Agenda - Orange County Water District

Transcription

AGENDA
COMMUNICATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING
WITH BOARD OF DIRECTORS*
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, CA (714) 378-3200
Thursday, February 5, 2015, 8:00 a.m. - Conference Room C-2
*The OCWD Communications and Legislative Liaison Committee meeting is noticed as a joint meeting
with the Board of Directors for the purpose of strict compliance with the Brown Act and it provides an
opportunity for all Directors to hear presentations and participate in discussions. Directors receive no
additional compensation or stipend as a result of simultaneously convening this meeting. Items
recommended for approval at this meeting will be placed on the February 18, 2015 Board meeting
Agenda for approval.
ROLL CALL
ITEMS RECEIVED TOO LATE TO BE AGENDIZED
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution determining need to take immediate action on item(s) and
that the need for action came to the attention of the District subsequent to
the posting of the Agenda (requires two-thirds vote of the Board members
present, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a
unanimous vote of those members present.)
VISITOR PARTICIPATION
Time has been reserved at this point in the agenda for persons wishing to comment for up to
three minutes to the Board of Directors on any item that is not listed on the agenda, but within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the District. By law, the Board of Directors is prohibited from
taking action on such public comments. As appropriate, matters raised in these public
comments will be referred to District staff or placed on the agenda of an upcoming Board
meeting.
At this time, members of the public may also offer public comment for up to three minutes on
any item on the Consent Calendar. While members of the public may not remove an item
from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion, a Director may do so at the request of a
member of the public.
CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEM NO. 1)
All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved by one motion, without separate discussion
on these items, unless a Board member or District staff request that specific items be removed from
the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.
1.
MINUTES OF COMMUNICATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING
HELD JANUARY 8, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes as presented
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
1
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
2.
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION:
3.
STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION:
4.
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Adopt the 2015
Legislative Platform
PRIORITY DISTRICT PROJECTS FOR WATER BOND AND OTHER FUNDING
RECOMMENDATION:
6.
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Adopt a “Support If
Amended” position on the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act Proposed Cleanup Legislation sponsored by Semitropic Water
Storage District and Sonoma Water Agency
STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
RECOMMENDATION:
5.
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Take action as
appropriate
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Approve OCWD Priority
Projects for 2015 Water Bond and Other Funding Opportunities.
SANTA ANA RIVER CONSERVANCY ADVISORY GROUP
RECOMMENDATION:
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Take action as
appropriate
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
7.
2015 CHILDREN’S WATER EDUCATION FESTIVAL UPDATE
8.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS JANUARY OUTREACH REPORT
CHAIR DIRECTION AS TO WHICH ITEMS IF ANY TO BE AGENDIZED AS A MATTER
FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FEBRUARY 18 BOARD MEETING
DIRECTOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS
GENERAL MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENT/REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
2
COMMUNICATION AND LEGISLATIVE LIAISON COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Harry Sidhu Phil Anthony Dina Nguyen
Vince Sarmiento
Steve Sheldon
ALTERNATES
Roger Yoh
Shawn Dewane
Jan Flory
Denis Bilodeau
Cathy Green
Chair
Vice Chair
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
Alternate 3
Alternate 4
Alternate 5
3
1
MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
WITH COMMUNICATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE LIAISON COMMITTEE
January 8, 2015 @ 8:00 a.m.
Director Sidhu called the Communications and Legislative Liaison Committee meeting to order in
Conference Room C-2 at the District office. The Assistant District Secretary called the roll as
follows:
Committee Members
Harry Sidhu
Phil Anthony
Dina Nguyen
(not present)
Vincent Sarmiento
Steve Sheldon
(arrived at 8:08 a.m.)
Alternates
Roger Yoh
Shawn Dewane
Jan Flory
Denis Bilodeau
Cathy Green
OCWD Staff
Mike Markus - General Manager
Judy-Rae Karlsen – Assistant District Secretary
Eleanor Torres – Director of Public Relations
Gina Ayala, Alicia Duncan, Dianne Pinnick,
Teleconference
James McConnell - McConnell & Associates
(not present)
Others
Cori Williams, Casey Elliott - Townsend Public Affairs
Sean Rossall, Dan Loeterman – Cerrell Associates
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar was approved upon motion by Director Anthony, seconded by Director
Sarmiento and carried [5-0] as follows.
[Yes – Sidhu, Anthony, Sarmiento, Dewane, Green /No – 0]
1.
Minutes of Previous Meeting
The minutes of the December 4, 2014 Communications/Legislative Liaison Committee
meeting are approved as presented.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
2.
Federal Legislative Update
District legislative advisor James McConnell (McConnell & Associates) teleconferenced into the
meeting and presented an update on legislative activities in Washington. He discussed the
President’s proposed budget for the current fiscal year and briefly discussed the passage of the
omnibus appropriations bill which contained funding for the Los Angeles Army Corps of
Engineers. The Committee discussed the process for requesting funding and prioritizing District
projects. No action was taken.
Director Yoh arrived at 8:05 a.m., Director Sheldon arrived at 8:08 a.m. and Director Bilodeau
arrived at 8:18 a.m. during the following discussion.
3.
State Legislative Update
Townsend Public Affairs (TPA) representatives Casey Elliott gave a verbal report on legislative
activities in Sacramento. He reported that State Constitutional Officers were sworn in and the
Governor announced the budget will be presented in January. Mr. Elliott reported there will be a
Special Election for 3 vacancies in office. The Committee discussed the budget, funding options
1
for District programs and the development of a comprehensive strategic plan for meeting with
legislators and prioritizing funding requests. Public Affairs Director Eleanor Torres advised that
staff will be meeting with Townsend Public Affairs representatives to begin the process of
developing the District’s legislative strategic plan. The Committee discussed the Irvine Ranch
Water District’s proposed recycling legislation. There was a consensus of the Committee
members present that staff draft a letter for President Green to transmit to the President and
Board members of IRWD expressing District concerns regarding the IRWD proposed legislation.
The Committee then took the following action.
There was a consensus of the Committee to recommend the Board at its January 21 Board
meeting authorize OCWD President to transmit letter to IRWD President and Board of
Directors regarding their proposed legislation.
[Yes – Sidhu, Anthony, Sarmiento, Sheldon, Yoh /No – 0]
4.
Groundwater Cleanup Outreach Update
Cerrell Associates representatives Sean Rossall and Dan Loeterman gave a presentation on
recent groundwater cleanup outreach activities. The Committee discussed the proposed outreach
plan currently being developed for January through June. Ms. Torres encouraged Director
participation in community outreach programs.
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
5.
Public Affairs Outreach Report: December 2014
Ms. Torres advised the Public Affairs Outreach Report for December 2014 is in today’s packet.
ITEM TO BE PLACED ON CONSENT CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 21 BOARD MEETING
The Committee recommended that Item No. 3, State Legislative Update be placed on the
Consent Calendar for the January 21 Board meeting.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at
9:23 a.m.
____________________________________
Harry Sidhu, Chair
2
2
AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL
Meeting Date: February 5, 2015
To: Communications/Leg. Liaison Cte
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contact: E. Torres/ A. Dunkin
POLICY ISSUE:
Budgeted: N/A
Budgeted Amount: N/A
Cost Estimate: N/A
Funding Source: N/A
Program/Line Item No.: N/A
General Counsel Approval: N/A
Engineers/Feasibility Report: N/A
CEQA Compliance: N/A
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
SUMMARY
Orange County Water District (OCWD) Directors, staff, and federal consultants James
McConnell and Eric Sapirstein, are working with the Los Angeles Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps) and members of the Orange County congressional delegation to
advance the Prado Basin, CA Study. Together they are also exploring new
authorizations and/or funding opportunities to support the District’s Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP) and other programs by meeting with key federal agency staff and
members of Congress.
Attachments
 James McConnell – Federal Update –January 2015
 Eric Sapirstein (ENS Resources)- Federal Update- January 2015
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Take action as appropriate.
RELEVANT STANDARDS
 Forge long-term, positive and proactive relationships with elected officials and
policy makers.
 Keep abreast of federal legislation that may impact OCWD, other water agencies
and/or special districts.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
OCWD’s federal advocates will provide an oral report on the upcoming OCWD trip to
Washington D.C. by President Green, Mike Markus, and Greg Woodside in February
and on federal legislation that may impact the District.
1
JAMES F. MCCONNELL
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
1130 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
917-434-3603
[email protected]
Washington Report
January 2015
The 114th Congress convened in Washington on January 6 with both the Senate
and the House of Representatives having Republican majorities.
The Obama Administration announced early in the month that the Fiscal Year
2016 budget would be submitted to Congress on the first Monday of February as called
for in the Budget Act of 1974. This will be the first time in several years that the budget
has been submitted on time, as there is no penalty for failure to do so. For the past
several years, the budget rollout has come one to two months later than prescribed.
The Administration also said that it would propose an end to sequestration, which
has been in abeyance the last two years but is scheduled to return in force in FY 2016.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) set in place automatic spending cuts over
a ten year period to cut equal amounts from domestic and defense discretionary spending
in an attempt to balance the federal budget and eliminate yawning annual deficits.
Sequestration does not apply to mandatory spending, which consumes more than twothirds of the federal budget (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the National
Debt, veterans’ benefits, and federal welfare programs), with the exception of an annual
two percent reduction to Medicare.
Republicans and Democrats alike abhor sequestration equally—Democrats, by
and large, because of the cuts to domestic programs and Republicans, in equal measure,
because of its gouging of the national defense sector. However, to the extent that the
President’s budget might propose eliminating sequestration through increased taxation, it
will be considered a non-starter by the Republican-led Congress.
The amount needing to be cut from the FY 16 budget under sequestration is about
$90 billion. In the past, Republicans have indicated that they wished to eliminate
sequestration through changes to entitlement spending, e.g.., changing Medicare to a
voluntary program or raising the retirement age for Social Security, while also offering to
close tax loopholes. The President and congressional Democrats have refused to
entertain changes to entitlement program eligibility and criteria.
Sequestration will be a major budgetary negotiating point in the FY 2016 budget
process.
In addition to the budget, the Obama Administration announced financing
proposals and grant program funding availability in January. The Administration is
launching a Water Finance Center at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is
proposing the creation of a new type of municipal bond to “level the playing field” for
municipalities seeking private investment as part of a host of initiatives intended to
improve water and other infrastructure by facilitating public-private partnerships (P3s).
The mid-January announcement is part of the Build America Investment
Initiative, which last year called for federal agencies to find new ways to increase
investment in drinking water and sewer systems, as well as other types of infrastructure
such as roads, bridges and ports, by facilitating partnerships between federal, state and
local governments and private sector investors.
The formation of the new Water Finance Center comes at a time when EPA is
also beginning to implement new changes to Clean Water Act (CWA) infrastructure
financing created through the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA)
legislation passed in the 113th Congress. The Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds (SRFs) were reauthorized in WRRDA to include water reuse, energy
efficiency, green infrastructure and security improvements at publicly owned water
treatment works. Also, WRRDA created the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) pilot concept within the EPA and the Corps of Engineers.
Also, the proposed new type of municipal bond, a Qualified Public Infrastructure
Bond (QPIB), will help municipalities seeking P3s to finance projects. This program will
expand the scope of an existing type of bond, private activity bond (PAB), to include
financing for a wider range of projects. However, this new public financing instrument
would need to be authorized by Congress.
Meanwhile at the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation
announced a funding opportunity for communities in the Western U.S. that may be
seeking new sources of water supplies using water recycling and reuse technologies.
Funding made available through cost-shared grants will assist communities in
determining through studies whether water recycling and reuse projects are feasible.
This funding opportunity is part of the Department of the Interior's WaterSMART
initiative, which focuses on improving water conservation, sustainability and helping
water resource managers make sound decisions about water use. It is estimated that $1.3
million may be awarded for studies this year—$150,000 grants for smaller studies and up
to $450,000 grants for larger, multi-year studies. A non-federal cost-share of at least 50
percent of study costs is required.
With the start of the new Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein announced that she
is working on crafting a Senate California drought bill for the 114th Congress. Last
Congress, none of the House- or Senate-passed bills was ultimately enacted into law,
with ongoing House-Senate compromise negotiations breaking down in December. It is
unclear when a Senate bill will be introduced; House proponents have signaled a desire to
re-introduce a California drought bill of their own as well.
In addition, Representative Ken Calvert (R-Corona) reintroduced his bill from the
113th Congress which would allow states to assume some of the Federal Government’s
responsibilities for conducting environmental reviews under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
H.R. 211, Reducing Environmental Barriers to Unified
Infrastructure and Land Development (REBUILD) Act, would allow any state to enter
into an agreement with a federal agency to assume the responsibility for conducting
federal NEPA reviews. The legislation would also require regular audits to ensure that
states are upholding the same NEPA standards that federal agencies are held to, allowing
for these new state powers to be revoked if they were found to be in noncompliance. Bill
supporters believe the states could improve infrastructure construction timelines by
eliminating unnecessary and redundant federal agency review under NEPA.
Chairmen for the Senate Appropriations subcommittees for the 114th Congress
were named this month by full committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS). Senator Lisa
Murkowski (R-AK) will replace Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island as Chair
of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee. (Senator Murkowski
also became Chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee when
Republicans took control of the Senate this month.) The Interior subcommittee funds the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior (Bureau of
Reclamation excluded).
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) was chosen to lead the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee, taking over from Senator Feinstein. The subcommittee
oversees funding for the Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
the Bureau of Reclamation, among other agencies. Both Senators Alexander and
Murkowski served as the ranking members on their respective Appropriations
subcommittees during the 113th Congress, when Democrats controlled the Senate.
Congress has a busy month in store in February as the FY 2016 budget process
commences with the delivery of the President’s budget to Congress, as well as federal
agencies’ work plans for the remainder of FY 2015.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
EleanorTorres
Alicia Dunkin
FROM:
Eric Sapirstein
DATE:
January28,2014
SUBJECT:
WashingtonUpdate
The114thCongressisnowamonthold.Keyactivitieshavecentered
uponorganizationalmattersatthecommitteelevelandsettingthe
agendasforeachcommittee.Itisclearfromthefirstfewweeksthatthe
newCongressintendstoflexitspolicymuscleandpassanumberofbills
thatlanguishedinthepastCongress.Chiefamongthesemattersis
environmentalstreamliningmeasures.Inaddition,thepriorityto
addressthepersistentdroughtinCaliforniarestartedwithbothHouse
andSenatewaterleadersconsideringapproachestopassshortandlong‐
termdroughtresponses.Thefollowingsummarizesthekeyareasof
activityduringthepastmonth.
CongressionalCommitteesOrganizefortheNewCongress
BoththeHouseandSenatecommitteeswithjurisdictionoverpolicy
mattersofconcerntotheDistrictbeganthetaskofdecidingon
appointmentsofnewMembers.Attachedisalistingofthekeycommittee
assignmentsandtheCaliforniaMemberssittingonthesecommittees.
Generally,theDistrict’scongressionaldelegationcontinuestomaintain
itsseniorrolesonkeycommitteesasreportedinpriormonths’updates.
OneimportantpointtostressistheappointmentofRepresentativeMimi
Walterstobeamemberofthecongressionalleadership,servingasthe
FreshmanClassLiaison.
IntheSenate,thekeychangesthathaveoccurredinvolvethetransferof
powerfromtheDemocratstotheRepublicans.Ofspecialnoteisthe
assumptiontothechairmanshipoftheCommitteeonEnvironmentand
PublicWorksbySenatorJamesInhofe(R‐OK).Inhofehasmadeitknown
thatheintendstoaddressenvironmentalmandateswithafocuson
rollingbacknewgreenhousegasemissionsreductionmandatesby
USEPA.Healsohopestoaddressthisagency’sefforttoredefinewatersof
ENSResources,Inc.
110114thStreet,N.W.
Washington,D.C.20005
Phone202.466.3755/Telefax202.466.3787
theU.S.thatheandothercommitteemembersstrenuouslyoppose.
Finally,hehopestotakeupinfrastructureassistancelegislation.Onthis
lastissue,InhofeandBoxer,whonowsitsastherankingMember,appear
tobeinagreementontheneedtoaddresspublicinfrastructureneeds.
TheSenateCommitteeonEnergyandNaturalResourcesnowchairedby
SenatorLisaMurkowski(R‐AK)appearspoisedtoaddressthewestern
drought,theenergywaternexus,andenergyefficiencyissuesingeneral.
AnewrankingDemocrat,SenatorMariaCantwell(D‐WA),joins
Murkowski.CantwellandMurkowskimayfindareasofagreementon
drought;however,differencesoverESAreformsareexpectedtobe
significant.
Finally,theCommitteeonAppropriationswillseethechairmanship
returntoSenatorThadCochran(R‐MS).SenatorDianneFeinstein(D‐CA)
willcontinuetoplayamajorroleservingastherankingMemberonthe
SubcommitteeonEnergyandWaterDevelopmentAppropriationsthat
fundswaterrecyclingandotherdroughtprogramsatUSBR.Shewillalso
sitasaseniormemberoftheInteriorandEnvironmentSubcommittee
thatfundsUSEPAandUSGSprogramsincludingwaterinfrastructure.
IntheHouse,acoupleofimportantappointmentsoccurred.First,the
CommitteeonTransportationandInfrastructureannounced
appointmentsthatincludedtheDistrict’snewestMember,Representative
MimiWalters.Inaddition,along‐timesupporteroftheDistrict’sGWRS
program,RepresentativeGraceNapolitano(D‐CA)wasnamedtobethe
newrankingMemberoftheSubcommitteeonWaterResourcesand
EnvironmentwithjurisdictionovertheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers.
TheCommitteeonNaturalResourcesisfacingsimilarchanges.Ithasa
newchair,RepresentativeRobBishop(R‐UT).RepresentativeJohn
Fleming(R‐LA)whoreplacesRepresentativeTomMcClintock(R‐CA)will
chairthekeySubcommitteeonWaterandPower.Weexpectadecision
ontherankingMembertobemadeshortlybetweenRepresentativesJim
CostaandJaredHuffmanbothofCalifornia.
TheCommitteeonAppropriationswillcontinuetoseepastleadership
retainingcontrol.Tothisend,RepresentativeKenCalvertwillremainas
chairmanoftheSubcommitteeonInteriorandEnvironment.Hewill
remainontheSubcommitteeonEnergyandWaterDevelopment.These
tworoleswillaffordhimanimportantroleinmostwaterinfrastructure
fundingdebates.
DroughtReliefLegislation
SenatorFeinsteinandherHouseRepublicanandDemocraticcolleagues
havebeguntheeffortofidentifyingtheparametersofadroughtreliefbill
thatcouldextendassistanceonanemergencyreliefbasis.Lastyear’s
effortfounderedondisagreementsoverenvironmentalstreamliningfor
storageprojectsandwaterdeliveryprojectprioritiesforenvironmental
ENSResources,Inc.
110114thStreet,N.W.
Phone202.466.3755/Telefax202.466.3787
purposesversusagriculturalneeds.Thedebateisexpectedtopickup
fromthesepointsofcontentioninthecomingweeks.Atthesametime,
SenatorBarbaraBoxerandRepresentativeNapolitanoreintroducedtheir
legislationtocreatenewfederalassistanceprogramstodevelopwater
recyclinganddesalinationprojects,amongotherwaterconservation
programs.Thelegislation,W‐21,isexpectedtobecomepartofthe
overalldebateonhowtodevelopawest‐widedroughtbillthathasbeena
focusofinterestforanumberofSenatorsandRepresentatives.
FiscalYear2016Budget
Asthefederalagenciesbegintheprocessofallocatingresourcesforfiscal
year2015,theAdministrationisfinalizingthefiscalyear2016budget
requestthatwillbetransmittedtoCongressonFebruary2.We
anticipatethatthebudgetwillseektoestablishnewfederal
infrastructureprograms,includingtherecentlyannouncedQualified
PublicInfrastructureBondsthatwouldpromotepublicprivate
partnershipstoconstructwaterinfrastructure.
WatersoftheU.SDefinition
USEPAcontinuestoworktowardpublishingafinalruletodefinewhich
watersoftheU.S.byApril2015.ThenewCongresshasmadereversing
therulemakingatoppriority.Tothisend,anextremelyrarebi‐cameral
hearingwillbeconvenedonFebruary4toexaminetheruleandits
impact.WhileitisunclearhowtheHouseandSenatecommitteeswill
follow‐upthehearing,thehearingshouldputrenewedpressureon
USEPAtoclarifythatwaterrecyclingfacilitieswouldnotbecapturedby
thenewrule’smandatesthatmightleadtoadditionalpermitting
conditions.
ENSResources,Inc.
110114thStreet,N.W.
Phone202.466.3755/Telefax202.466.3787
3
Budgeted: N/A
Cost Estimate: N/A
Funding Source: N/A
To: Communications/Leg.Liaison Cte.
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contact: E.Torres/ A.Dunkin
POLICY ISSUE:
STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
SUMMARY
Orange County Water District (OCWD; the District) staff and Townsend Public Affairs (TPA)
continue to advocate on issues at the state level that impact the District. Current issues
include meeting with elected officials and their staff about a collaborative approach to
addressing groundwater contamination and strategic planning to secure water bond funding
for District projects.
Attachments
 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Proposed Cleanup Legislation
 OCWD State Legislative Matrix
 Townsend Public Affairs Monthly Activity Report (January 2015)
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Adopt a “Support If Amended” position on the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Proposed Cleanup Legislation sponsored by
Semitropic Water Storage District and Sonoma Water Agency.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT PROPOSED CLEANUP
LEGISLATION
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was signed into law in 2014.
OCWD staff was actively engaged in the development of the legislation and ensuring that
OCWD’s rights to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin were upheld in the
legislation.
There were some areas of the legislation that was left ambiguous. Fourteen areas for
cleanup are being proposed by Semitropic Water Storage District and Sonoma Water
Agency. The proposal has not been assigned a bill number by legislative counsel at this
time. A draft proposal is attached for the Committee’s review.
1
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) State Legislative Committee and
staff recently recommended a “Support with Amendments” position on the bill at its January
16 meeting.
OCWD staff and counsel have reviewed the proposed legislation and support the bill in
concept, but believe it needs some amendments to ensure the District’s authorities as the
Orange County GSA continue to be protected and the District can maximize its recharge
operations without legislative hindrances.
OCWD staff recommends the District take a position of “Support if Amended” on the
proposed legislation. Counsel will advise staff on what the recommended amendments
should be. The offered amendments will reflect the approved policies set forth in the 2015
OCWD Legislative Platform.
JANUARY 2015 STATE LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS
It is important that the District forge long-term, positive and proactive relationships with
elected officials, policy makers and legislative advocacy groups. Below are some of the
meetings Board Members and staff participated in January 2015:
















