has been interrupted. (d) Upon the declaration of aDrought Response Level 3 condition, the District will suspend consideration of annexations to its service area. (ed) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that takes into considerationdoes not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. 39.07 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 4 (a) A Drought Response Level 4 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to forty (40) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 4 condition and implement the Level 4 conservation measures identified in this Section. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 4 condition and Exhibit 1 39-10 shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: Stop filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of a water shortage response level under this Section. (c) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. WATER SHORTAGE 39.07 39.08 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 4 – SUPPLY EMERGENCY CONDITION 5 (a) (a) A Water ShortageDrought Response Level 4 condition is also referred to as a “Supply Emergency” condition. A Level 45 condition applies when the Water Authority Board of Directors declares a water shortage emergency pursuant to California Water Code section 350 and notifies its member agencies that Level 4 requires adue to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of more than 40up to fifty (50) percent is required in order for the District to have maximumsufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare a Level 4the existence of a Drought Response Level 5 condition and implement the Level 5 conservation measures identified in the manner and on the grounds provided in California Water Code section 350. this ordinance. Exhibit 1 39-11 (b) All persons using District water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 34 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A. Maintenance of trees and shrubs that are watered on the same schedule as noted in the Level 3 Conditionabove, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation; B. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; C. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; D. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well- being of rare animals; E. Maintenance of landscaping within active public parks and playing fields, day care centers, school grounds, cemeteries, and golf course greens, provided that such irrigation does not exceed two (2) days per week according to the schedule established under the District’s Level 3 Condition; F. Watering of livestock; and G. Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. Exhibit 1 39-12 2. Repair all water leaks within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the District. (c) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District. that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of any provision of this Section. (d) Upon the declaration of a Level 5 condition, no new potable water service shall be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) shall be issued, except under the following circumstances: 1. A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; or 2. The project is necessary to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare; or 3. The applicant provides substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a new water meter(s) to the satisfaction of the District. This provision shall not be construed to preclude the resetting or turn-on of meters to provide continuation of water service or to restore service that has been interruptedCORRELATION BETWEEN for a period of one (1) year or less. Exhibit 1 39-13 39.0839.09 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN (DMP) AND WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE LEVELSLEVEL 6 (a) The correlation between the Water Authority’s DMP stages and the District’sA Drought Response Level 6 condition applies when the Water Authority Board of Directors declare a water shortage response levels identified in this emergency pursuant to California Water Code Section of the Code 350 and notifies its member agencies that Level 6 requires a demand reduction of Ordinance is described herein. Under DMP Stage 1, more than fifty (50) percent in order for the District would implement Water Shortage Response Level 1 actions. Under DMP Stage 2, the to have maximum supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District would implementshall declare a Drought Emergency in the manner and on the grounds provided in California Water Shortage Response Level 1 or Level 2 actions. Under DMP Stage 3, the Code Section 350. (b) All persons using District would implement Water Shortage Response water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, or Level 4 actions. Level 4, and Level 5 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: (b) The water shortage response levels identified in this Section correspond with the Water Authority DMP as identified in the following table: Water Shortage Response Levels Use Restrictions Conservation Target DMP Stage 1 - Supply Watch Voluntary Up to 10% Stage 1 or 2 2 - Supply Alert Mandatory 11 to 20% Stage 2 or 3 3 - Supply Critical Mandatory 21 to 40% Stage 3 4 - Supply Emergency Mandatory Above 40% Stage 3 1. Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and Exhibit 1 39-14 nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; B. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; C. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of rare animals; D. Watering of livestock; and E. Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. 39.0910 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION AND NOTIFICATION OF WATER SHORTAGEDROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL (a) The existence of a Water ShortageDrought Response Level 1 condition may be declared by the General Manager upon a written determination of the existence of the facts and circumstances supporting the determination. A copy of the written determination shall be filed with the Clerk or Secretary of the District and provided to the District Board of Directors. The General Manager may publish a notice of the determination of existence of Water ShortageDrought Response Level 1 condition in one or more newspapers, including a newspaper of general circulation within the District. The District will also post notice of the condition on their website. (b) The existence of Water ShortageDrought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 35 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board of Directors adopted at a regular or special public meeting held in accordance with State law. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Water ShortageDrought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 35 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response Exhibit 1 39-15 level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. (c) The existence of a Water Shortage Response Level 4 condition may be declared in accordance with the procedures specified in California Water Code sections 350 to 352 as note below: 350. The governing body of a distributor of a public water supply, whether publicly or privately owned and including a mutual water company, may declare a water shortage emergency condition to prevail within the area served by such distributor whenever it finds and determines that the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting the water supply of the distributor to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. 