Assemblymember Young Kim: January 9, Director Yoh, Mike Wehner, Eleanor
Torres, and Alicia Dunkin, and Townsend Public Affairs
Assemblymember Don Wagner: January 12 Directors Bilodeau and Sidhu, and Mike
Markus, and Townsend Public Affairs
Senator Janet Nguyen: January 20, President Green, Mike Markus, Alicia Dunkin,
and Townsend Public Affairs
Senate Budget Committee: Catherine Freeman, Consultant: January 15, Alicia
Dunkin and Townsend Public Affairs
Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water: Dennis O’Connor, Principal
Consultant: January 15, Alicia Dunkin and Townsend Public Affairs
Assemblymember Tom Daly’s Legislative Director: David Miller: January 15, Alicia
Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife, Principal Consultant Tina Leahy
January 15, Alicia Dunkin and Townsend Public Affairs
Assemblymember Harper’s Chief of Staff Madeline Stelzmiller: January 15, Alicia
Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Material Chief Consultant
Bob Fredenburg: January 15, Alicia Dunkin
WateReuse California Potable Reuse Update: January 15, Mike Markus presented
“OCWD Potable Reuse Experience and Future”, Alicia Dunkin attended.
ACWA State Legislative Committee Meeting: January 16, President Green, Alicia
WateReuse Legislative and Regulatory Committee: January 16, President Green,
Alicia Dunkin and Townsend Public Affairs
GRA Legislative Committee: January 8 and 22
MWDOC Legislative Coordinators conference call: January 8
ACWA State Legislative Committee Region 10 conference call: January 14
SAWPA Legislative conference call: January 16
2

ACEC Water bond implementation, January 28, Director Bilodeau moderated a
session on the Water Bond; Alicia Dunkin attended.
UPCOMING STATE LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS:

Assemblymember Harper, February 6, GWRS Tour with President Green and
Director Sheldon
3
ACWA State Legislative Committee
Legislative Proposal
January 16, 2015
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Cleanup
Submitted by: Semitropic Water Storage District, Sonoma County Water
Agency and supported by others
Advocate: Whitnie Wiley
Analyst: Jessica Brandt
I. BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA or Act). SGMA is comprised of three bills, AB 1739 (Dickinson) and
SB 1168 and SB 1319 both authored by Senator Pavley.
The Association of California Water Agencies was instrumental in the development of the
language and passage of the Act. ACWA staff was directed to negotiate and lobby for language
in the bills that stayed true to the principles outlined in the Board adopted “Recommendations for
Achieving Groundwater Sustainability.”
II. DISCUSSION:
As happens frequently with legislation, and in particular major legislation with lots of moving
parts, there are often areas that don’t get addressed or language that despite best efforts to draft
carefully results in ambiguities. Several ACWA Members have identified the following areas
as appropriate for cleanup and have provided proposed language where indicated.
1) Definitions—The definition of “groundwater recharge” is not inclusive enough.
Amend Section 10721(i) as follows:
Groundwater recharge means the augmentation of groundwater, by natural or artificial means,
and may include in lieu recharge through delivery of surface water to parties that would
otherwise extract groundwater, leaving groundwater in the basin.
2) Mutual Water Companies—For decades mutual water companies have been permitted to be
included in joint powers authorities (JPA), but language in the Act could raise an ambiguity of
whether a JPA creating a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) could include a mutual
water company. Including mutual water companies is critical in many parts of the state where
they are major urban and agricultural purveyors.
Amend Section 10723.6 as follows:
(a) A combination of local agencies, mutual water companies, or both, may form a groundwater
sustainability agency using any of the following methods: (1) A joint powers agreement, which
may include mutual water companies as authorized by Government Code section 6525.
(2) ***
(b) ***
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a groundwater sustainability agency that is
formed under a joint powers agreement may exercise all the powers granted by Chapter 5 of this
Part.
3) Groundwater Allocations—A key management tool of a GSA in an overdrafted basin is to
impose extraction allocations, which “shall not be construed to be a final determination of rights
to extract groundwater” [Sec. 10726.2(a)(2)]. In order to ensure such allocations do not
compromise any parties’ rights, any potential claims or defenses need to be extended to include
the period such an allocation plan is in place, whereas Section 10720.5(a) only provides for
tolling until a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is adopted.
Amend Section 10720.5(a) as follows:
Groundwater management pursuant to this part shall be consistent with Section 2 of Article X of
the California Constitution. Nothing in this part modifies rights or priorities to use or store
groundwater consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution, except that in
basins designated medium- or high-priority basins by the department, no extraction of
groundwater between January 1, 2015, and the date of adoption of a groundwater sustainability
plan pursuant to this part, or any action to control groundwater extractions pursuant to Section
10726.4(a)(2) whichever is sooner, may be used as evidence of, or to establish or defend against,
any claim to use groundwater. of prescription
4) Role of State Agencies—State agencies must comply with an “interim” plan adopted by the
State Board, unless otherwise directed by statute, however they are not required to comply with a
GSP (except to pay extractions fees) [Sec. 10726.2(d) and (e) and 10735.8(f)]. The standard
should be the same, particularly since state agencies are significant extractors of groundwater in
certain areas.
5) Public-Private “Partnerships”—To be effective, GSAs need broad powers to implement
GSPs, including the power to pursue innovative public/private partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, landowners, and others, and such authority should be added.
Add Section 10726.10 as follows:
In addition to any other authorities granted to a groundwater sustainability agency by this part or
other provisions of law, groundwater sustainability agencies may enter into agreements and
funding or other arrangements with private parties that assist in or facilitate the implementation
of groundwater sustainability plans or any elements thereof. This section is to be interpreted
broadly to authorize all such agreements and arrangements.
6) CEQA Exemption—The CEQA exemption does not appear to apply to formation of GSA,
which should be expressly provided for so that the GSP planning process can proceed without
delay.
Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code does not apply to
the preparation and adoption of plan or the formation of or election to become a groundwater
sustainability agency pursuant to this chapter. Nothing in this part shall be interpreted as
exempting form Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code a
project that would implement actions taken pursuant to a plan adopted pursuant to this chapter.
7) Transition Groundwater Charges under 3030 Plans— Local agencies need to be able to
transition from a 3030 plan to a GSP under the new legislation. They need the following before
they can require groundwater extraction fees: (i) a provision for collection of pumping data, (ii)
access to other provisions of the applicable Chapter, and (iii) recognition that most, if not all,
3030 plans do not presently cover an “entire basin.” Authorizing the imposition of groundwater
extraction fees under a 3030 plan until a GSP is adopted needs to be revised as follows to avoid
any ambiguity.
Amend Section 10730.2(b) as follows:
Until a groundwater sustainability plan is adopted pursuant to this part, a local agency may
impose fees in accordance with the procedures provided in this Chapter and collect groundwater
pumping information as provided by Sections 10725.6 and 10725.8 section for purposes of Part
2.75 (commencing with Section 10750) as long as a groundwater management plan originally
adopted before January 1, 2015, is in effect for the basin.
8) Adjudicated Basins—Section 10720.8 is clear that certain identified adjudicated basins are
not subject to the Act, however Section 10733.6 addresses an alternative process to comply with
the Act, which creates an ambiguity.
(a) Subject to Section 10720.8, if a local agency believes that an alternative described in
subdivision (b) satisfies the objectives of this part, the local agency may submit the alternative to
the department for evaluation and assessment of whether the alternative satisfies the objectives
of this part for the basin.
(b) ***
9) Tolling Where Litigation Prevents Performance—Section 10735.2(d) is a good start but
should also “toll” the time period to complete tasks required under the Act to include litigation
challenging designation of a GSA, adoption of a GSP, CEQA compliance and funding (such as
218 litigation).
Delete current Section 10735.2(d) and replace with the following:
If a groundwater sustainability agency for a basin, or an agency proposing to be a groundwater
sustainability agency for a basin, provides credible evidence to the board that the agency was
unable to meet any deadline or other requirement established by this part due to litigation
brought by another party, the board shall not designate the basin as a probationary basin for a
period of time equal to the delay caused by the litigation plus a reasonable additional period of
time to allow the agency to comply with this part.
10) “Good Actors” Not Being Probationary—The language added at Section 10735.2(e) by
SB 1319, which is very helpful, needs to be clarified because it is not clear what standard applies
and there are numerous conflicting provisions in the Act. Additionally, numerous potentially
conflicting references need to be cross referenced or otherwise addressed, for example, Section
10733.4 providing GSPs must be submitted for the “entire basin.”
Amend Section 10735.2 (e) as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the board shall exclude from probationary
status any portion of a basin for which a groundwater sustainability agency demonstrates
compliance with the sustainability has adopted and is pursuing implementation of its
groundwater sustainability plan.
11) Election Notification—10723(d) states that an agency (or agencies) “that elects to be the
groundwater sustainability agency” must file a “notice of intent” with DWR. Simultaneously,
10723.8(a) states, “Within 30 days of electing to be or forming a groundwater sustainability
agency, the groundwater sustainability agency shall inform the department of its election or
formation and its intent to undertake sustainable groundwater management.” This notice then
triggers a 90-day period after which the agency providing the notice is “presumed” to be the
exclusive GSA if no other notices were filed.
It seems that these sections require two separate notices: a notice of intent and a “notice of
election or formation.” This is reinforced by Section 10733.3 (what DWR has to do when it
receives notice), which refers to “all notices it receives pursuant to Section 10723 or 10723.8” ...
clearly indicating two separate notices. The confusion is that both 10723(d) and 10723.8(a) refer
to a notice that is given once the local agency “elects” to be the GSA; and, of course, election
can only occur after public notice and hearing.
12) Multiple Plans in a Basin--Section 10727.6 addresses how agencies with coordinated plans
in the same basin will interact. This section could be interpreted to require that agencies with
existing effective plans conduct expensive technical work such as sustainable yield studies, even
where not necessary to effectively manage their basins. Such studies can be extremely
controversial because they generally have to quantify contributions to a basin from various water
sources, which may trigger water-right disputes about those sources. Currently cooperating
agencies should not be forced into expensive, controversial work that may not even be necessary
for good management.
Amended 10727.6 as follows:
Groundwater sustainability agencies intending to develop and implement multiple groundwater
sustainability plans pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 10727 shall
coordinate describe, in their coordination agreement, with other agencies preparing a
groundwater sustainability plan within the basin to ensure that how the plans will utilize the
same consistent data and methodologies for the following assumptions in developing the plans, if
necessary for those plans:
(a) ***
At a minimum, this language needs work. The “if necessary for those plans” clause at the end is
ambiguous. It could be read to allow an “out” for some of the required data/assumptions
altogether. That would be going back on what ACWA agreed to last year. Staff believes it would
be rejected as drafted. As to the rest of the language, there needs to be more discussion about the
intent and language – the concept may be workable.
13) Future Groundwater Adjudications --Water Code section 10733.6(b) provides for
“management pursuant to an adjudication action” as a basis for a local agency to seek DWR
approval of a GSP “alternative.” This provides that a local agency may submit the alternative
(adjudication judgment) to the department for evaluation and assessment of whether the
adjudication judgment satisfies the objectives of this part. This process is fundamentally
inappropriate and arguably a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
In adjudicated groundwater basins, the court has exclusive authority over basin management, and
the court is bound to the requirements Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution to
ensure optimal basin management. If there is an allegation of basin plan inadequacy, the
appropriate recourse is by motion to the court subject to the court’s continuing jurisdiction. As
drafted, section 10733.6 would require DWR to assess the sufficiency of the judgment.
Presumptively, if DWR determined that the judgment was insufficient, that could result in the
SWRCB designating the basin as a “probationary basin.” This would be an absurd result in
which basin stakeholders could face competing directives from the court and DWR/SWRCB,
and most importantly would discourage cooperative resolution of adjudications because there
would be the possibility DWR or the SWRCB would declare the parties’ negotiated and court
approved settlement/management plan to be inadequate.
—insert a new subdivision (e) and re-letter (e) to (f) and (f) to (g):
(e) Any future adjudicated basin other than provided in subdivisions (b), (c) or (d) shall be
treated as an adjudicated basin pursuant to this section if the superior court issues a final
judgment, order, or decree.
—in subdivision (b), delete paragraph (2) [which provides “(2) Management pursuant to an
adjudication action.”] and re-number (3) to (2).
This issue should be separated from the above list and be addressed as part of the expedited
adjudication discussions. See below.
14) Expedited Adjudication Process—There has been much discussion of the need to
streamline and make the process for judicial groundwater adjudications more efficient, which
undoubtedly will be needed to a greater extent with implementation of the Act.
Both Governor Brown in his signing message and Senator Pavley in a committee hearing
committed to addressing the need to streamline the adjudication process this legislative session.
This effort has been taken on by the California Farm Bureau Federation with active participation
by ACWA staff and the attorney’s group. Much of the proposal that the Farm Bureau is working
is the result of the work of the ACWA attorneys and both groups have committed to working
together to develop the language for introduction in the next couple of weeks.
******
ACWA should advocate for the inclusion of the first 11 amendments into Senator Pavley’s SB
13 or other cleanup legislation introduced this session. The committee can discuss whether the
12th concept should also be included on a list of amendments ACWA should advocate.
III. RECOMMENDATION: Support, amending above provisions 1-11 into existing or future
cleanup bills; deferring action on provision 12 pending further development by proponents;
and referring 13 and 14 to the Farm Bureau and attorneys group for reconciliation.
OCWD Legislative Matrix
1/26/2015
AB 1
(Brown D) Drought: local governments: fines.
Current Text: Introduced: 12/1/2014 pdf html
Introduced: 12/1/2014
Is Fiscal: N
Location: 1/16/2015-A. L. GOV.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Enrolled Vetoed
Conc.
1st House
2nd House
Chaptered
Summary: The California Constitution requires that the water resources of the state be put to
beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable and that the waste or unreasonable use
or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented. Existing law, the California Emergency Services
Act, sets forth the emergency powers of the Governor under its provisions and empowers the
Governor to proclaim a state of emergency for certain conditions, including drought. This bill would
prohibit a city, county, or city and county from imposing a fine under any local maintenance ordinance
or other relevant ordinance for a failure to water a lawn or having a brown lawn during a period for
which the Governor has issued a proclamation of a state of emergency based on drought conditions.
Position Suboffice AB 10
(Gatto D) Political Reform Act of 1974: economic interest disclosures.
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 1/16/2015-A. E. & R.
Enrolled Vetoed
Conc.
1st House
2nd House
Chaptered
Summary: The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a public official at any level of state or local
government from making, participating in making, or in any way attempting to use his or her official
position to influence a governmental decision in which the public official knows or has reason to know
that he or she has a financial interest. A public official has a financial interest in a governmental
decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect,
distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on a business entity in which the public official
has a direct or indirect investment worth $2,000 or more, real property in which the public official has a
direct or indirect interest worth $2,000 or more, and sources of income aggregating $500 or more in
value within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. This bill would increase the
thresholds at which a public official has a disqualifying financial interest in sources of income from $500
to $1,000, in investments in business entities from $2,000 to $5,000, and in interests in real property
from $2,000 to $10,000. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Position Suboffice AB 149
(Chávez R) Urban water management plans.
Is Fiscal: N
Location: 1/15/2015-A. PRINT
Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered
Conc.
1st House
2nd House
Summary: Existing law, the Urban Water Management Planning Act, requires every public and private
urban water supplier that directly or indirectly provides water for municipal purposes to prepare and
adopt an urban water management plan and to update its plan once every 5 years on or before
December 31 in years ending in 5 and zero, except as specified. The act requires an urban water
supplier to submit to the Department of Water Resources a copy of its plan and requires the
department to prepare and submit to the Legislature, on or before December 31, in the years ending
in 6 and 1, a report summarizing the status of plans adopted pursuant to the act. This bill, commencing
January 1, 2017, would instead require an urban water supplier to update its plan at least once every
5 years on or before December 31 in years ending in 6 and one. The bill would instead require the
department to submit its report to the Legislature, on or before December 31, in years ending in 7 and
Page 1/4
two.
Position Suboffice SB 7
(Wolk D) Housing: water meters: multiunit structures.
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 1/15/2015-S. T. & H.
Enrolled Vetoed
Conc.
1st House
2nd House
Chaptered
Summary: (1) Existing law generally regulates the hiring of dwelling units and, among other things,
imposes certain requirements on landlords and tenants. Among these requirements, existing law
requires landlords to provide tenants with certain notices or disclosures pertaining to, among other
things, pest control and gas meters. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to encourage
the conservation of water in multifamily residential rental buildings through means either within the
landlord’s or the tenant’s control, and to ensure that the practices involving the submetering of
dwelling units for water service are just and reasonable, and include appropriate safeguards for both
tenants and landlords. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
(Pavley D) Groundwater.
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 1/15/2015-S. N.R. & W.
Conc.
1st House
2nd House
Summary: Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater
basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources that are
designated as basins subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed under a groundwater
sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020, and requires
all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a
groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2022,
except as specified. The act authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to designate a basin
as a probationary basin if the state board makes a certain determination and to develop an interim
plan for the probationary basin. The act requires a local agency or groundwater sustainability agency
to have 90 or 180 days, as prescribed, to remedy the deficiency if the board designates the basin as a
probationary basin. This bill would provide a local agency or groundwater sustainability agency 90 or
180 days, as prescribed, to remedy certain deficiencies that caused the board to designate the basin
as a probationary basin. This bill would authorize the board to develop an interim plan for certain
probationary basins one year after the designation of the basin as a probationary basin. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
SB 20
(Pavley D) Wells: reports: public availability.
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 1/15/2015-S. N.R. & W.
Conc.
1st House
2nd House
Summary: Existing law requires a person who digs, bores, or drills a water well, cathodic protection
well, or a monitoring well, or abandons or destroys a well, or deepens or reperforates a well, to file a
report of completion with the Department of Water Resources. Existing law prohibits those reports
from being made available to the public, except under certain circumstances. This bill would instead
Position Suboffice Page 2/4
require the department to, upon request, make the reports available to the public. The bill would
require the department to provide specified disclaimers when providing the reports to the public. The
bill would authorize the department to charge a fee for the provision of a report to recover the
department’s costs, that does not exceed the reasonable costs to the department of providing the
report. The bill would require the release of a report to comply with the Information Practices Act of
1977 and would require the department to redact from the report specified information pertaining to
the well owner. The bill would require a person who requests a report to provide his or her name,
address, identification number from a government-issued source, as provided, and reason for making
the request.
(Nielsen R) Water: floods.
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 1/15/2015-S. N.R. & W.
Conc.
1st House
2nd House
Summary: (1) Existing law authorizes the Department of Water Resources to administer funding, from
various sources, for flood risk reduction projects. This bill would authorize the Department of Water
Resources to provide reimbursement to funding recipients that execute a funding agreement under the
Urban Flood Risk Reduction Projects program for expenditures associated with continued funding of a
project initiated under the Early Implementation Project program and incurred after July 1, 2014, and
before the execution of the funding agreement, but no later than December 31, 2015. This bill contains
other related provisions.
(Jackson D) California Environmental Quality Act: record of proceedings.
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 1/15/2015-S. PRINT
Enrolled Vetoed
Conc.
1st House
2nd House
Chaptered
Summary: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to
prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR)
on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the
environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.
CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may
have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that
effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect
on the environment. CEQA establishes a procedure for the preparation and certification of the record
of proceedings upon the filing of an action or proceeding challenging a lead agency's action on the
grounds of noncompliance with CEQA. This bill would require the lead agency, at the request of a
project applicant and consent of the lead agency, to prepare a record of proceedings concurrently with
the preparation of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, EIR, or other environmental
document for projects. This bill contains other related provisions.
(Vidak R) Environmental quality: Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of
2014.
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 1/20/2015-S. PRINT
Page 3/4
Conc.
1st House
2nd House
Summary: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to
prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a
project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment
or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also
requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and
there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the
environment. CEQA establishes a procedure by which a person may seek judicial review of the decision
of the lead agency made pursuant to CEQA and a procedure for the preparation and certification of the
record of proceedings upon the filing of an action or proceeding challenging a lead agency's action on
the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA. This bill would require the public agency, in certifying the
environmental impact report and in granting approvals for projects funded, in whole or in part, by
Proposition 1, including the concurrent preparation of the record of proceedings and the certification of
the record of proceeding within 5 days of the filing of a specified notice, to comply with specified
procedures. Because a public agency would be required to comply with those new procedures, this bill
would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before
July 1, 2016, to adopt a rule of court to establish procedures applicable to actions or proceedings
seeking judicial review of a public agency's action in certifying the environmental impact report and in
granting project approval for those projects that require the actions or proceedings, including any
appeals therefrom, be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the certification of the
record of proceedings. The bill would prohibit a court from staying or enjoining those projects unless it
makes specified findings. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Position Suboffice Total Measures: 9
Total Tracking Forms: 9
Page 4/4
MEMO
To:
Orange County Water District
From:
Christopher Townsend, President
Heather Stratman, Vice President
Casey Elliott, State Capitol Director
Cori Williams, Senior Associate
Date:
January 27, 2015
Subject:
Monthly Political and Activity Report
Specific Activities for the Month

On January 8, TPA met with General Manager Michael Markus and staff for a quarterly
meeting and update.

On January 9, TPA scheduled and attended a meeting with OCWD staff and
Assemblywoman Young Kim’s District Office.

On January 15, TPA scheduled and attended meeting on behalf of OCWD staff with
Orange County delegation Capitol Office staff and Assembly and Senate Consultants,
including:
o Catherine Freeman, Consultant for Energy Issues, Senate Budget
o Dennis O’Conner, Principal Consultant for Senate Committee on Natural
Resources & Water
o Tina Leahy, Principal Consultant for Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and
Wildlife
o Madeline (Maddy) Stelzmiller, Chief of Staff for Assembly Member Harper
o David Miller, Legislative Director for Assembly Member Daly

On January 16, TPA attended the ACWA State Legislative Committee Meeting, and sent a
summary of the meeting to staff.

On January 16, TPA scheduled and attended a meeting with OCWD staff and
Assemblymember Don Wagner.

On January 20, TPA arranged and attended a meeting with Senator Janet Nguyen in her
District Office to discuss upcoming District projects and priorities.

On January 22, TPA attended the One Water One Watershed (OWOW) 2015 Integration and
Pillar Workshop in Riverside, and sent staff a summary of discussion.
Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383
Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555
Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030

On January 23, TPA provided OCWD staff with an analysis of potential Proposition 1 funding
programs. The analysis included information on water reliability, groundwater contamination
and water recycling programs.

Throughout the month, TPA kept OCWD staff up to date on the status of the State Coastal
Conservancy’s implementation of the advisory group identified in SB 1390 (Correa)

Throughout the month, TPA provided OCWD with updated legislative tracking matrices.

TPA participated in update calls with OCWD staff on January 9, 16 and 23.
OCWD Monthly Report
2
State Political Update
On January 5, the legislature reconvened after their holiday break, and began to introduce
legislation, which will continue until the deadline on February 27. Between 2,500 and 2,800
bills are expected to be introduced before the February deadline. Below is a snapshot of the
legislative milestones and deadlines for the upcoming year:












January 5: Legislature reconvenes
February 27: Final day to introduce bills
*Note: All newly introduced legislation must be in print for 30 days before it can be heard
by committee
May 1: Final day for policy committees to hear and report fiscal bills
May 15: Final day for policy committees to hear and report on non-fiscal bills
June 1—5: Floor session only (Committees may resume on June 8)
June 5: Final day to pass bill from House of origin
June 15: Budget Bill must be passed by midnight
August 28: Final day for fiscal committees to meet and report bills to the floor
August 31—September 11: Floor session only
September 4: Final day to amend a bill on the floor
September 11: Final day for bill to be passed
October 11: last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the legislature
In the Assembly, Assemblyman Marc Levine was announced the Chair of the Water Parks
and Wildlife Committee, where Assemblyman Bigelow will serve as Vice Chair. Assemblyman
Matthew Harper, who represents the 74th District, which includes OCWD, is currently the only
member of the Orange County delegation to sit on the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.
Assemblyman Harper also sits on the Natural Resources Committee and the Labor and
Employment Committee, where he serves as Vice Chair.
Groundwater
As follow up to the Groundwater Sustainability Package passed during the 2014 legislative
session (AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley)), Senator Pavley has
introduced SB 13, Groundwater. The bill allows local agencies 90 to 180 days to address
deficiencies identified by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), which would
cause the SWRCB to designate the basins as probationary. This applies to basins that are
not designated as medium or high priority basins. The Senator has made it clear that this bill
was introduced as cleanup legislation, and will be the only bill related to last session’s
Groundwater Sustainability Package. As the Chair of the Senate Committee on Natural
Resources and Water, Senator Pavley made it clear that bills related to unfinished business
of the Groundwater Sustainability Package will not be considered, and legislation intended to
help streamline the groundwater adjudication process will be handled as a separate issue.
Proposition 1 Implementation
On January 9, Governor Brown released his 2015-2016 budget proposal summary, which
provided the first insight to the Governor’s allocation priorities for Proposition 1 funds. The
OCWD Monthly Report
3
budget will go through multiple revisions, with a second proposal offered in mid-May, and the
deadline for final passage required by June 15. The figures indicated below are the proposed
amounts for 2015-2016 the Governor has allocated from the Proposition 1 Expenditure Plan
that are of interest for OCWD. As these funding categories develop and more details are
released, TPA will continue to send updates to OCWD staff, and find opportunities to
advocate on behalf of the OCWD’s projects and priorities. The first Assembly Water, Parks
and Wildlife Committee hearing on water bond implementation is scheduled for February 10,
2015, which TPA will monitor for OCWD as well as provide a report.
Bond Category
Regional Water
Reliability
Program
Integrated Regional Water
Management Program
$32,800,000
Water Conservation
$23,200,000
Stormwater Management
Water Recycling and Desalination
Water Recycling
Groundwater
Sustainability
Amount
Water Recycling and Treatment
Technology Projects
Groundwater Management
Planning
Groundwater Contamination
$600,000
$5,500,000
$131,700,000
$21,300,000
$600,000
Proposition 84: Integrated Regional Water Management Funding
On January 22, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) held a meeting to
discuss One Water One Watershed (OWOW) priorities for the upcoming Integrated Regional
Water Management (IRWM) funding opportunity. The next round of funding will make $63.5
million dollars available, which is the remaining money available from Proposition 84.
Workshops to develop funding guidelines are expected to be held from January to April, with
a call for projects to be released in April of this year. Under the OWOW 2.0 Plan, the priority
for future projects will have a system wide significance. Examples include the Santa Ana
Regional Interceptor and Prado Basin Sediment Management. Local projects that have a
system wide impact will also be considered, such as the Forest First Program. The system
wide approach is intended to maximize limited resources, produce cost effective and efficient
projects, and work with the overall water resource cycle.
Election Update
OCWD Monthly Report
4
While the general election as held on November 4, 2014, Orange County has two upcoming
special elections. The first is to fill the 1st District Supervisor seat, previously occupied by now
Senator Nguyen. Among those running for First District Supervisor are former Senator Lou
Correa, Andrew Do—previous Chief of Staff to Senator Nguyen, Garden Grove Councilman
Chris Phan, Chuyen Van Nguyen, and Lupe Morfin-Moreno. The election is scheduled for
January 27, and is expected to have very low turnout. The first district is comprised of the
cities of Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Westminster and Fountain Valley, with the bulk of
candidates’ voter outreach efforts taking place in Garden Grove and Santa Ana. The special
election is a winner take all, with no runoff. The highest vote getter will join the other two new
members of the Board of Supervisors, Michelle Steel, and Lisa Bartlett. On January 13, the
Board held elections and Supervisor Spitzer was unanimously elected to Chairman, and
Supervisor Bartlett was unanimously voted to Vice Chair.
The second special election is to fill the vacancy in the 37th Senate District, previously held
by now Congresswoman Walters. Former Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach and
Assembly Member Don Wagner are the only two candidates, as of the writing of this report,
who have announced their candidacy. The special election for the 37th Senate District, which
comprises the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Beach, and portions of
Huntington Beach, with the primary to be held on March 17, 2015. The primary election will
determine who takes the seat if one candidate receives 50 percent of the vote plus 1. If a
third candidate enters the race, and no candidate receives 50 percent plus 1, then a general
election top two runoff will be held on May 19, 2015.
OCWD Monthly Report
5
4
Budgeted: N/A
Cost Estimate: N/A
Funding Source: N/A
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
POLICY ISSUE:
2015 OCWD LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
SUMMARY
Orange County Water District (OCWD; the District) staff and the District’s federal and state
legislative consultants have created a 2015 Legislative Platform.
Attachment. 2015 OCWD Legislative Platform
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Approve the 2015 OCWD Legislative Platform.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
2015 OCWD LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
The OCWD 2015 Legislative Platform is a summary of District goals, key issues and policy
positions. This legislative platform provides guidance to the Board President and General
Manager when they evaluate proposed legislation in between regularly scheduled
Communications/Legislative Affairs (Comm/Leg) Committee and Board meetings that may
affect the District, its member agencies, or regional water management and use.
Legislation that meets or fails to meet, the principles set forth in the guidelines may be
supported or opposed by OCWD staff and consultants accordingly.
Pending approval by the Board President and General Manager, the guidelines also allow
staff and the District’s legislative advocates to act in a timely fashion in between Board
meetings on issues that are clearly within the guidelines. Such actions are then reported to
the Board during the next regular monthly Comm/Leg meeting or Board meeting.
The legislative team, in conjunction with the Board, may take appropriate action consistent
with the legislative platform, including, but not limited to, drafting letters, lobbying legislators
and staff, engaging in legislative work groups, and drafting bills.
Policies adopted by the Board subsequently to the adoption of the annual legislative
platform will be added to this document accordingly.
1
2
2015
LE
EGISSLAT
TIVE
EPLA
ATF
FORM
M
Introduction
The Orange County Water District (District) works to influence legislation and funding in
Sacramento and Washington, D.C. to ensure Orange County’s water basin is protected
and supports a reliable, affordable, and safe water supply for the 2.4 million people that
it serves.
Maintaining an active presence in the government arena is a vital part of what the
District does to forge and maintain long-term, positive and proactive relationships with
legislative offices, support water supplies from the State Water Project and Colorado
River, to expand water reuse, enable the development of new water supplies, expand
the use of new technologies, and to promote water conservation.
Purpose
The District’s legislative platform reflects policy positions adopted by the Board of
Directors in 2015. Legislation of interest to the District is brought before the Board’s
Communication and Legislative Committee (Comm/Leg) for consideration. It is also the
primary committee in which the staff recommends action on bills. Additionally, ideas for
new legislation are presented to the Board for action when the District or member
agencies are seeking sponsorship of a bill. Recommended action items from the
Comm/Leg Committee then go to the full board at Board meetings.
However, during the legislative session the timing of votes on a bill and/or deadlines to
draft legislation may not coincide with the Comm/Leg meeting schedule for formal board
positions on a particular bill. Legislation that needs to be acted upon in between board
meetings will be taken to the Board President and General Manager for guidance in
advance of any position being taken by staff or District consultants.
This legislative platform provides guidance to the Board President and General
Manager when they evaluate proposed legislation that may affect the District, its
member agencies, or regional water management and use. Legislation that meets or
fails to meet, the principles set forth in the guidelines may be supported or opposed
accordingly. Pending approval by the Board President and General Manager, the
guidelines also allow staff and the District’s legislative advocates to act in a timely
fashion in between Board meetings on issues that are clearly within the guidelines.
Such actions are then reported to the Board during the next regular monthly Comm/Leg
meeting or Board meeting.
The 2015 legislative platform is a summary of District goals, key issues and policy
positions. The following legislative policies have been developed by District staff and
legislative advocates in consideration of District’s member agencies and policy needs.
These Board-approved policies serve as District’s official positions of support or
opposition on issues of importance to the agency. The legislative plan is a dynamic
document, which will be adopted annually and changes to meet the needs of the Board.
1 Policies adopted by the Board subsequently to the adoption of the annual legislative
platform will be added to this document.
The legislative team, in conjunction with the Board, may take appropriate action
consistent with the legislative platform, including, but not limited to, drafting letters,
lobbying legislators and staff, engaging in legislative work groups, and drafting bills.
Procedure for Taking Positions on Bills
1. Staff will track bills of greatest interest to OCWD, particularly those that fall within
the goals and objectives identified by the Board of Directors. Staff will monitor
bills being watched by similar agencies in Orange County as well as state,
federal and national associations such as the California Special Districts
Association (CSDA) National Association of California Water Agencies
(NACWA), Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and WateReuse
(WRA).
2. For those bills that are being tracked, where there is clear policy direction stated
in the Board- adopted legislative platform or adopted goals, staff can send letters
and give direction to the lobbyists to advocate that position.
3. When a bill does not fall within the scope of the legislative plan or is a politically
controversial issue, staff will seek direction from the Board President, General
Manager, and if the issue is not time critical the Communications and Legislative
Committee.
4. If a bill does not fall within the scope of the legislative platform, but the California
Association of Water Agencies (ACWA) or WateReuse has an adopted position,
staff will inform the Board President and General Manager about the
organization’s position for approval to follow the organizations position, but must
inform the Communications and Legislative Committee of such action at the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
5. All bills that are of potential interest or concern to the District are monitored by
staff and legislative advocates, as reflected on the monthly bill matrix provided to
the Board. If any of those measures are amended, they are re-evaluated to
determine if a formal position should be recommended for Board consideration.
Bill Positions Considered by District Board of Directors
The following represent active bill positions that may be recommended by District staff
for consideration by the District’s Board in providing guidance to staff and legislative
advocates. Once adopted by the Board of Directors, the bill position will be
communicated with the author of the legislation and may be communicated with other
legislators, legislative staff, the Administration, water agencies, and the public.
2 Advocacy strategies and activities will be directed toward implementation of the Board’s
policies through advancement of the District adopted bill position.