351. Except in event of a breakage or failure of a dam, pump, Pipe line or conduit causing an immediate emergency, the declaration shall be made only after a public hearing at which consumers of such water supply shall have an opportunity to be heard to protest against the declaration and to present their respective needs to said governing board. 352. Notice of the time and place of hearing shall be published pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code at least seven days prior to the date of hearing in a newspaper printed, published, and circulated within the area in which the water supply is distributed, or if there is no such newspaper, in any newspaper printed, published, and circulated in the county in which the area is located. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Water Shortage Response Level 4 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Water allocation shall be effective on the fifth (5) day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice. Exhibit 1 39-16 (c) The existence of a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be declared in accordance with the procedures specified in California Water Code Sections 351 to 352. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Drought Response Level 6 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. (d) The District Board of Directors may declare an end to a Water ShortageDrought Response Level by the adoption of a resolution at any regular or special meeting held in accordance with State law. 39.11 HARDSHIP VARIANCE (a) If, due to unique circumstances, a specific requirement of this ordinance would result in undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon which agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water uses, then the person may apply for a variance to the requirements as provided in this Section. (b) The variance may be granted or conditionally granted, only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon with agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user’s property. 1. Application. Application for a variance shall be a form prescribed by the District and shall be accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee in an amount set by resolution of the District Board of Directors. 2. Supporting Documentation. The application shall be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawings, and other information including a written statement of the applicant. Exhibit 1 39-17 3. Required Findings for Variance. An application for a variance shall be denied unless the approving authority finds, based on the information provided in the application, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on water use information for the property as shown by the records of the District, all of the following: A. That the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other District customers; B. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this ordinance would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to customers generally; C. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties and will not materially affect the ability of the District to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and will not be detrimental to the public interest; D. That the condition or situation of the subject property or the intended use of the property for which the variance is sought is not common, recurrent, or general in nature. 4. Approval Authority. The General Manager shall exercise approval authority and act upon any completed application no later than ten (10) days after submittal and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the variance. The applicant requesting the variance shall be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise at the time a variance is approved, the variance applies to the subject property during the term of the mandatory drought response. 5. Appeals to District Board of Directors. An applicant may appeal a decision or condition of the General Manager on a variance application to the District Board of Directors within ten (10) days of the decision upon written request for a hearing. The Exhibit 1 39-18 request shall state the grounds for the appeal. At a public meeting, the District Board of Directors shall act as the approval authority and review the appeal de novo by following the regular variance procedure. The decision of the District Board of Directors is final. 39.12 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES (a) Any person, who uses, causes to be used, or permits the use of water in violation of this ordinance is guilty of an offense punishable as provided herein; (b) Each day that a violation of this ordinance occurs is a separate offense; (c) Administrative fines may be levied for each violation of a provision of this ordinance as identified in Section 72 of this code; (d) Violation of a provision of this ordinance is subject to enforcement through installation of a flow-restricting device in the meter; (e) Each violation of this ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both as provided in Water Code Section 377 and Section 72 of this code; (f) Willful violations of the mandatory conservation measures and water use restrictions as set forth in Section 11.0 and applicable during a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be enforced by discontinuing service to the property at which the violation occurs as provided by Water Code Section 356 and Section 72 of this code; (g) All remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. EXHIBIT 2 39-1 SECTION 39. DROUGHT RESPONSE CONSERVATION PROGRAM 39.01 DECLARATION OF NECESSITY AND INTENT (a) This Section establishes water management requirements that are in addition to any permanent water waste prohibitions and are necessary to conserve water, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, prevent unreasonable use of water, prevent unreasonable method of use of water within the District in order to assure adequate supplies of water to meet the needs of the public, and further the public health, safety, and welfare, recognizing that water is a scarce natural resource that requires careful management not only in times of a water shortage, but at all times. (b) This Section establishes regulations to be implemented during times of declared water shortages or declared water shortage emergencies. It establishes six levels of drought response actions to be implemented in times of shortage, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought conditions and decreasing available supplies. (c) The Level 1 condition drought response measures are voluntary and will be reinforced through local and regional public education and awareness measures that may be funded in part by the District. Beginning at the level 2 Water Shortage Response Condition, the District may implement water shortage pricing. During drought response condition Levels 2 through 6, all conservation measures and water-use restrictions become mandatory and become increasingly restrictive in order to attain escalating conservation goals. (d) During a Drought Response Level 2 condition or higher, the water conservation measures, and water use restrictions established by this ordinance are mandatory and violations are subject to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and remedies specified in Section 72 of this ordinance. EXHIBIT 2 39-2 39.02 DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROGRAM (a) The following words and phrases whenever used in this Section shall have the meaning defined in this sub- section: 1. “Grower” refers to those engaged in the growing or raising, in conformity with recognized practices of husbandry, for the purpose of commerce, trade, or industry, or for use by public educational or correctional institutions, of agricultural, horticultural or floricultural products, and produced: (1) for human consumption or for the market, or (2) for the feeding of fowl or livestock produced for human consumption or for the market, or (3) for the feeding of fowl or livestock for the purpose of obtaining their products for human consumption or for the market. “Grower” does not refer to customers who purchase water subject to the Water Authority’s Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. 