SUPPORT: This position reflects District’s interest to see the legislation become
law. District staff and legislative advocates will work for passage of the bill in its
present form.

SUPPORT IF AMENDED: This is an affirmative position that connotes
conditional support for a measure, but only if it is amended to incorporate specific
amendments approved by District Board. Water District staff and legislative
advocates will not advocate in support of the legislation unless it is amended as
requested by the District.

WATCH: Take no action but monitor the bill during the legislative process, to see
if any amendments are added that may change District’s position.

OPPOSE: This position reflects the District’s interest to defeat the legislation.
Water District staff and legislative advocates will work for defeat of the measure
in its present form, and will not pursue amendments to address the measure’s
shortcomings.

OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED: This position reflects the District’s interest to
defeat the legislation, but only if it is not amended to incorporate specific
amendments approved by the District’s Board. Water District staff and legislative
advocates will not advocate in opposition of the legislation if it is amended as
requested by the District.
3 LEGISLATIVETEAM
District Staff
Michael Markus, General Manager
(714) 378-3305
[email protected]
Greg Woodside, Executive Director,
Planning and Natural Resources
(714) 378-3275
[email protected]
Eleanor Torres, Director of Public Affairs
(714) 378-3268
[email protected]
Alicia Dunkin, Legislative Affairs Liaison*
(714) 378-8232
[email protected]
Adam Hutchinson, Recharge Planning Manager (714) 378-3214
[email protected]
Federal Lobbying Team
Eric Sapirstein, President of ENS Resources
(202) 466-3755
[email protected]
James F. McConnell
(202) 223-2451
[email protected]
State Lobbying Team – Townsend Public Affairs
Christopher Townsend
(949) 399-9050
[email protected]
Heather Stratman
(949) 399-9050
[email protected]
Casey Elliott
(916) 447-4086
[email protected]
Cori Williams
(949) 399-9050
[email protected]
*Main point of contact
4 LEGISLATIVEDELEGATION
Orange County State Senate
Bob Huff
29th Senate District
http://huff.cssrc.us
Janet Nguyen
http://district34.cssrc.us
Tony Mendoza
32nd Senate District
http://sd32.senate.ca.gov
Patricia Bates
http://district36.cssrc.us
*37th District Vacant
Orange County State Assembly
Ling Ling Chang
55th Assembly District
https://ad55.assemblygop.com
Travis Allen
72nd Assembly District
Young Kim
http://ad65.asmrc.org
William Brough
73rd Assembly District
http://ad73.asmrc.org
Donald Wagner
Matthew Harper
5 Tom Daly
http://asmdc.org/members/a69
Orange County Supervisors
Todd Spitzer
Board Chairman
3rd District
http://ocgov.com/gov/bos/3
Michelle Steel
2nd District
Lisa Bartlett
Vice Chair
5th District
Shawn Nelson
4th District
*1st District Vacant
United States Senate
Diane Feinstein
State of California
www.feinstein.senate.gov/public
Barbara Boxer
State of California
www.boxer.senate.gov
United States House of Representatives
Linda Sanchez
38th District
http://lindasanchez.house.gov
Alan Lowenthal
47th District
http://lowenthal.house.gov
6 Ed Royce
39th District
http://royce.house.gov
Dana Rohrabacher
48th District
http://rohrabacher.house.gov
Mimi Walters
45th District
https://walters.house.gov
Darrell Issa
49th District
http://issa.house.gov
Loretta Sanchez
46th District
http://lorettasanchez.house.gov
7 LEGISLATIVEPOLICIES
Groundwater
1. Legislation should not interfere with the authority of governance of adjudicated
and special act basins.
2. Existing laws and court/agency decisions that effectively govern groundwater
production and recharge should not be disturbed. The rights of parties to take
water pursuant to prior court decisions, decision of the State Water Resources
Control Board, or inter-agency agreements must be protected, and existing legal
obligations imposed on parties should remain enforceable.
3. Support legislation that modernizes CERCLA and/or leads to the clean-up of
toxic chemical contamination in groundwater.
4. Existing groundwater basin management boundaries created through statute or
court decision should not be modified, and new groundwater management areas
should not be carved out of existing groundwater management plan areas
without the approval of the affected groundwater management agency (ies).
Similarly, where a statute or a court decree has authorized an entity to manage a
groundwater basin, legislation should not create or empower other local entities
with duplicative or overlapping authority.
5. Local agencies are in the best position to implement sustainable groundwater
management. Groundwater management can best be accomplished at the local
level - by agencies that have the technical expertise and existing or newlygranted authority to ensure aquifer health is maintained and competing uses
balanced.
6. Any definition of sustainable groundwater management should allow
groundwater managers, including the District, sufficient flexibility to manage
groundwater, recognizing the following:
a. Sustainability varies as a function of local hydrogeologic conditions,
water supply availability, and historic groundwater utilization.
b. Sustainable groundwater management can include periods when
groundwater withdrawals exceed recharge as long as it causes no longterm negative impacts and there is a commitment to balance pumping
over time with natural or artificial replenishment.
8 7. Managed aquifer recharge is a key tool that allows for sustainable groundwater
management. As such, groundwater recharge should be recognized as a
beneficial use of the water supplies of the state.
Prado Dam and Wetlands
8. Support projects and policies that enhance stormwater capture, sediment
management, water conservation, and ecosystem restoration.
Environment
9. Support legislation to streamline and modernize CEQA.
10. Protect OCWD’s rights to seek cost recovery for groundwater clean-up projects
that are compliant with the National Contingency Plan.
Supply
11. Support legislation that adds to the reliability and security of water supplies to
Orange County.
12. Protect the quality of surface and groundwater, and support entities to meet state
and federal water quality standards.
13. Encourage water conservation and climate-based landscape development,
where appropriate.
14. Expand water recycling, potable reuse, groundwater recharge, storage, brackish
and ocean water desalination, and surface water development.
15. Recognize that recycled water is a resource.
16. Authorize local government agencies to regulate the discharge of contaminants
to the sewer collection system that may adversely affect water recycling and
reuse.
17. Reduce regulatory burdens on water recycling and ocean or brackish water
desalination projects.
18. Authorize, promote, and provide incentives for indirect and direct potable reuse
projects.
19. Allow for local governmental agencies to provide input to state-wide water
resource planning decisions.
20. Encourage and facilitate voluntary water transfers.
9 Energy
21. Encourage energy efficiency through incentives, funding, and other assistance to
facilitate water use efficiency partnerships with the energy sector.
Distribution of Proposition 1 Bond Funds
22. Support adequate funding to expand statewide and/or regional above ground
and/or below ground water storage, newly created water supplies through water
recycling/reuse, brackish water desalination and seawater desalination, storm
water capture, and remediation of groundwater contamination.
23. Support regional projects through the Integrated Regional Water Management
Planning (IRWMP) process.
24. Funding for any Delta restoration project shall support the co-equal goals of
water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration.
25. Bond proceeds should be distributed to beneficial projects throughout the State
in an equitable, balanced and reasonable manner;
26. Any water infrastructure financing measure should include specific criteria which
must be met before a project obtains funding. The specific criteria should include
cost-effectiveness, a project proponent’s ability to implement the project, specific
timelines for project implementation and a high level of measureable benefit;
27. Bond proceeds should be leveraged to the maximum extent possible utilizing
local or federal matching funds. Projects funded with a higher percentage of nonstate funds should be given priority; and
28. The allocation of bond funds should be handled within existing State resources to
minimize bond administration costs.
Fiscal
29. No unfunded mandates. For newly mandated Federal and State costs or
regulatory actions, support legislation that requires the federal and/or state
governments to provide reimbursement to local governments.
30. Protects special district ad valorem tax revenues.
Local
31. Annexations would be cost neutral to other producers.
10 FEDERALTACTICS
STATEPRIORITIES

Secure state funding, including Proposition 1, for water reliability projects,
including:
o North Basin Groundwater Protection Project
o South Basin Groundwater Protection Project
o Groundwater Replenishment System: Final Expansion
o Mid-Basin Injection Project

Work with the current administration, legislators and their staff, key stakeholders,
and statewide associations to advocate for OCWD’s desired goals. Amend,
support and/or oppose legislation that may impact OCWD and its operations.

Continue to monitor the state budget and budget trailer bills.

Monitor clean-up bills related to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act,
and bills that could affect or hinder OCWD’s ability to collect groundwater cleanup costs.

Support efforts to competitively seek funding for projects that meet the state’s
goals of expanded water supply and reduces ecosystem impacts to the Delta or
Delta tributaries.

Support development of ACWA’s legislative priorities.

Collaborate and meet with legislative work groups and committees, including but
not limited to ACWA, WRA, CSDA, GRA, OCCOG, ACCOC, ISDOC, SAWPA,
and MET
FEDERAL PRIORITIES

Support the Prado Dam Ecosystem Project Feasibility Study.

Support the development of emergency and long-term drought legislation and
provisions to extend assistance to water infrastructure needs, including
desalination and water reuse.
11 
Support at least $1.0 billion in annual federal appropriations to drinking water
State Revolving Fund (SRF).

Support legislation to revise the SRF allocation formula to reflect appropriate and
fair share of funding to California.

Oppose restrictions on tax-exempt financing for public infrastructure.

Seek Federal funding for projects, including infrastructure funding, water
recycling, ecosystem restoration, for OCWD’s Water Education Festival, and
water-energy efficiency projects.

Support development of ACWA’s legislative priorities.

Work with Congress to develop cost effective mandates to reduce compliance
costs.

Collaborate and meet with federal legislative work groups and committees.
12 5
Budgeted: N/A
Cost Estimate: N/A
Funding Source: N/A
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
POLICY ISSUE:
OCWD PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR WATER BOND AND OTHER
FUNDING
SUMMARY
At the January 2015 Communication/Legislative Affairs Liaison Committee meeting, the
Committee directed OCWD staff to prepare a list of projects from the long-term facilities
plan that could potentially qualify for grant funding, and to recommend prioritizing projects
for which the District should seek Proposition 1, Water Bond funding.
Attachments
 Priority District Projects for Water Bond and Other Funding: Staff Recommendation
 Priority District Projects for Water Bond and Other Funding: Total Project List
 Federal Funding Opportunities for District Projects (Ferguson Group)
 Federal Funding Opportunities for District Projects (Eric Sapirstein ENS Resources)
 Water Bond Potential Program Guidelines (Townsend Public Affairs)
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Approve OCWD Priority Projects for 2015 Water
Bond and Other Funding Opportunities.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
WATER BOND AND OTHER FUNDING
Per the Committee’s direction, staff updated a list of projects the District is considering to
help create reliable, high quality water supplies for north and central Orange County.
Staff identified 18 possible projects that could qualify for grant funding. (See Total Project
List.)
Staff and Townsend Public Affairs (TPA) reviewed past state water funding opportunities to
evaluate potential funding caps and matches for the current Water Bond funding since the
guidelines and maximum funding will be similar to past rounds.
1
Staff and TPA reviewed the total project list and prioritized projects that would be most like
to rate high in the competitive funding process. Factors that contribute to a successful
application include, but are not limited to, cost, quantity of additional water
created/produced; if projects are shovel ready, and if there is overall support from elected
officials and community leaders.
The District’s federal consultants also provided input on which projects could possibly
qualify for federal funding and/or authorization programs and have provided
recommendations on the various agencies and committees the District should approach
about its projects. (See attachments.)
Based on consultation with its state and federal legislative consultants, staff recommends
the District prioritize the following four projects to seek Water Bond and other funding:

GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM (GWRS) FINAL EXPANSION

MID-BASIN INJECTION PROJECT

NORTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT: CONTAMINATION
CLEAN-UP/PROTECT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

SOUTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT: CONTAMINATION
CLEAN-UP/PROTECT DRINING WATER SUPPLY
Details regarding each priority project are attached for the Committee’s review.
2
OCW
WD Prio
ority Pro
ojects for Watter Bond
d, Propo
osition 11 Fundingg in 2015 Chapter 9. W
Water Recyccling $725 m
million Funding Sco
ope: Broad range of pote
ential projeccts – includinng desalination and water quality Funding req
quires 50% n
non‐State cost‐share (lesss for disadvvantaged com
mmunities) 1.
1 GROUNDWATER R
REPLENISH
HMENT SYSSTEM (GW
WRS) FINALL million gallons per day of new
w drinking EXPANSSION: Addittional 20 m
water su
upply 




OCWD haas proven the
e ability to ssuccessfully ccomplete th
his proposed
d project as the existin
ng facility prroduces 100 million galloons per day or 103,000 aacre‐feet peer year, the equivalent o
of a year’s su
upply of watter for nearlyy 850,000 peeople. Project expands the GW RS by 21,0000 acre‐feet, for a total The Final Expansion P
plant capaacity of 124,,000 acre‐feet per year.
Provides aadditional highly purified recycled w
water for thee groundwatter basin. When com
mpleted the GWRS plant will producce the equivvalent of onee year’s water sup
pply for overr one million
n people. Constructtion beginnin
ng in June 20
018 and com
mpleted by D
December 20
021 at an estimated
d cost of $15
50 million. Seeking approximately $50 millio
on in grant fuunding of Water Bond fu
unds, with 2/3 OCWD
D match fun
nding. 2.
2 MID‐BASIN INJECTTION PROJJECT: Addittional 10 m
million gallons per day of n
new drinkin
ng water ssupply 






This proje
ect supports the GWRS FFinal Expans ion The groun
ndwater bassin functionss as an unde rground reseervoir. Water is stored and pump
ped when ne
eeded for drrinking wateer. Adding m
more water to the basin increases the availablle supply and helps duri ng droughtss. Injection wells will siggnificantly in
ncrease the aamount of ggroundwaterr replenishment supplyy that can be
e added to thhe groundw
water basin. Pipeline aand 4 large in
njection wells will be ca pable of injeecting up to 10 million gallons pe
er day of GW
WRS water directly into tthe main aqu
uifer. Provides aa means of p
putting GWR
RS water intoo the ground
dwater basin
n and fully utilizing that water. Constructtion to begin
n in April 201
17 at compleeted by Deceember 2019
9 an estimated
d cost of $25
on in grant fuunding, and 50% match funding will be from O
OCWD. Page 1 off 2
Chapter 10. Groundwater Sustainability $900 million Funding Scope: Of the $900 million, $100 million is for groundwater sustainability planning & projects; $800 million is for Groundwater cleanup for drinking water sources Funding requires 50% non‐State cost‐share (less for disadvantaged communities) 3. NORTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT: CONTAMINATION CLEAN‐UP/PROTECT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY 



Contaminated groundwater forced the closure of four drinking water wells. If left uncontained, the plume will continue to spread and invade the principal drinking water supply for north and central Orange County and potentially impact more drinking water wells. Project objective is to contain and reduce concentrations within a 5‐mile plume of contaminated groundwater consisting of volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), which include trichloroethylene (TCE). Cleanup is typically achieved through the extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater. The contamination is a result of past manufacturing practices. Remedial investigation and feasibility studies are underway and expected to be completed in 2015. Following regulatory agency review and public input on a proposed remedy, project design and construction may begin in 2017 at an estimated cost range of $30 million – 50 million. Seeking approximately $20 million in grant funding, with 50% OCWD match funding. 4. SOUTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT: CONTAMINATION CLEAN‐UP/PROTECT DRINING WATER SUPPLY 



Industrial chemicals and other hazardous materials have contaminated an area in the southern portion of the groundwater basin. Investigation is on‐going and a clean‐up project is needed to protect this important water supply. Project objective is to contain and reduce concentrations within a 2‐mile plume of contaminated groundwater consisting of VOC’s, which include TCE. Cleanup is typically undertaken by extracting and treating the contaminated groundwater. The contamination is a result of past manufacturing practices. Investigation and remedial alternatives evaluation are underway and expected to be completed by December 2016. Following regulatory agency review and public input on a proposed remedy, project construction may begin in December 2017 at an estimated cost range of $20 million ‐ $30 million. Seeking approximately $10 million in grant funding, with 50% OCWD match funding. Page 2 of 2
TOTA
AL PROJEECT LIST FROM TTHE OCWD LONG‐TTERM FA
ACILITY P
PLAN (For Po
otential Fundingg with Proposition 1 Fun
nds) Chapter 9. W
Water Recycling $725 m
million Funding Sco
ope: Broad range of pote
ential projeccts – includinng desalination and water quality Funding req
quires 50% n
non‐State cost‐share (lesss for disadvvantaged com
mmunities) 1.
1 GROUNDWATER R
REPLENISH
HMENT SYSSTEM (GW
WRS) FINALL EXPANSSION: Addittional 20 m
million gallons per day of new
w drinking water su
upply 




OCWD haas proven the
e ability to ssuccessfully ccomplete th
his proposed
d project as the existin
ng facility prroduces 100 million galloons per day or 103,000 aacre‐feet peer year, the equivalent o
of a year’s su
upply of watter for nearlyy 850,000 peeople. Project expands the GW RS by 21,0000 acre‐feet, for a total The Final Expansion P
plant capaacity of 124,,000 acre‐feet per year.
Provides aadditional highly purified recycled w
water for thee groundwatter basin. When com
mpleted the GWRS plant will producce the equivvalent of onee year’s water sup
pply for overr one million
n people. Constructtion beginnin
ng in June 20
018 and com
mpleted by D
December 20
021 at an estimated
d cost of $15
on in grant fuunding of Water Bond fu
unds, with D match fun
nding. 2/3 OWCD
2.
2 MID‐BASIN INJECTTION PROJJECT: Addittional 10 m
million gallons per day of n
new drinkin
ng water ssupply 



This proje
ect supports the GWRS FFinal Expans ion The groun
ndwater bassin functionss as an unde rground reseervoir. Water is stored and pump
ped when ne
eeded for drrinking wateer. Adding m
more water to the basin increases the availablle supply and helps duri ng droughtss. ncrease the aamount of ggroundwaterr Injection wells will siggnificantly in
replenishment supplyy that can be
e added to thhe groundw
water basin. njection wells will be ca pable of injeecting up to 10 million Pipeline aand 4 large in
gallons pe
er day of GW
WRS water directly into tthe main aqu
uifer. Page 1 off 5



Provides a means of putting GWRS water into the groundwater basin and fully utilizing that water. Construction to begin in April 2017 at completed by December 2019 an estimated cost of $25 million. Seeking approximately $10 million in grant funding, and 50% match funding will be from OCWD. 3. HUNTINGTON BEACH OCEAN DESALINATION PROJECT 

The Huntington Beach Desalination Plant will produce approximately 56,000 acre‐feet per year of new water supply for Orange County The District may construct the water supply distribution system at a cost of $90 million, beginning in June 2017 and completed in December 2018. Chapter 10. Groundwater Sustainability $900 million Funding Scope: Of the $900 million, $100 million is for groundwater sustainability planning & projects; $800 million is for Groundwater cleanup for drinking water sources Funding requires 50% non‐State cost‐share (less for disadvantaged communities) 4. NORTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT: CONTAMINATION CLEAN‐UP/PROTECT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY 



Contaminated groundwater forced the closure of four drinking water wells. If left uncontained, the plume will continue to spread and invade the principal drinking water supply for north and central Orange County and potentially impact more drinking water wells. Project objective is to contain and reduce concentrations within a 5‐mile plume of contaminated groundwater consisting of volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), which include trichloroethylene (TCE). Cleanup is typically achieved through the extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater. The contamination is a result of past manufacturing practices. Remedial investigation and feasibility studies are underway and expected to be completed in 2015. Following regulatory agency review and public input on a proposed remedy, project design and construction may begin in 2017 at an estimated cost range of $30 million – 50 million. Seeking approximately $20 million in grant funding, with 50% OCWD match funding. 5. SOUTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT: CONTAMINATION CLEAN‐UP/PROTECT DRINING WATER SUPPLY 

Industrial chemicals and other hazardous materials have contaminated an area in the southern portion of the groundwater basin. Investigation is on‐going and a clean‐up project is needed to protect this important water supply. Project objective is to contain and reduce concentrations within a 2‐mile plume of contaminated groundwater consisting of VOC’s, which include TCE. Cleanup is Page 2 of 5


typically undertaken by extracting and treating the contaminated groundwater. The contamination is a result of past manufacturing practices. Investigation and remedial alternatives evaluation are underway and expected to be completed by December 2016. Following regulatory agency review and public input on a proposed remedy, project construction may begin in December 2017 at an estimated cost range of $20 million ‐ $30 million. Seeking approximately $10 million in grant funding, with 50% OCWD match funding. OTHER LONG‐TERM FACILITY PROJECTS INCLUDE: (Funding may be from multiple chapters of the bond bill and other funding sources) 6. GWRS URBAN RUNOFF DIVERSION 



Route urban runoff from storm drains in summer months to OCSD to increase supply to GWRS Would replace some declining wastewater flows to OCSD plant Several small diversion connections would be needed Schedule: preparation of feasibility study would be needed to develop project concept 7. Alamitos Barrier Extension (Landing Hill) 



Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier built in 1964 to keep salt water from intruding into the groundwater basin. Salt water is seeping around the barrier into groundwater. Expansion of Alamitos Barrier area involves construction of 6‐8 injection wells and water supply pipelines to deliver water to supply wells Investigation phase to continue until 2017. Construction begins in 2018. Estimated cost to be determined. 8. Sunset Gap Barrier/Desalter Project 




An area of the groundwater basin has already been impacted by salinity and this groundwater is moving into areas near existing drinking water wells Extraction wells will intercept the saline groundwater; a treatment plant and pipelines will be built to treat water and convey for use as a potable supply or to inject at the nearby Alamitos Barrier Saline water will be hydraulically contained to protect fresh water zones Investigation phase to begin in 2015 with construction of monitoring wells to evaluate extent of saline groundwater. Project to be completed within one year from completion of monitoring well construction. Estimated cost to be determined. Page 3 of 5
9. PRADO SEDIMENT PROJECT TO INCREASE WATER SUPPLY 





The Prado Dam is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect Orange County from flooding from the Santa Ana River. OCWD temporarily stores stormwater behind the dam so that water released into the river below the dam can be recharged to the groundwater basin to be used for Orange County’s water supply. Sediments in river water are building up behind the dam causing a loss of storage capacity for river flows. This project will move sediment from behind the dam into the Santa Ana River below the dam to restore water storage capacity, extend the lifetime of the Prado Dam, and provide the sand‐starved river with sediment that becomes a source of beach replenishment. Project design to be completed in 2016 with project completion by 2018‐2020. Estimated cost to be determined. 10. LA PALMA BASIN  Construct new basin to increase recharge capacity by an estimated 31,00 acre‐
feet per year 11. LOWER SANTIAGO CREEK RECHARGE 

Existing pipeline would be expanded to provide recharge water supply to the lower reach of Santiago Creek Project would provide additional recharge capacity of ranging from 90‐270 acre‐
feet per year 12. WEST ORANGE COUNTY ENHANCED PUMPING 
Construct new production wells and a distribution pipeline in West Orange County to increase production of groundwater by up to 10,000 acre‐feet per year 13.POWER GENERATION IN FOUNTAIN VALLEY 

Construct a natural gas power plant in Fountain Valley to provide power to the Ground Water Recharge System plant Objective is to reduce energy costs and improve grid reliability through use of distributed generation 14. SARI FLOW TREATMENT PLANT AT BALL ROAD BASIN
 Build facilities to allow separation of brine flows from the upper watershed from domestic wastewater generated in Orange County  Allows wastewater treated by OCSD that becomes source water for GWRS to exclude the brine flow Page 4 of 5

Options include scalping plant in Anaheim, diversion of domestic wastewater to other OCSD trunklines, and construction of separate parallel pipeline 15. PURCHASE UPPER WATERSHED WASTEWATER
 Negotiate and secure agreements with upper basin wastewater dischargers for OCWD to purchase a set volume of wastewater  Discharges would guarantee a minimum amount of wastewater discharged to the Santa Ana River on annual basis to increase baseflows reaching Prado Dam 16. RECOVERY OF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION LOSS IN PRADO BASIN
 Install and operate pumping well in or above Prado Basin to recover water lost by evapotranspiration in the Prado Basin in accordance with a provision of the 1969 judgment 17. ENHANCED RECHARGE IN SAR BELOW BALL ROAD
 Investigate feasibility of using the river channel below Ball Road to Freeway 22 for percolation without risking losing water to the ocean  Project would increase stormwater capture and increase ability to recharge imported water 18. SUBSURFACE RECHARGE AND COLLECTION SYSTEM IN OFFRIVER AND FIVE COVES
 Install subsurface recharge galleries to increase groundwater recharge  Perforated pipes to be buried in gravel‐filled trench with water conveyed through pipelines Page 5 of 5
Funding
Opportunities
for Orange
County Water
Projects
Orange County, CA
January 28, 2015
1
Introduction
The Ferguson Group (TFG) has compiled a list of federal water programs and
grant funding opportunities which Orange County, California would be eligible to
apply for funding for County projects. This funding research project had a short
two-day turnaround. TFG welcomes the opportunity to continue researching
funding opportunities should the County need additional information on funding
options for specific projects.
Grant and loan program descriptions include Federal and State programs.
The funding matrix on pages 3-8 outlines funding opportunities for each project.
Pages 9-15 includes a description of the grant or loan, its eligible uses, its
solicitation period, and when available a link to the last Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA).
TFG has included at the end of this document information regarding the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program. Due to the limited time frame to
produce this report, TFG has not been able to fully evaluate the eligibility of
Orange County projects for this program.
Similarly, we have provided information on the State’s Integrated Regional
Water Management Grants – Planning and Implementation program. In order to
receive implementation funds through this program an entity will need to have
engaged in the Planning component. Because the Orange County projects listed
above are construction projects, this program may not be useful as a funding
source. However, this program may be useful for future projects. Integrated
Regional Water Management is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of
water resources in a region. The program crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and
political boundaries; involves multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and
groups; and attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the
entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions.
TFG appreciates the opportunity to provide this funding guide to Orange
County and look forward to continuing this engagement.
2
Project Funding Opportunities Matrix
Project Name
Project Description
Groundwater
Replenishment System
(GWRS) Final Expansion:
New Local, Reliable
Water Supply
-Expands GWRS by
27,000 acre-feet for
total plan capacity of
130,000 acre-feet per
year.
- Provides additional
highly purified
recycled water for the
groundwater basin.
- Will produce enough
water to supply over 1
million people
annually.
-Route urban runoff
from storm drains in
summer months to
Orange County
Sanitation District
(OCSD) to increase
GWRS supply.
-Replace some
wastewater flows to
OCSD plant.
-Needs several small
diversion connections.
-Feasibility study
needed to develop
project concept.
GWRS Urban Runoff
Diversion
Cost
Status
$150 million Construction to begin June
2018. Estimated completion
of December 2020.
TBD
Feasibility study needed.
3
Possible Funding
Program
Agency
1. California Water
CA Department of
Bond (Prop. 1)
Water Resources
2. WaterSMART:
Title XVI Water
Reclamation and
Reuse Program
U.S. Department of
Interior – Bureau of
Reclamation
1. California
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
Program (319)
CA Environmental
Protection Agency
2. California Clean
Water State
Revolving Fund
CA Department of
Water Resources
Mid-Basin Injection
Project: Drought
Protection/Drinking
Water Supply
-Insert pipeline and 5
large injections wells
capable of injecting up
to 5 million gallons per
day of GWRS water
directly into the main
aquifer.
-Provides a means of
putting GWRS water
into the groundwater
basin (to act as an
underground
reservoir)
-Provides source of
water during
droughts.
Huntington Beach Ocean -Construct ocean
Desalination Plant
desalination plant to
produce
approximately 56,000
acre-feet per year of
new water supply for
Orange County.
-Water supply
distribution system to
be constructed.
$20 million.
Seeking $10
million in
grant
funding
(50% match
with
OCWD).
Construction to begin July
2016.
$888 million TBD
4
1. California Drinking CA Environmental
Water State
Protection Agency
Revolving Fund
2. California Water
Bond (Prop. 1)
CA Department of
Water Resources
3. WaterSMART:
Title XVI Water
Reclamation and
Reuse Program
U.S. Department of
Reclamation
California Clean Water
State Revolving Fund
CA Environmental
Protection Agency
North Basin
Groundwater Protection
Project: Contamination
Clean-Up/Protect
Drinking Water Supply
South Basin
Groundwater Protection
Project: Contamination
Clean-Up/Protect
Drinking Water Supply
-Project will install
pipeline, equip 6
extraction wells and 4
million gallon-per-day
treatment facility.
-Will contain and clean
a 5-mile plume of
contaminated
groundwater
consisting of volatile
organic compounds (a
result of past
manufacturing
practices).
-Project will install
pipeline, extraction
wells and treatment
facilities.
-Will contain and clean
a 2-mile plume of
contaminated
groundwater
consisting of volatile
organic compounds (a
result of past
manufacturing
practices).
$40 million.
Seeking $20
million in
grant
funding.
TBD
TBD
TBD
5
1. California Water
Bond (Prop. 1)
CA Department of
Water Resources
2. California Clean
Water State
Revolving Fund
CA Environmental
Protection Agency
1. California Water
Bond (Prop. 1)
CA Department of
Water Resources
2. California Clean
Water State
Revolving Fund
CA Environmental
Protection Agency
3. Proposition 84
Section 75025 –
Prevention and
Reduction of
Groundwater
Contamination
CA Department of
Public Health
Seawater Intrusion
Control Projects to
Protect Water
Quality/Supply/Basin
Management
Project #1:
Alamitos Barrier
Extension (Landing
Hill)
Project #2: Sunset
Gap
Barrier/Desalter
Project
-Expand existing
TBD
Alamitos Intrusion
Barrier (built in 1964),
which includes
construction of 6-8
injection wells and
water supply pipelines
to deliver water to
supply wells.
-Investigation phase
continues until 2017.
Construction to begin
in 2018. Cost
unknown.
-Construct extraction
TBD
wells, a treatment
plant, and pipelines to
treat saline
groundwater for use
as a potable supply or
to inject at the
Alamitos Barrier.
-Hydraulically contain
saline water to protect
fresh water zones.
Investigation phase until
2017. Construction to begin
2018.
WaterSMART:
Title XVI Water
Reclamation
and Reuse
Program
Investigation to begin 2015.
Project to be completed
within 1 year from
completion of monitoring
well construction.
California Clean Water
State Revolving Fund
6
U.S. Department of
Reclamation
CA Environmental
Protection Agency
Prado Sediment Project
to Increase Water
Supply
Enhanced Groundwater
Recharge Projects
Project #1: La
Palma Basin
-Investigation phase to
begin 2015 with
construction of
monitoring wells to
evaluate extend of
saline groundwater.
-Project will move
TBD
sediment from behind
the Prado Dam into
the Santa Ana River to
restore water storage
capacity, extend the
lifetime of the Dam,
and provide river with
sediment that
becomes a source of
beach replenishment.
-Construct new basin
to increase recharge
capacity.
TBD
Design to be completed in
2016. Project completed by
2018-2020.
TBD
1. WaterSMART: Title U.S. Department of
XVI Water
Reclamation and
Reclamation
Reuse Program
7
2. WaterSMART:
Water and Energy
Efficiency Grants
U.S. Department of
Reclamation
3. California Water
Bond (Prop. 1)
CA Department of
Water Resources
Project #2: Lower
Santiago Creek
Recharge
Power Generation in
Fountain Valley
-Expand existing
pipeline to provide
recharge water supply
to the lower Santiago
Creek.
-Provide additional
recharge capacity of
up to 7,000 acre-feet
per year.
-Construct new
production wells and
distribution pipeline in
West Orange County
to increase production
of groundwater by up
to 5,000 acre-feet per
year.
-Construct a natural
gas power plant in
Fountain Valley to
provide power to the
Ground Water
Recharge System
plant.
-Reduce energy costs
and improve grid
reliability through use
of distributed
generation.
TBD
TBD
1. WaterSMART: Title U.S. Department of
XVI Water
Reclamation and
Reclamation
Reuse Program
2. California Water
Bond (Prop. 1)
TBD
TBD
8
CA Department of
Water Resources
California Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program (319)
Description: The Nonpoint Source Program (NPS) administers grant money it receives from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through Section 319(h) of the federal Clean Water
Act (CWA). These grant funds can be used to implement projects or programs that will help to
reduce NPS pollution. The NPS Program aims to minimize NPS pollution from land use activities
in agriculture, urban development, forestry, recreational boating and marinas, hydromodification
and wetlands. The NPS Program goal is to achieve water quality goals and maintain beneficial uses.
Eligible Applicants: Nonprofit organizations, local government agencies including special districts
(e.g., resource conservation districts or water districts), Indian Tribes, and educational
institutions are eligible to receive 319 implementation funds. State or federal agencies may
qualify if they are collaborating with local entities and are involved in watershed management or
are proposing a statewide project.
Funding Details: Annually, the California NPS Program allocates approximately $4.0 million of
CWA Section 319(h) funding. Proposals are requested through a statewide solicitation process.
The solicitation process is conducted in two phases - the Concept Proposal (CP) Phase and the
Full Proposal (FP) Phase. The application process is facilitated through the Financial Assistance
Application Submittal Tool (FAAST) operated by the State Water Resources Control Board’s
(State Water Board’s) Division of Financial Assistance. The two phase process including
development and approval of the final list of recommended funding projects by the State Water
Board Executive Director takes approximately ten months.
Solicitation: 11/10/2014-1/15/2015 (FY 2015)
Program Information: NPS
California Water Bond (Proposition 1)
Description: The passage of Proposition 1 in November, 2014 authorized $7.545 billion in general
obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater
storage, ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration, and drinking water protection. This
measure replaced the previous Proposition 43.
Eligible Applicants: Varies.
Funding Details: Specific spending proposals in the proposition include:
 $520 million to improve water quality for “beneficial use,” for reducing and preventing
drinking water contaminants, disadvantaged communities, and the State Water Pollution
Control Revolving Fund Small Community Grant Fund.
 $1.495 billion for competitive grants for multibenefit ecosystem and watershed
protection and restoration projects.
 $810 million for expenditures on, and competitive grants and loans to, integrated
regional water management plan projects.
 $2.7 billion for water storage projects, dams and reservoirs.
 $725 million for water recycling and advanced water treatment technology projects.
9

$900 million for competitive grants and loans for projects to prevent or clean up the
contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water.
 $395 million for statewide flood management projects and activities.
Solicitation: N/A
Program Information: Water Bond
California Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Description: The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) helps communities prevent
pollution of water resources to maintain their beneficial uses. The CWSRF provides belowmarket rate financing for the construction of wastewater treatment and water recycling
facilities, for implementation of nonpoint source and storm drainage pollution control solutions,
and for the development and implementation of estuary plans. A very small percentage of the
fund is distributed in the form of grants – generally less than 4% of funds distributed are grant
dollars. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to:
 Construction of publicly-owned treatment facilities:
o Wastewater treatment
o
o
o
o
o
o