2. “Water Authority” means the San Diego County Water Authority. 3. “Metropolitan” means the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 4. “Permanent water use efficiency measures” means any permanent water use efficiency measure adopted by the District Board of Directors. 5. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, public or private entity, public or private association, public or private agency, government agency or institution, school district, college, university, or any other user of water provided by the District. 6. “WSCP” means the Water Authority’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan or the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as specified, in existence on the effective date of this ordinance and as readopted or amended from time to time, or an equivalent plan of the Water Authority to manage or allocate supplies during shortages. EXHIBIT 2 39-3 39.03 APPLICATION (a) The provisions of this Section apply to any person in the use of any water provided by the District. (b) This Section is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement any provision of federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff. Refer to the local jurisdiction or Regional Water Quality Control Board for information on any storm water ordinances and storm water management plans. (c) Nothing in this Section is intended to affect or limit the ability of the District to declare and respond to an emergency including an emergency that affects the ability of the District to supply water. (d) The provisions of this Section do not apply to use of water from private wells or to recycled water. (e) Nothing in this Section shall apply to use of water that is subject to a special supply program, such as the Water Authority Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. Violations of the conditions of special supply programs are subject to the penalties established under the applicable program. A person using water subject to a special supply program and other water provided by the District is subject to this Section in the use of the other water. At all times, the following practices shall be in effect: 1. Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. Similarly, stop water flows onto non-targeted areas, such as adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, or structures; 2. Serve and refill water in restaurants and other food service establishments only upon request; EXHIBIT 2 39-4 3. Offer guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments the option of not laundering towels and linens daily; 4. Use only re-circulated water in fountains or other decorative water features; 5. Wash automobiles with a hose equipped only with a positive shut-off nozzle; 6. Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians only with recycled water; 7. Repair all water leaks within forty-eight (48) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the General Manager or designee; 8. Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm or for forty-eight (48) hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field; 9. No washing down of paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. 39.04 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 1 (a) A Drought Response Level 1 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to drought or other supply reductions, there is a reasonable probability there will be supply shortages and that a consumer demand reduction of up to ten (10) percent is required in order to ensure that sufficient supplies will be available to meet anticipated demands. The General Manager shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 1 and take action to implement the Level 1 conservation practices identified in this Section. (b) During a Drought Response Level 1 condition, the District will increase its public education and outreach efforts to emphasize increased public awareness of the need to implement the water conservation practices noted above and the following water conservation practices. The same water conservation practices become mandatory if the District declares a Level 2 Drought Alert condition: EXHIBIT 2 39-5 1. Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for thirty (30) days. 2. Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. 3. Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. 4. Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. 5. Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. 39.05 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 2 (a) A Drought Response Level 2 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction in supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to twenty (20) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 2 condition and implement the mandatory Level 2 conservation measures identified in this Section of the ordinance. EXHIBIT 2 39-6 (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 2 condition, and shall also comply with the following additional conservation measures: 1. Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than three (3) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply to commercial growers or nurseries. 2. Limit lawn watering and landscape irrigation using sprinklers to no more than ten (10) minutes per watering station per day. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems using water efficient devices, including but not limited to weather-based controllers, drip/micro-irrigation systems, and stream rotor sprinklers. 3. Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. 4. Stop operating fountains or similar decorative water features unless recycled water is used. 39.06 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 3 – DROUGHT CRITICAL CONDITION (a) A Drought Response Level 3 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to thirty (30) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 3 condition and implement the Level 3 conservation measures identified in this Section. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1 and Level 2 water conservation practices EXHIBIT 2 39-7 during a Drought Response Level 3 condition and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than two (2) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply to commercial growers or nurseries. 2. Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. 3. Stop washing vehicles except at commercial carwashes that re-circulate water, or by high pressure/low volume wash systems. If a commercial car wash cannot accommodate the vehicle because of the vehicle size or type, such as RVs, horse trailers, boats, and commercial vehicles, customers will be allowed to wash vehicles using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system. (c) Upon the declaration of a Drought Response Level 3 condition, the District will suspend consideration of annexations to its service area. (d) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water EXHIBIT 2 39-8 usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. 