Local sewers
Sewer interceptors
Water reclamation and distribution
Stormwater treatment
Combined sewers
Landfill leachate treatment
Implementation of nonpoint source (NPS) projects to address pollution associated with:
o Agriculture
o Forestry
o Urban Areas
o Marinas
o Hydromodification
o Wetlands
Development and implementation of estuary comprehensive conservation and management
plans for:
o San Francisco Bay
o Morro Bay
o Santa Monica Bay
In FY 2013/14 the CWSRF funding was distributed to the following categories of projects:
25.9% I Secondary Treatment
29.7% II Advanced Treatment
0.1% III-A Infiltration/Inflow
17.0% III-B Sewer System Rehabilitation
16.6% IV-B New Interceptors
1.5% VI Storm Sewers
9.2% X Recycled Water Distribution
10
Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants include: Any city, town, district or other public body
created under state law; a Native American tribal government or an authorized Native American
tribal organization having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes or other waste;
any designated and approved management agency under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act;
501(c)(3)’s; and National Estuary Programs.
Applicant projects must also adhere to Section 212, 319 and 320 of the U.S. Clean Water Act.
Funding Details: Funding terms:





No maximum financing limit.
Interest rate: ½ most recent State General Obligation Bond Rate at time of funding approval.
Financing Term: Up to 30 years or useful life of the project.
Repayment: Begins one year after completion of construction.
Limited principal forgiveness may also be available for some projects.
Solicitation: Rolling.
Program Information: CWSRF
California Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
Description: The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to provide below-market financing and grants to drinking water
systems to finance infrastructure improvements. Eligible projects include those that address
drinking water treatment, storage, source, transmission, distribution, and consolidation.
Planning funding for finance planning, studies, environmental review, water rate studies and
engineering costs are eligible categories. Project examples include: Construction of an ultraviolet
treatment facility; construction of pumping stations; upgrades of water treatment plants; line
replacement; and replacement of contaminated wells.
Eligible Applicants: Community water systems and nonprofit, non-community water systems.
Funding Details: The loan interest rate for 2015 is 1.663% on a 20-year loan. Public water
systems that serve small, disadvantaged communities may be eligible for 0% and 30 year loan.
Local governments must provide a 20% funding match. Construction funding is limited to $20M.
Refinancing of pre-existing drinking water loans is an eligible funding category. Disadvantaged
communities are eligible for grant funding.
Solicitation: Unknown.
Program Information: DWSRF
11
Proposition 84 Section 75025 –
Prevention and Reduction of
Groundwater Contamination
Description: Section 75025 provides funding for projects that prevent or reduce the
contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water.
Eligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and community water systems.
Funding Details: $60 million in total funding.
Solicitation: Unknown.
Program Information: Section 75025
WaterSMART: Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program
Description: The purpose of this program is to achieve a sustainable water strategy to meet the
nation's water needs by supporting projects that reclaim and reuse municipal, industrial,
domestic, or agricultural wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface water. Funds
will support planning, design, and/or construction of authorized projects. Projects should
support the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program goal of
stretching limited water supplies by reclaiming water for use in environmental restoration, fish
and wildlife, groundwater recharge, power generation, or recreation. Currently there are 17
projects located in the Bureau of Reclamation’s Southern California Area Office’s activity
boundaries.
Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are sponsors of water reclamation and reuse projects
specifically authorized for funding under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, as amended (43 U.S.C.
390h through 390h-39). Eligible applicants include: State, regional, or local authorities; Indian
tribes or tribal organizations; water conservation or conservancy districts; wastewater districts;
and rural water districts.
Funding Details: The funding agency may consider awarding more than $4 million per applicant,
and will consider significantly smaller amounts. Applicants must provide a nonfederal match of at
least 75 percent of total project costs via cash or in-kind contributions. In-kind matching
contributions may include real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property, or
the value of goods and services directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to the project or
program.
Solicitation: 12/15/2014-1/13/205 (FY 2015)
Program Information: Water Reclamation and Reuse Program
12
WaterSMART: Water and Energy
Efficiency Grants
Description: The purpose of this program is to achieve a sustainable water strategy to meet the
nation's water needs by supporting ground water conservation and energy efficiency projects.
Eligible applicants are invited to cost share with Reclamation on projects that save water,
improve energy efficiency, benefit endangered and threatened species, facilitate water markets,
and address climate-related impacts on water or prevent any water-related crisis or conflict.
Support is also available for water management improvements that complement other ongoing
efforts to address water supply sustainability, such as a completed basin study. In addition,
support is available for water delivery system improvements that will enable farmers to make
future on-farm improvements. Priority will be given to smaller on-the-ground projects; however,
support is also available for larger, phased on-the-ground projects.
Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are: States; Indian tribes; irrigation districts; water districts;
and other organizations with water or power delivery authority.
Funding Details: Maximum award amounts are as follows: Funding group I: up to $300,000 for a
project period up to two years; Funding group II: up to $1 million for a project period up to three
years. Applicants must provide a nonfederal match of at least 50 percent of the total project cost
via cash or in-kind contributions. The inclusion of additional matching contributions will receive
additional points in the evaluation process. In-kind matching contributions may include real
property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property, or the value of goods and
services directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to the project or program. Project
activities for funding group I must be completed by September 30, 2016, and project activities
for funding group II must be completed by September 30, 2017.
Solicitation: 10/30/2014 - 1/14/2015 (FY 2015)
Program Information: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Program
Description: The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) focuses on
responsible development, protection and restoration of the Nation’s water and related land
resources. Civil Works projects are implemented and operated for commercial navigation, flood
risk management, environmental restoration, hydroelectric power, recreation, and municipal
and industrial water supply. In addition to these direct Federal investments, the Civil Works
Program includes an important regulatory mission whereby the Corps regulates construction in
navigable waters and the deposition of dredged and fill material in waters of the United States,
including wetlands. The Civil Works Program also includes disaster preparedness response and
recovery missions; under the Corps own authority (Public Law 84-99). In addition, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has designated the Corps as the lead agent for public
works and engineering in support of FEMA’s Federal Response Framework (Public Law 93-288).
13
The following are USACE Continuing Authority Programs:
 Section 14 - Emergency Streambank and Shoreline Protection
 Section 103 - Beach Restoration and Shoreline Protection
 Section 107 - Small Navigation Projects
 Section 111 - Mitigation of Shoreline Erosion Damage
 Section 204 - Regional Sediment Management
 Section 205 - Flood Risk Management
 Section 206 - Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
 Section 208 – Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control
 Section 1135 - Modifications to Projects for Improvement of the Environment
The following are other Civil Works Programs:
 Planning Assistance to States Program
 Estuary Habitat Restoration Program
 Flood Plain Management Services Program
 Environmental Infrastructure Program (Section 219)
3x3x3 Rule
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (passed in the House and Senate in
May) streamlines the project review process for USACE Civil Works projects under the 3x3x3
rule, which:
(1) Limits feasibility studies to 3 years
(2) Requires that the maximum federal cost of for feasibility studies to by $3 million, and
(3) Requires the three levels of USACE (District, Division, and Headquarters) to
concurrently conduct reviews of the feasibility studies.
Large Projects
Larger Civil Works projects that do not fit under the 3x3x3 rule must go through a separate
approval process. These projects must complete the feasibility study (50 federal/50 non-federal
cost share), design (65 federal/35 non-federal cost share), and implementation (65 federal/35
non-federal cost share) with direct appropriations and authorization from Congress. The process
for large Civil Works projects is more time-intensive and costly than smaller projects that can be
approved through the 3x3x3 rule.
Eligible Applicants: Eligibility for Civil Works Programs varies; however, local government entities
are eligible for all programs.
Funding Details: Each program has different funding levels; however, all Civil Works projects
must adhere to the following USACE rules:
3x3x3 Rule
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (passed in the House and
Senate in May) streamlines the project review process for USACE Civil Works projects
under the 3x3x3 rule, which:
(1) Limits feasibility studies to 3 years
(2) Requires that the maximum federal cost of for feasibility studies to by $3 million,
and
(3) Requires the three levels of USACE (District, Division, and Headquarters) to
concurrently conduct reviews of the feasibility studies.
14
Large Projects
Larger Civil Works projects that do not fit under the 3x3x3 rule must go through a
separate approval process. These projects must complete the feasibility study (50
federal/50 non-federal cost share), design (65 federal/35 non-federal cost share), and
implementation (65 federal/35 non-federal cost share) with direct appropriations and
authorization from Congress. The process for large Civil Works projects is more timeintensive and costly than smaller projects that can be approved through the 3x3x3 rule.
Solicitation: Rolling.
Program Information: Civil Works
Integrated Regional Water
Management Grants – Planning and
Implementation
In order to receive implementation funds through this program an entity will need to have engaged in the
Planning component. Because the Orange County projects listed above are construction projects, this
program may not be useful as a funding source. However, this program may be useful for future projects.
Description: Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) is a collaborative effort to manage
all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWM crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political
boundaries; involves multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and attempts to
address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually
beneficial solutions. Current IRWM grant programs include: planning, implementation, and
stormwater flood management (Proposition 1E).
Planning Grants are intended to foster development or completion of IRWM Plans or
components thereof, to enhance regional planning efforts, and to assist more applicants to
become eligible for Implementation Grant funding.
Implementation Grants are designed for projects that are ready for or nearly ready to proceed to
implementation.
Stormwater Flood Management Grants are designed for projects that manage stormwater
runoff to reduce flooding and are ready, or nearly ready, to proceed to implementation. Projects
must be consistent with applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plans, not be part
of the State Plan of Flood Control and yield multiple benefits which may include groundwater
recharge, water quality improvements, ecosystem restoration benefits, and reduction of in
stream erosion and sedimentation.
Eligible Applicants: Local public agencies and nonprofit organizations.
Funding Details:
 Planning Grants: Maximum around $1,000,000.
 Implementation Grants: Maximum around $30,000,000.
 Stormwater Flood Management Grants: Maximum of $30,000,000.
Solicitation: Varies.
Program Information: IRWM
15
PROJECT PRIORITIES
OCWD CIP
Project Name
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Authorization Elected
GWRS Final Expansion
SDWA SRF Drought Relief Legislation
Delegation‐wide
Mid‐Basin Injection
WaterSMART Drought Relief Feinstein/House Delegation
Committee
House Energy and Water Senate Environment and Public Works/Appropriations
House Natural Resources Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Task
Comments
New provisions within WRRDA provides for Meet with Member Offices principal forgiveness and negative interest to review project needs and for recycling projects. Drought bill may provide support
to seek support Meet with USBR Temecula to discuss project
Legislative response to support drought mitigation may provide support for project
Update delegation. Meet Recent amendments to WRDA provide new Senate and House with USACE to discuss next authorities to USACE to support enhanced Delegation‐wide
Appropriations
steps
water supply at USACE facilities
Senate Energy and Natural West Orange County Energy Efficiency Resources House Energy and Develop Issue Paper and Enhanced Pumping
Legislation
Delegation‐wide
Commerce
brief delegation Legislation unlikely to be passed
Meet with USBR to discuss Senate Environment and funding opportunity. Meet WRRDA with its renewed authority to Public Works/House with USACE to discuss Transportation and potential opportunity for FY provide USACE with authorization to make WaterSMART Infrastructure/ 15 under Continuing Auth water conservation a priority may present Enhanced Recharge Drought Relief best pathway for feasibility study
Programs
(Below Ball Road)
WRRDA Feinstein and House DelegaAppropriations
Desalinatin R&D Discuss partnership with Concern over salinity management remains Sunset Gap Desalter
Science Program
Feinstein
Appropriations
USBR
a top issue for USBR
Additional Talbert Barrier Feinstein/House Develop Issue Paper and USEPA SDWA SRF program/WIFIA may Wells at Deep Well Sites SECURE Water Act
Delegation
Appropriations
brief delegation present additional oppportunity
Meet with delegation to discuss project. Meet with USBR to determine potential USGS taking on increased responsibiity for Alamitos Barrier partnership
groundwater modeling
Expansion (Landing Hill) USGS Delegation‐wide
Appropriations
Senate Energy and Natural Drought Relief Feinstein/House Resources House Natural Develop Issue Paper and Drought relief legislation (S. 2198 H.R. SCARS
Legislation
Delegation
Resources
brief delegation 3964) make groundwater storage a priority
Senate Environment and Public Works/House Transportation and Develop Issue Paper on need Infrastructure/Appropriation for enhanced subsidies GWRS Urban Runoff WRRDA provides enhanced SRF subsidies s
Diversion to OCSD
WRRDA
Delegation‐wide
through CWA SRF fund to manage and treat stormwater
WRRDA provides that projects that are energy efficient eligible for WIFIA assistance/WaterSmart may provide Meet with USEPA on WRRDA WaterSmart Feinstein/House development of WIFIA and renewed assistance to energy efficiency projects
Power Generation On‐Site Energy Legislation
Delegation
Appropriations
potential support
Prado Basin Sediment Management
Water Resources Reform and Development Act
1
PROJECT PRIORITIES
OCWD CIP
Poseidon Resources Huntington Beach Desalination Plant
WRRDA Desalination Act
Recovery of ET Loss in Prado Basin
WRRDA
Project Name
Authorization PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ISSUES
Delegation‐wide
Delegation‐wide
Elected
Prado Dam DSAC Rating
WRRDA
Delegation‐wide
Industry Liability for Water Contamination
N/A
Delegation‐wide
Endangered Species Act
Drought Relief
Delegation‐wide
Buy American Mandates
WRRDA/ Appropriations
Delegation‐wide
Tax Reform
N/A
Delegation‐wide
Ciimate Resliency and Drought Relief
Definition of Waters of the U.S.
WRRDA/Drought Relief legislation
Delegation‐wide
Appropriations
Delegation‐wide
Senate Energy and Natural Resources / House Natural Resources
Senate Environment and Public Works/House Transportation and Infrastructure/ Appropriations
Committee
Senate Environment and Public Works/House Transportation and Infrastructure
Senate Environment and Public Works/House Energy and Commerce/House Science
Senate Environment and Public Works/House Natural Resources
Meet with USEPA on WIFIA potential assistance Meet WRRDA WIFIA program offers loan with USBR to discuss guarantees to promote development of Desalination Act assistance desalination projects
Meet with USACE staff to discuss potential pilot project
WRRDA provides USACE with increased authority to address water conservation
Comments
Develop Issue Paper on rationale for rating request/modification and meet with USACE and delegation
Efforts will need to await Feasibility Study
Coordinate District litigation and present needs to delegation and committees Action to address product liability remains of jurisdiction
unlikely until next Congress
Legislation to addresss water Monitor for any impacts on storage/transfers expected to address ESA District activities
reviews Monior and develop position WRRDA WIFIA mandates compliance with Buy American mandate for steel, iron and statement if efforts re‐enforced precast concrete/Efforts to attempted to broaden mandate to apply to drinking impose BA on SRF drinking water assistance expected as part of FY 2015 water SRF assistance or budget
other programs
Appropriations
Monitor and prepare for Reform of the Internal Revenue Code Senate Finance/House Ways next session tax reform anticipated to address continued and Means
efforts
availability of tax‐exemtp financing Language in WRRDA provides for studies Senate Environment and and assistance to support Public Works/House Monitor implementation of mitigation/Pending drought legislation may Transportation and WRRDA for impacts and provide for assistance to address impacts Infrastructure
assistance to District
of drought Revised rule does not at this time impact Appropriations
Monitor
District
2
MEMO
To:
From:
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
Date:
January 23, 2015
Subject:
Potential Proposition 1 Funding Guidelines and Priorities
Water Reliability
Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Funding
(Guidelines based on the 2014 IRWM Drought Solicitation, Prop 84)





Agency: Department of Water Resources (allocated regionally through SAWPA)
Match: 25%
Maximum Funding: set on a per solicitation basis by each region
Eligible Applicants: Local Public Agencies, Non-Profit Organizations
Eligible Projects/Program Preferences:
o Regional Water Projects
o Resolves water related conflicts between regions
o Contributes to Cal Fed Bay Delta Program objectives
o Integrates water management and land use planning
o Part of a plan that reduces reliance on the Delta
Groundwater
Local Groundwater Assistance Program
(Guidelines taken from LGA Grant Program, Prop 84)





Agency: Department of Water Resources
Match: N/A
Maximum Funding: $250,000
Eligible Applicants: Local public agencies with authority to manage groundwater
Eligible Projects:
o Groundwater data collection
o Modeling
o Monitoring and management studies
o Equipment installation for monitoring
o Basin management
Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383
Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555
Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030
Clean Water Act Non-Point Source 2014 Grant Program Guidelines
(Federally funded program)








Agency: State Water Resource Control Board
Match: 25%
Maximum Funding/Funding Ranges:
o Planning/Assessment
Minimum: $75,000
Maximum: $175,000
o Implementation
Minimum: $250,000 Maximum: $750,000
Eligible Applicants:
o Public agencies
o Non-profit organizations
Eligible Implementation Projects
o Project level planning
o Design
o Construction management
o Implementation
Implementation Project Requirements
o Implement activities that contribute to the restoration of NPS impaired waters
through reduced pollutant loads as called for in an adopted or nearly adopted
TMDL;
o Address watersheds and impairments identified in the NPS Program Preferences
o Consistent with EPA’s Nine Key Elements of Watershed-Based Plans
Planning/Assessment Project Requirements
o Address watersheds and impairments identified in the NPS Program Preferences
o Clearly lead to implementation of an adopted or nearly adopted TMDL
o Have at least Elements 1, 2 and 3 of the Nine Key Elements in place at the time
of funding.
o And meet ONE of the following:
 Completes watershed planning and assessment to fully address all Nine
Key Elements.
 Provide information necessary to fully develop at least one of the missing
or partially-completed elements.
 Complete other priority planning/assessment activities and provide a brief
description of how the missing or incomplete elements of the Nine Key
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source (NPS) 2014
Grant Program Guidelines Elements will be completed, including
remaining work to be done, what entities will complete the work, and a
time schedule for completion of the remaining elements.
Timeline:
o Planning/Assessment
2 years
o Implementation
3 years
Water Bond Funding Outline
2
Water Conservation
(Information based on the 2008, Urban Drought Assistance Grant Program, Prop 50)







Match: 20% cost share
Maximum Funding:
o $250,000 (for programs in a single retail service area)
o Cities, Counties
o Joint Power Authorities
o Public Water Districts
o Investor Owned Utilities that report to the CPUC
Eligible Projects:
o Water and energy efficiency projects
o Conservation
o Reduction in water use projects
o Water quality improvements
o Multi-benefit projects
o No limit on the number of applications per applicant (for separate projects)
Ineligible Projects
o New storage tanks providing expanded capacity
o Water supply development
o Water treatment
o Flood control
o Conjunctive use
o Recycled water
o Groundwater banking projects
o Replacement of existing funding sources for on-going projects
o Political advocacy
o Purchase of water
o Establishment of a reserve fund
o Applicant’s litigation costs
o Projects that do not achieve water savings, improve in-stream flow and timing,
improve water quantity, or provide water quality benefits to the State
o Projects required by regulation, law, or contract
o Installation of water meters, other devices or systems for new construction
o Visitor centers
o Water meter replacement, water meters for new construction, new landscapes,
new irrigation systems, and dedicated water meters for new landscapes.
Timeline: 2 years from contract execution
3
Water Recycling
(Information based on the Water Recycling Funding Program Guidelines 2008, Prop 50)




Agency: State Water Resource Control Board
Facilities Planning Program:
o Match: 50%
o Maximum Funding: $75,000
o Eligible Applicants: Public Agencies
o Eligible Projects: Planning studies to determine feasibility of using recycled
water to offset use of fresh potable water
o Timeline: Three years from time of grant to complete study
Construction Funding Program:
o Match: 50%
o Maximum Funds: $5 million (or 25 percent of total funding cost, whichever is
less)
o Eligible Applicants: Public Agencies
o Eligible Projects:
 Design
 Legal tasks
 Construction management
 Engineering during construction
 *Projects must be placed on the SWRCB’s, WRCP Competitive Project
List (CPL)
o Timeline: Three years from time of grant commitment
Project categories include:
o State Water Supply and the Delta
o State Water Supply
o Local Water Supply
o Local Groundwater Reclamation
o Pollution Control
Stormwater Flood Management Grants
(Information based on IRWM Stormwater Flood Management Program, Prop 1E)






Match: 50%
Maximum Funding: $30 million per project
o Local public agencies
Eligible Projects (must meet all requirements)
o Must be consistent with an IRWM plan
o Consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Plan
o Not be part of the State Plan on Flood Control
o Yield multiple benefits
Timeline: Not indicated
4
Desalination
(Guidelines based on the 2014 Water Desal Prop Solicitation Package, Prop 50)







Match: 50%
Maximum Funding:
2014
2006
o Construction/ Implementation
$3 million
$3 million
o Pilot/Demonstration Project
$1 million
$1.5 million
o Feasibility Studies (brackish water) $250,000
$250,000
o Research
$500,000
$500,000
o Environmental Documentation
$250,000
N/A
o Cities
o Counties
o Joint Power Authorities (JPAs)
o Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) regulated under Public Utilities Code section 216
(except research projects)
o Public Special Districts, such as water or irrigation districts
o Tribes
o Non-profit organizations (including water management groups)
o Universities and colleges
o State agencies (except for construction projects)
o Federal agencies (except for construction projects)
o Other political subdivisions of the State
Eligible Projects
o Construction
o Pilot and Demonstration Projects
o Feasibility studies
o Research Projects
o Environmental Documentation
Ineligible Projects
o Projects with water sources with less than an average TDS concentration of 1000
milligrams per liter
o Feasibility studies of seawater desalination except for environmental work
necessary to complete feasibility study
Timeline: Not more than 2 years
5
6
Budgeted: N/A
Cost Estimate: N/A
Funding Source: N/A
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contact: E.Torres
POLICY ISSUE:
SANTA ANA RIVER CONSERVANCY ADVISORY GROUP
SUMMARY
In 2014, Senate Bill (SB) 1390, authored by Senator Lou Correa, was chaptered and
created the Santa Ana River Conservancy Program (SARCP). The legislation mandated
that the program be administered by the State Coastal Conservancy (CC). The law also
required that an advisory group be created to offer advice, expertise, support, or service to
the conservancy, without compensation. The CC recently took action in regards to
appointing the SARCP Advisory Group.
Attachment
 Coastal Conservancy Staff Recommendation, January 29, 2015
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize for February 18 Board meeting: Take action as appropriate.
RELEVANT STANDARDS
 Collaborate with regulators and watershed stakeholders
 Comply with environmental regulations
 Protect natural habitats
 Maximize Santa Ana River water capture
 Keep abreast of legislative proposals that may impact OCWD, other water agencies
and/or special districts.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
SB 1390 was chaptered in 2014 and established the Santa Ana River Conservancy
Program (SARCP). The legislation mandated that the program be administered by the
State Coastal Conservancy (CC). The law also required that an advisory group be created
to offer advice, expertise, support, or service to the conservancy, without compensation.
At its January 29, 2015 meeting, the CC took action to create the SARCP Advisory Group.
The CC named the existing Policy Advisory Group of the Santa Ana River Trail and
Parkway as its advisory group to the SARCP.
1
The Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway (SARTP) Policy Advisory Group is largely
comprised of local officials and includes eight voting members:




Three elected supervisors, one from each of the three counties (Orange, Riverside
and San Bernardino);
Three elected city representatives, one from each of the three counties, appointed
by the Supervisor of that county;
One representative from the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA); and
One representative from the Wildlands Conservancy.
The Executive Officer of the CC may add or remove members of the SARCP Advisory
Group as needed.
When reviewing SB 1390 during the 2014-2015 legislative session, the OCWD Board
expressed a strong desire to have a representative(s) of OCWD appointed to the SARCP
Advisory Group.
OCWD Director, Phil Anthony, currently serves on the Policy Advisory Group of the SARTP
as SAWPA’s representative. He is slated to serve on the SARCP Advisory Group unless
the CC Executive Officer or SAWPA modify SAWPA’s designated representative in the
group.
The CC also agreed to add an additional city representative from each county to the
advisory group.
The CC also recommended the SARCP Policy Advisory Group consider recommendations
made by a Technical Advisory Committee that consist of staff from city and county parks,
open space, and public works districts and departments; State Parks; SAWPA, the CC; and
trail/greenway organizations. Staff and TPA are exploring the opportunity to have OCWD
staff serve on this technical committee.
The SARCP was created to address the following resource and recreational goals of the
Santa Ana River region:

Recreational opportunities, open space, trails, wildlife habitat and species
restoration, enhancements and protection, wetland restoration and protection,
agricultural land restoration and protection, protection and maintenance of the
quality of the waters in the Santa Ana River for all beneficial uses, related
educational use, and natural floodwater conveyance; and

Public access to enjoyment of, and enhancement of recreational and educational
experience on, program lands in a manner consistent with the protection of land and
natural resources and economic resources in the area.
2
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
Staff Recommendation
January 29, 2015
To:
Members of the Coastal Conservancy
From: Sam Schuchat, Executive Officer
Greg Gauthier, South Coast Project Manager
cc:
Legislative Representatives
RE:
Consideration and possible creation of an advisory group for the Santa Ana River
Conservancy Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Create an advisory group for the Santa Ana River Conservancy
Program pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 31174(a).
LOCATION: Santa Ana River Region, Counties of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Senate Bill 1390 (Correa, 2014)
Exhibit 2: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Coordinated Parkway Planning
Among Counties along the Santa Ana River Corridor (February 14, 2006)
Exhibit 3: Amendment No. 1 to the MOU (May 17, 2011)
RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to
Section 31174(a) of the Public Resources Code:
“The State Coastal Conservancy hereby names as its advisory group required for the Santa
Ana River Conservancy Program under Public Resources Code § 31174(a) the Policy
Advisory Group originally created in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding
for Coordinated Parkway Planning Among Counties along the Santa Ana River Corridor,
executed June 27, 2006. The Executive Officer may add or remove members of the required
advisory group as needed.”
Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following finding:
Page 1 of 4
SANTA ANA RIVER CONSERVANCY PROGRAM – ADVISORY GROUP ESTABLISHMENT
“Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal
Conservancy hereby finds that the proposed action is consistent with Chapter 4.6 of Division
21 of the Public Resources Code, regarding the Santa Ana River Conservancy Program.”
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Background:
Santa Ana River Conservancy Program: In 2014, the legislature, through SB 1390 (Correa) (see
Exhibit 1) created the Santa Ana River Conservancy Program by adding Chapter 4.6 to the
Conservancy’s enabling legislation, Division 21 of the Public Resources Code. The new program
addresses the resource and recreational goals of the Santa Ana River region:

Recreational opportunities, open space, trails, wildlife habitat and species restoration,
enhancement, and protection, wetland restoration and protection, agricultural land
restoration and protection, protection and maintenance of the quality of the waters in the
Santa Ana River for all beneficial uses, related educational use, and natural floodwater
conveyance.

Public access to, enjoyment of, and enhancement of recreational and educational
experience on, program lands in a manner consistent with the protection of land and
natural resources and economic resources in the area.
The legislation provides that the program is to be administered by the Coastal Conservancy,
establishes a Santa Ana River Conservancy Program Account in the State Coastal Conservancy
Fund, and authorizes the Conservancy to expend moneys in the account, upon appropriation, for
land acquisition, capital improvements, and support of the program’s operations. The
Conservancy must prepare a Santa Ana River Parkway and Open Space Plan, and include
information about the program in an already required progress report to the Governor and the
Legislature every three years.
The law also requires the Conservancy to create an advisory group—the subject of this staff
recommendation. New Public Resources Code § 31174(a) provides that the Conservancy shall:
Create an advisory group to offer advice, expertise, support, or service to the conservancy,
without compensation. The advisory group may be comprised of members of the
environmental community, local government, local agencies, and public and private
representatives, who are all involved in projects consistent with the goals of this program. . . .
Existing Advisory Bodies: Development and management of the Santa Ana River Trail and
Parkway is currently governed by two groups. There is a Policy Advisory Group that largely
comprises local officials and includes eight voting members:

Three elected supervisors, one from each of the three counties (Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino);

Three elected city representatives, one from each of the three counties, appointed by the
Supervisor of that county;
Page 2 of 4

One representative from the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, a Special District
comprised of water districts and utility agencies, whose mission is to plan and build
facilities to protect the water quality of the Santa Ana River Watershed; and

One representative from the Wildlands Conservancy, a private non-profit organization
with the dual mission to (1) preserve the beauty and biodiversity of the earth and (2)
provide programs so that children may know the wonder and joy of nature.
The Policy Advisory Group was established in accordance with a Memorandum of
Understanding for Coordinated Parkway Planning Among Counties along the Santa Ana River
Corridor in February 2006 and amended in May 2011 (see Exhibits 2 and 3) for the purposes of
discussing and monitoring progress of the Santa Ana River Parkway, and coordinating decisionmaking across jurisdictional boundaries to ensure expeditious completion of the parkway.1
The MOU provides for the Policy Advisory Group to consider recommendations made by a
Technical Advisory Committee that consists largely of agency staff.2 The Technical Advisory
Committee is charged with sharing information, leveraging resources, coordinating activities
across jurisdictional boundaries, addressing logistical issues, apprising the Policy Advisory
Group of progress and issues, and preparing recommendations for the Policy Advisory Group’s
consideration. Each of these groups currently meets every other month.
Creation of an Advisory Group by the Conservancy under SB 1390: Staff recommends that
the Conservancy authorize the existing Policy Advisory Group to serve as the “advisory group”
that the Conservancy is charged with creating pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
31174(a). The existing Policy Advisory Group:

Includes members from both the public and private sectors that carry out missions
ranging from protecting water quality and biodiversity to providing public access and
recreation—missions that align with the stated resource and recreational goals of the new
Santa Ana River Conservancy Program;

Has since its inception effectively and efficiently coordinated decision-making across
jurisdictional boundaries;

Is firmly rooted in local input and control;

Has worked well with Coastal Conservancy staff, who actively participate in the
Technical Advisory Committee.
At its November 19, 2014 meeting, the Policy Advisory Group agreed to be named by the
Conservancy as the advisory group called for under SB 1390. It also resolved to renew its MOU
for three more years, and add an additional city representative from each county to its roster. It is
intended that the advisory group under SB 1390 consist of this expanded membership if it
occurs.
1
The MOU was extended an additional three years on August 6, 2011, and at its November 19, 2014 meeting, the
Policy Advisory Group resolved to extend it another three years.
2
Staff from city and county park, open space, and public works districts and departments; State Parks; SAWPA; the
Conservancy; and trail/greenway organizations.
Page 3 of 4
Conservancy staff anticipates using the regularly-established Policy Advisory Group meetings
(every other month via teleconference) to discuss items relating to the new Santa Ana River
Conservancy Program. Because the parties to the MOU may alter the composition of the PAG
from time to time, and because the Conservancy may need additional advisors, the proposed
authorization allows for the Conservancy’s executive officer to add and remove members of the
Conservancy’s advisory group as needed.
Site Description: The “Santa Ana River region” is defined in Public Resources Code § 31172(c)
to mean lands within one-half mile of the riverbed of the Santa Ana River or any of its
tributaries, from its headwaters near the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area to the Pacific Ocean at
the Santa Ana River Mouth Beach in Huntington Beach; and adjacent watersheds and lands.
Project History: Since its creation, the Conservancy has supported access and enhancement
projects in the Santa Ana River watershed, particularly within the coastal watersheds of Orange
County. The Conservancy began actively working on development of the Santa Ana River Trail
and Parkway since passage of the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood
Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84), which made
$45,000,000 available to the Conservancy for projects developed in consultation with local
government agencies to expand and improve the parkway.
Senator Correa’s recent legislation (SB 1390) to create the Santa Ana River Conservancy
Program, to be administered by the Coastal Conservancy, was signed into law by the Governor
in September 2014.
CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY’S ENABLING LEGISLATION:
The proposed action directly implements section 31174(a) of the Conservancy’s enabling
legislation, which calls for the Conservancy to create an advisory group for the Santa Ana River
Conservancy Program.
COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA:
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of
Regulations (“CCR”) Section 15000 et seq., a “project” consists of an action that can cause
either a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment;
and that is an activity directly undertaken or funded by a public agency, or an activity that
involves the issuance of a permit or other entitlement (CCR Section 15378). Creation of an
advisory committee for the Santa Ana River Conservancy Program does not have the potential to
cause a physical change to the environment and does not constitute a project for purposes of
CEQA.
Page 4 of 4
7
To: Communications/Leg. Liaison Cte.
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contacts: E. Torres/G. Ayala/C. Nettles
POLICY ITEM:
Budgeted: Yes
Budgeted Amount: $198,000
Cost Estimate: $198,000
Funding Source: 1012.51112
Program/Line Item No.: 1206
2015 CHILDREN’S WATER EDUCATION FESTIVAL UPDATE
SUMMARY
Planning continues for the 19th annual Children's Water Education Festival, to be held
March 25-26, 2015 at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). This year’s event will
host more than 7,000 third, fourth and fifth grade students, and will educate them about
local water issues and help them understand how they can protect water supplies and
the environment.
Attachment(s):
 2015 School Statistics
 2015 Presenter Statistics
 2015 Sponsor Statistics
 VIP Tour & Luncheon Save the Date
RECOMMENDATION
Informational
RELEVANT STANDARDS





Demonstrate environmental stewardship.
Maintain a transparent role within the community by educating stakeholders
about OCWD’s roles, priorities and strategic initiatives.
Build confidence and support with the community through education and
partnerships with other organizations and agencies.
Educate students, teachers and parents about the impacts of the drought and the
importance of conserving water.
Develop and maintain long-term and positive relationships with future community
stakeholders.
1
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS






There are 7,003 students currently registered to attend the Festival, made up of
81 schools and 247 classes. Registered attendees represent 23 Orange County
cities: Anaheim, Anaheim Hills, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress,
Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Palma, Ladera
Ranch, Laguna Beach, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, Rancho Santa
Margarita, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and
Yorba Linda. There are 374 students on the wait list.
There are 59 presenters confirmed to participate at the Festival. New presenters
include Newport Landing & Davey’s Locker Whale Watching, Rubio’s, and UCI
Water PIRE. Staff has been reaching out to potential new presenters and past
presenters who have not yet confirmed participation.
Nearly $60,000 in sponsorship has been secured at this time. Staff has been
following up with potential sponsors and reaching out to past sponsors not yet
committed for this year.
The Festival VIP Tour and Luncheon will be hosted on Thursday, March 26, 2015
from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. A save the date was emailed the week of January
25, and invitations will be sent the week of February 8. Sponsors and producers
will be invited. OCWD directors are encouraged to attend.
This year’s festival will feature the return of the Cans for Kids recycling contest.
Attending classes are encouraged to collect plastic bottles and aluminum cans
and bring them to festival for collection. The Orange County Conservation Corps
will be collecting the recyclables as students arrive at Festival. The class that
brings the most bottles and cans (by weight) wins a Traveling Scientist program
from Inside the Outdoors.
Staff has collected 31 prizes valued at $1,026.80 for the Festival’s opportunity
drawing. Festival volunteers are entered into a drawing each day they volunteer.
Staff is soliciting local and national businesses for donations.
2
Festival Statistics – School Registration
Festival Date
Wednesday, March 25
Thursday, March 26
TOTAL:
Number of Classes
126
121
247
Number of Students
3,521
3,482
7,003
Grade 3
979 students
Grade 4
2,954 students
Grade 5
3,070 students
City
Anaheim
Anaheim Hills
Brea
Buena Park
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Fountain Valley
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Irvine
La Palma
Ladera Ranch
Laguna Beach
Lake Forest
Newport Beach
Orange
Rancho Santa Marg.
San Juan Cap.
Santa Ana
Tustin
Villa Park
Westminster
Yorba Linda
Number of Schools Number of Classes
Number of Students
18
71
1,949
1
2
59
2
4
106
3
8
253
7
21
534
1
1
40
1
1
29
6
20
607
3
9
172
6
18
561
1
3
91
1
1
21
1
4
106
1
8
245
2
5
126
5
16
466
1
1
27
3
7
221
10
21
595
1
1
11
2
9
287
1
1
30
4
15
472
List of Attending Schools by City
City
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim
Anaheim Hills
Brea
Brea
Buena Park
Buena Park
Buena Park
Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Fountain Valley
Garden Grove
Garden Grove
Garden Grove
Garden Grove
Garden Grove
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach
School
Centralia School
Danbrook Elementary
Dr. Albert Schweitzer School
Dr. Jonas Salk School
Edison Elementary School
Henry Elementary School
Hephatha Lutheran
Independence Christian School
Jefferson Elementary School
Lincoln Elementary School
Madison Elementary School
Minaret Academy
Palm Lane Elementary School
Paul Revere Elementary
Price Elementary School
Roosevelt Elementary
Sunkist Elementary School
Zion Lutheran School
Crescent Elementary School
Christ Lutheran School - Brea
St. Angela Merici School
Mabel L. Pendleton School
San Marino Elementary
St. Pius V School
Christ Lutheran School - Costa Mesa
Kaiser Elementary
Mariners Christian School
Pomona Elementary School
Renascence School International Orange County
St. John the Baptist School
Wilson Elementary
St. Irenaeus Parish School
Roch Courreges Elementary
Anderson Elementary
Christ Cathedral Academy
Faylane Elementary School
King of Kings Lutheran School
Murdy Elementary
Riverdale Elementary
Carden Conservatory
Grace Lutheran School
Huntington Beach
Irvine
Irvine
Irvine
Irvine
Irvine
Irvine
La Palma
Ladera Ranch
Laguna Beach
Lake Forest
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Orange
Orange
Orange
Orange
Orange
Rancho Santa Margarita
San Juan Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Tustin
Villa Park
Villa Park
Westminster
Yorba Linda
Yorba Linda
Yorba Linda
Yorba Linda
Joseph R. Perry Elementary School
Brywood Elementary
College Park Elementary
Meadow Park Elementary School
Portola Springs Elementary School
Springbrook Elementary School
Stonegate Elementary School
George B. Miller Elementary
Stoneybrooke Christian School
El Morro Elementary School
Ralph A. Gates Elementary School
Newport Elementary School
Newport Heights Elementary
California Elementary School
Handy Elementary
La Veta Elementary
St. Paul's Lutheran School - Orange
West Orange Elementary School
Mission Hills Christian School
Kinoshita Elementary
San Juan Elementary School
Stoneybrooke Christian School
Excel Academy Charter School
Fairhaven Elementary
James Madison Elementary School
Lycee International de Los Angeles Orange
Quest Academy
Rosita Elementary School
School of Our Lady
St. Barbara School
Taft School
Thomas Jefferson Elementary
Veritas Classical Academy
Serrano Elementary
Villa Park Elementary
Bethany Christian Academy
Bryant Ranch Elementary School
Fairmont Elementary School
St. Francis of Assisi School
Travis Ranch Elementary School
New Schools (have not attended 2012, 2013 or 2014)










Brywood Elementary
Edison Elementary School
Excel Academy Charter School
Henry Elementary School
Joseph R. Perry Elementary School
Kinoshita Elementary
Lycee International de Los Angeles,
Orange County
Madison Elementary School
Portola Springs Elementary School
Quest Academy









Renascence School International
Orange County
Roosevelt Elementary
School of Our Lady
St. Barbara School
Stonegate Elementary School
Sunkist Elementary School
Veritas Classical Academy
Villa Park Elementary
Zion Lutheran School
Waitlisted Schools
A total of 374 students are waitlisted, made up of 14 classes from six schools.