39.07 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 4 (a) A Drought Response Level 4 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to forty (40) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 4 condition and implement the Level 4 conservation measures identified in this Section. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 4 condition and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: Stop filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of a water shortage response level under this Section. (c) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. EXHIBIT 2 39-9 39.08 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 5 (a) A Drought Response Level 5 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to fifty (50) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 5 condition and implement the Level 5 conservation measures identified in this ordinance. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A. Maintenance of trees and shrubs that are watered on the same schedule as noted above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation; B. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; C. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; D. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well- being of rare animals; E. Maintenance of landscaping within active public parks and playing fields, day care EXHIBIT 2 39-10 centers, school grounds, cemeteries, and golf course greens, provided that such irrigation does not exceed two (2) days per week according to the schedule established under the District’s Level 3 Condition; F. Watering of livestock; and G. Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. 2. Repair all water leaks within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the District. (c) The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of any provision of this Section. (d) Upon the declaration of a Level 5 condition, no new potable water service shall be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) shall be issued, except under the following circumstances: 1. A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; or 2. The project is necessary to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare; or EXHIBIT 2 39-11 3. The applicant provides substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a new water meter(s) to the satisfaction of the District. This provision shall not be construed to preclude the resetting or turn-on of meters to provide continuation of water service or to restore service that has been interrupted for a period of one (1) year or less. 39.09 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 6 (a) A Drought Response Level 6 condition applies when the Water Authority Board of Directors declare a water shortage emergency pursuant to California Water Code Section 350 and notifies its member agencies that Level 6 requires a demand reduction of more than fifty (50) percent in order for the District to have maximum supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District shall declare a Drought Emergency in the manner and on the grounds provided in California Water Code Section 350. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; B. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; EXHIBIT 2 39-12 C. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of rare animals; D. Watering of livestock; and E. Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. 39.10 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION AND NOTIFICATION OF DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL (a) The existence of a Drought Response Level 1 condition may be declared by the General Manager upon a written determination of the existence of the facts and circumstances supporting the determination. A copy of the written determination shall be filed with the Clerk or Secretary of the District and provided to the District Board of Directors. The General Manager may publish a notice of the determination of existence of Drought Response Level 1 condition in one or more newspapers including a newspaper of general circulation within the District. The District will also post notice of the condition on their website. (b) The existence of Drought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board of Directors adopted at a regular or special public meeting held in accordance with State law. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Drought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Water allocation shall be effective on the fifth (5) day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice. EXHIBIT 2 39-13 (c) The existence of a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be declared in accordance with the procedures specified in California Water Code Sections 351 to 352. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Drought Response Level 6 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. (d) The District Board of Directors may declare an end to a Drought Response Level by the adoption of a resolution at any regular or special meeting held in accordance with State law. 39.11 HARDSHIP VARIANCE (a) If, due to unique circumstances, a specific requirement of this ordinance would result in undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon which agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water uses, then the person may apply for a variance to the requirements as provided in this Section. (b) The variance may be granted or conditionally granted, only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon with agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user’s property. 1. Application. Application for a variance shall be a form prescribed by the District and shall be accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee in an amount set by resolution of the District Board of Directors. 2. Supporting Documentation. The application shall be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawings, and other information including a written statement of the applicant. EXHIBIT 2 39-14 3. Required Findings for Variance. An application for a variance shall be denied unless the approving authority finds, based on the information provided in the application, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on water use information for the property as shown by the records of the District, all of the following: A. That the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other District customers; B. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this ordinance would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to customers generally; C. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties and will not materially affect the ability of the District to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and will not be detrimental to the public interest; D. That the condition or situation of the subject property or the intended use of the property for which the variance is sought is not common, recurrent, or general in nature. 4. Approval Authority. The General Manager shall exercise approval authority and act upon any completed application no later than ten (10) days after submittal and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the variance. The applicant requesting the variance shall be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise at the time a variance is approved, the variance applies to the subje