Danbrook Elementary
Fairhaven Elementary
Lycee International de Los Angeles,
Orange County



Newport Heights Elementary
Rosita Elementary
Turtlerock Elementary
Cities Not Attending
An invitation was sent to all Orange County school districts. The following cities do not
have classes attending:







Aliso Viejo
Dana Point
Fullerton (spring break)
La Habra (spring break)
Laguna Hills
Laguna Niguel
Laguna Woods (senior community)






Los Alamitos (Thurs. open house)
Mission Viejo
Placentia (Wed. min)
San Clemente
Seal Beach (Thurs. open house)
Stanton (Garden Grove services)
Festival Statistics – Presenter Registration





There are currently 59 registered presenters
This total is comprised of four Disney booths and eight OCWD booths
Paid presenters: Paul Cash Eco Magic Show, Green Earth Magic Show, Wyland Foundation
and possibly one National Geographic speaker (NatGeo not listed below)
The Reserve at Rancho Mission Viejo and the Environmental Nature Center will share a booth
and each present one day
New presenters this year include: Newport Landing & Davey's Locker Whale Watching,
Rubio’s and University of California, Irvine/UCI Water PIRE
List of Attending Presenters
Organization
Algalita Marine Research Institute
Allergan
Anaheim Fire Department
Anaheim Public Utilities
Andiamo Entertainment
Bolsa Chica Conservancy
Bureau of Land Management
City of Garden Grove - Water
Services Division
City of Newport Beach
City of Santa Ana
Columbia Memorial Space Center
County of Orange - OC Watersheds /
Orange County Stormwater Program
Department of Boating & Waterways
Department of Water Resources
Discovery Science Foundation
Disneyland Resort
Disneyland Resort Environmental
Affairs
Disneyland Resort Environmental
Affairs
Disneyland Resort Horticulture Team
ExplorOcean
Green Earth Magic Show
Inside the Outdoors
Irvine Ranch Water District
Mesa Water District
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
Moulton Niguel Water District
Activity Name
How Big is Your Plastic Footprint?
How to Make a Water-Based Eye Drop Product
Anaheim Fire & Rescue Oil Busters!
Drought Awareness Bingo
Save Queen Green! Mother Nature's Eco-Rhymes
Wetland Connections
Discover the Coast - Look Who's Rockin'
Water Distribution System
Drains to Ocean
Tic-Tac-Toe
Space Exploration
Stormy Times in Orange County
Aqua Smart Live
Water Cycle Bracelets
Water: Use it Wisely!
Disney's Incredible World of Water Chemistry
Radiator Springs Rally
Show your Disney Side
Irrigate with Disney
Erosion Engineers
Green Earth Magic Show
Where do I Flow?
Get the Groundwater Picture
Water Warriors
World of Water
Planting California's Future: Learning about the
Water Cycle and California Native Plants
Municipal Water District of Orange
County
Newport Landing & Davey's Locker
Whale Watching
Newport Sea Base & Irvine Ranch
Outdoor Education Center
Orange County Coastkeeper
Orange County Public Works/OC
Watersheds
Orange County Sanitation District
Orange County Used Oil Recycling
Program
Paul Cash Eco/Magic Show
ReadyOC
ReNUWIt / the Urban Water ERC
Republic Services
Rubio’s
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Santa Ana Zoo @ Prentice Park
Students For Safe Water
The Ecology Center
The Energy Coalition /PEAK
The Environmental Nature Center
The Reserve at Rancho Mission Viejo
The Water Conservation Garden
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
R9
UCLA Department of Atmospheric and
Oceanic Sciences
University of California Irvine/CLEAN
Education
University of California Irvine/UCI
Water PIRE
Wonders of Wildlife
Wyland Foundation
You Are the Solution to Water Pollution
Every Drop of Water Has Life!
Marsh Munchers
Build a Watershed!
Junior Spill Responders
Microbe Mania
Used Oil Wheel of Fortune
How Do We Recharge Our Groundwater Basin?
Groundwater Injection
Groundwater Replenishment System
Watershed Wildlife
The Orange County Groundwater Basin
Groundwater Replenishment System
Water Treatment
pHun With Water
Environmental Magic Show
Flood Disaster Preparedness
City Design Challenge
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
TBD
Keep our Waters Clean
Rainforest Exploration with the Monkey Zoo
The World Water Crisis: Let's End it Together!
The Water Shed
Water and Energy: Hydrating Californians
Magic or Science?
Planting the Future: Sowing the Seeds for Water
Conservation
Ms. Smarty-Plants Grows Earth Heroes
Wetlands Warriors Against Climate Change
Climate Change and the Water Cycle
Southern California Water Sources in a Warming
World
It's Raining! Quick, Build a Biofilter!
Stayin' Alive
Wyland Mural
Festival Statistics - Sponsors
Level
Presenting
Title
Signature
Signature
Platinum
Platinum
Platinum
Platinum
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Silver
Friend
Friend
Friend
Friend
Friend
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Total: $59,350
Organization
Disneyland Resort
Recycle Used Oil
City of Newport Beach
Wells Fargo
MWDOC
Olin Chlor Alkali Products
Orange County Sanitation District
City of Anaheim
Irvine Ranch Water District
Mesa Water
The Gas Company
Raymond James
Avista Technologies, Inc.
City of Huntington Beach
Tetra Tech
Allergan
Anonymous
Rutan & Tucker
DDB Engineering
SRI Engineering
Laguna Beach County Water District
Ricoh Electronics
Rainbow Environmental Services
OC Public Works
City of Garden Grove
Irvine Ranch Water District*
Laguna Beach County Water District*
City of Anaheim*
City of Huntington Beach*
Amount
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$100
$500
$500
$500
$250
$5,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
&
r
u
o
T
VIP cheon
Lun
2015
Save the Date — March 26 , 2015
Please save the date for the VIP Tour and Luncheon
at the 19th Annual Children’s Water Education Festival!
Thursday, March 26, 2015
10:30 am to 12:30 pm
University of California, Irvine
*Invitation and details to follow
QUESTIONS?
Crystal Nettles
(714) 378-3202 S [email protected]
PRESENTING SPONSORS
ChildrensWaterEducationFestival
#ocwaterfest
@ocwaterfest
www.OCWD.com S www.ChildrenWaterFestival.com
8
To: Communications/Leg. Liaison Cte
Board of Directors
From: Mike Markus
Staff Contact: E. Torres/G. Ayala
Policy Item:
Budgeted: N/A
Cost Estimate: N/A
Funding Source: N/A
PUBLIC AFFAIRS JANUARY OUTREACH REPORT
SUMMARY
Outreach for Orange County Water District (OCWD) projects, including the Groundwater
Replenishment System (GWRS), continues with a major focus to build and maintain
support for OCWD projects and the GWRS, as well as field media interest and media
coverage. Following is list of outreach and media activity.
Attachment(s): January clip report
RECOMMENDATION
Informational
RELEVANT STANDARDS



Maintain a transparent role within the community by educating stakeholders about
OCWD’s roles, priorities and strategic initiatives.
Build confidence and support with the community.
Build and maintain support for OCWD and its projects and educate stakeholders about
them.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Tours:
Approximately 279 guests toured the GWRS and other OCWD facilities in January;
following is a list of the tour groups.






Two groups of students from Dana Hills High School
Members of the public tour
Students from Chavez High School in association with Orange County Coastkeeper
Representatives from the State Water Resources Control Board (DDW Operator
Certification)
Members of Sheperd’s Grove Men’s Group Ministry
Students from Cal Poly Pomona
1







Representatives from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Brown &
Caldwell
Representatives from Aquaback Technologies, Inc.
General Electric Water & Power representatives
Members of the City of Oceanside’s Utilities Commission and the Water Utilities
Director
Students from Orange High School in association with Orange County Coastkeeper
Executive staff from Oakland Energy & Water Ventures
Students from the Port of Los Angeles High School
Upcoming Tours:

















USC, February 3
Dana Hills High School, February 3 & 12
Public tour, February 6
International Boundary & Water Commission, February 11
UCI American Academy of Environmental Engineers & Scientists, February 13
San Bernardino Valley College, February 17
Becomers Bible Study, February 19 & March 5
Association of California Cities, Orange County, February 20
Godinez High School in association with Orange County Coastkeeper, February 20
West Coast University Nursing Program, February 25 & March 9
Edison High School, February 27
California State University, Fullerton Nursing Program, March 2, 4 & 11
UCI Extension Program, March 3
Public tour, March 6
Huntington Beach High School, March 6
California State University, Long Beach, March 13
UCI’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, March 27
Speakers Bureau:
 Director Phil Anthony presented to members of the Cypress Rotary about OCWD, its
projects and its groundwater cleanup efforts.
 Director Harry Sidhu and Principal Hydrogeologist Dave Mark gave a presentation to
members of the Anaheim Rotary about OCWD and its groundwater cleanup projects.
 Director Denis Bilodeau participated in a water bond panel discussion hosted by the
American Council of Engineering Companies, Orange County Chapter.
 Director Vincent Sarmiento, General Manager Mike Markus and Principal
Hydrogeologist David Bolin presented to the Delhi Neighborhood Association in Santa
Ana about OCWD and its groundwater cleanup projects.
 Executive Director of Planning & Natural Resources Greg Woodside provided a
presentation about the District and its projects to the Orange County Association of
Environmental Professionals.
 GWRS Program Manager Mehul Patel gave a presentation about the Groundwater
Replenishment System at a municipal water technology workshop hosted by the
Government Accountability Office.
2

Communications Specialist Crystal Nettles participated in UCI’s Community & Public
Service Fair to represent the District and solicit volunteers for the upcoming Children’s
Water Education Festival.
Upcoming Speakers Bureau:
(The Speakers Bureau schedule is provided via email on a weekly basis)





Water Issues Study Group, Mesa Water District, February 4
HB Coordinating Council, March 2
UCI’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, March 6
Orange County Water Association, March 18
Chapman University, March 23
Media
 Mike Markus was interviewed by Orange County Register Reporter Aaron Orlowski
about the proposed Huntington Beach Ocean Desalination Project and the board’s vote
to begin negotiations with Poseidon Resources.
 A column authored by Director Harry Sidhu appeared in the Anaheim Independent on
January 7.
 On January 6, the OC Register ran an editorial article titled, OCWD should start talks
on buying desal water: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/water-647271-countyocwd.html.
 A small crew from Buzzfeed.com interviewed GWRS Program Manager Mehul Patel
and filmed footage of the facility. The footage will be used to compile a brief video for
use on its YouTube science channel. A blind water taste test was also filmed in
Buzzfeed’s studio that will be included in the video.
 On January 22, The Daily Pilot and the Huntington Beach Independent ran a story titled
Conflict-of-interest complaint against O.C. Water District board member dismissed:
http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-me-0123-poseidon-20150122,0,6666184.story.
 On January 21, OCWD was mentioned in an article from Circle of Blue entitled
Important California Water Infrastructure Talks Start This Week:
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2015/world/important-california-waterinfrastructure-talks-start-week/.
 On January 9, the OC Register ran an article titled, Could O.C. get drinking water from
the sea? Huntington Beach desalination plant gets a boost:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/water-647592-poseidon-ocwd.html.
 On January 9, the Huntington Beach Independent published an article titled, Will you
be drinking ocean water? O.C. Water District to discuss buying from desalination plant:
http://www.hbindependent.com/news/tn-hbi-me-0115-poseidon20150109,0,6535156.story.
 An article was posted on the Orange Juice Blog on January 7 that mentioned OCWD
and its directors: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2015/01/surfin-sheldon-little-lostdina-righteous-flory-what-youve-been-missing-at-ocwd-showdown-tonight/.
 On January 5, the OC Register published an article, Reservoirs drink up recent rains,
but more is needed. It was about the amount of rain the District captured in December
3
and its work with the Army Corps to maximize stormwater capture:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/water-647046-lake-irvine.html.
Social Media:
 OCWD Twitter: 18 posts
 GWRS Twitter: 6 posts
 GWRS Facebook: 7 posts
 CWEF Facebook: 1 post
Press Releases and Other Communications:
 On January 9, a press release was distributed announcing the Board’s decision to start
negotiations with Poseidon Resources: http://bit.ly/1tn3WNc.
 On January 9, an announcement regarding the Ocean Desalination Citizen’s Advisory
Committee was released: http://bit.ly/1BlNCdc.
 On January 20, a press release was distributed about the SCE grant award the District
received for the GWRS Initial Expansion: http://bit.ly/1CKrZ8q.
 OCWD’s January issue of Hydrospectives was distributed on January 26:
http://bit.ly/1LfO0lD.
4
Stat Name
Number of hits
OCWD Global Press
43
Outlet/Publication
Disney Parks Blog
Pub Memo
DMN Newswire!
Corporate Media News
Digital Post Production
Video Based Tutorials
Digital Producer
University Chronicle
BusByway.com
One News Page
PRWeb
StreetInsider.com
Benzinga
Finance - Renewable Energy World
The Numbers - Marketplace from American Public Media
Stock - AZCentral.com
Huntington Beach Independent
The Daily Pilot
California CA - AmericanTowns.com
EnvironmentGuru.com
Authentically Wired
Orange County Register
Bids in California
Desalination & Water Reuse
The OC Weekly Blogs
SelectScience
KCRW 89.9 FM
ENR California
Huntington Beach Independent
The Daily Pilot
California CA - AmericanTowns.com
The Bond Buyer
WaterWorld
Storm Water Solutions
Orange Juice Blog
Orange Juice Blog
Consumer Complaints
The Daily Pilot
Country
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United Kingdom
United States
United Kingdom
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
United States
India
United States
United States
Date
01/26/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/23/15
01/22/15
01/22/15
01/22/15
01/21/15
01/20/15
01/18/15
01/16/15
01/13/15
01/13/15
01/12/15
01/11/15
01/10/15
01/09/15
01/09/15
01/09/15
01/09/15
01/09/15
01/09/15
01/08/15
01/08/15
01/08/15
01/07/15
01/07/15
01/06/15
01/05/15
01/04/15
01/02/15
Headline
Governor Awards Disneyland Resort California’s Highest Environmental Honor
Drought and water shortages require innovation and cooperation reports…
Drought and water shortages require innovation and cooperation reports fresh water advocate
Conflict-of-interest complaint against O.C. Water District board member dismissed
Research & Development Lab Intern (FV) at Orange County Water District (Fountain Valley, CA)
These we have been asked to trust “to serve & to protect “ us … usually in conditions which exclude our participation and therefore our voice concluded
Various spots have stood in for places around the U.S. and the world in movies and TV shows.
OCWD to Purchase Water from Reverse Osmosis Plant - California Project News
Californian water district backs talks over new desalination project
Gustavo's Latest KCRW "OC Line": On the the Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant, Part 2!
The Best Rated LC Systems – As Reviewed by You!
Desalination Coming to OC?
O.C. Water District to Discuss Buying from Proposed Desal Plant
Will you be drinking ocean water? O.C. Water District to discuss buying from desalination plant
Orange County District Enters Desalination Negotiations
Lucy Dunn: Local control is key to O.C. water reliability
Huntington Beach desalination plant gets a boost
OCWD enters negotiations to secure single largest source of new water
Orange County Desalination Project Enters Formal Negotiations
Poseidon update: OCWD “just sticks the tip in…”
Surfin’ Sheldon, Little Lost Dina, Righteous Flory, what you’ve been missing at OCWD… SHOWDOWN TONIGHT!
OCWD, take the plunge
Editorial: OCWD should start talks on buying desal water
Crown e Labs - Cheating the Students from Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
Reservoirs drink up recent rains, but more is needed
New Year's car crash wrecks two business fronts

Agenda - Orange County Water District

Transcription

Similar documents

Awesome Aquifers - Groundwater Foundation

ROCKETDYNE and the LA River - Aerospace Contamination

holiday recep - Orange County Business Council

Recipe Glühwein

Guadalupe COunty Groundwater conservation District – summer 2015

Annual report - National Ground Water Association

Earth Observation Techniques - Global Navigation Satellite System

Gro for GooD newsletter Q1 2016

Hand-woven from 100% cotton dhurrie, the talented Bravo rug is

2008-04 - Orange County Historical Society