In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation

Filing 3651

DECLARATION of Jeremiah J. Anderson in Support re: (3607 in 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 146 in 1:04-cv-04973-SAS) MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Chevron USA Inc., Union Oil Co of California, Union Oil Company of California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 1:04-cv-04973-SAS(Anderson, Jeremiah)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT A • Fresno/Clovis Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan, Phase I Report, Existing Water Supply System Assessment (January 1992) (FRESNO-MTBE-13508, 13518, 13524-1 3516) • 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Chapler 4.1.2.2 (Prepared for City of Fresno November 20 12), hi tp :llwww.fresno.nov/GovcmmcmJDepartmemlJirectorv/PublicU til i 1ies/Watcnnanagcm cntlimportantdoclUncnts,htm (last visited March 20, 2013) • Deposition of Brock Buche. pgs . 367-368 (Apr. 1,201 1) • California Historical Statutes. Water Code *§ I Db lOA. 10631, Phase I Report Existing Water Supply System Assessment ,- Volume I of II L..o.a.~ co'-d-" ~U~~ To CHMHlll January 1992 FRESNO-MTBE-O13508 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The major findings and conclusions of Phase I of the Fresno/Clovis Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan follow. "Findings" are defined as statements of fact. and "conc1usions" are analyses of the findings. Findings • - 8 five-agency effan to address the long-range water needs for the Fresno/Qavis. Metropolitan Area The water resou:rces management plan is (FCMA). • The objectives of the plan are to: Provide s.afe, adequate, and dependable water supplies to meet the futuT,C needs of the metropolitan area in an economical manner Protect groundwater quality from funher degradation Provide an implementable plan • Three planning lhorizons are used: 1997, 2010, and 2050. t To promote this planning dIan, a technical advisory committee was fonned from the sponsoring agencies and a public information program has been implemented. • Over a I-year lperiod, three study phases will be completed, each of whicb will be summarized in a separate report. A summary repan on the entire study and an EIR will also be prepared -within this timeframe. • The FCMA relies solely on untreated, un-disinfected groundwater as a source of potable water. ,. Contamination was discovered in some wells in the late 1970s. At least 42 of the 352 public water agency wells in the FCMA have already been deactivated due to groundwater quality degradation. • Recent and anticipated water quality regulations will likely require some form of wellhead treatment at every public water agency well in the FCMA FRES. O-MTIlE-O1351 ~ • Municipal allocations from FlO's }(jngs River supply arc ''run·of·tbe· river" (no associated storage rights). This could require the cities to take their allocations during snowmelt runoff from the Sierra Nevada. Conclusions • If tbe planned levels of savings due to Fresno residential meter retrofit and urban conservation are realized, water demand would 8crua11y decrease in the near term. Demand would not reawcr to its present level until the year 2005. • Reducing the estimated water savings due to conservation and phasing-in the impacts of residential water meter retrofit over a longer period of time resnro in demand incTea.sing by approximately 157,000 acre·feel between ) 992 and: 2050. • Current General Plans do not provide sufficient Brea for development beyond 20)0. OI)l of Qavis would need to amend its Sphere of Influence before the year 2005. • A total of approximately 68.000 acres would be urbanized in the FCMA between 1992 and 2050. • Of the 68,000 aClres, 63,000 would likely be within FID. This reduces FlO's tota) irrigated acreage by about 40 percent. • The conversion of agr1culturalland to urban use results in a net decrease in total demand of about 7,000 acre·feet per year by 2050. • The conversion ()f land use reduces water consumption from 51(},000 aere-feet per yea!' to 420,000 (Table 7-2). • The alternative land use scenario (development allowed north of Copper Avenue) results im a net increase of 17,800 acre.feet in combined urban and agricultural v.-ater demand by 2050. This is due: to smaller acreage (7,000 acres) of iI:rigated agriculture convened to urban use. • Although a large Ivoundwater reservoir is present, intentional recharge of surface water is necessary to maintain groundwater levels. A significant increase in the intentional recharge volume will be necessary in the future to balance increases in grounclwater pumpage. • The best Jocatio:ns for additional basin recharge facilities are in the northwestern POTicon of the study area where permeable alluvial deposits FRES:-<O-MTBE-O13524 are found. In the eastern and northern pans of the study area, considerable deposits of low permeability materials will significantly limit the quantity of water that can be recharged. • Under current operations, contaminants wiD continue to move toward pumping wens. 1be rate of contaminant movement is slow, on the order of 100's to 1.000·s of feet per year, but eventually contaminants will reach pumping wells. • Positive action will be required to control groundwater contamination to prevent degradation of presently uncontaminated areas of the aquifer. A major objective of the next phase of study will be to develop a groundwater man,agement alternative that meets the supply needs of the community whi1l: at the same time controls the movement of contaminants in the aquifer. • Nonhwest Hydrogeologic Conditions: Predomirumtly permeable deposits above and below the water table; high well yields and good recharge capacity Excellent 'I'>'8ter quality for development of urban supply • Nonheast Hydrogeologic Conditions: WidespreEld occurrence of fine grained materials above and below the water table, generally decreasing wen yields and recharge capacity n~ative to the northwest area Large areas of DBCP contamination Localized areas of higb inorganic constituents in groundwater Thick clay strata and shallow bedrock occur in several portions of the area Groundwclter elevations have been declining more rapidly than in the remaillder of the urban area • Southeast Hydrolgeologi< Conditions: DBCP and EDS contamination is widespread The urbalD pumping depression is drawing contaminated water into the urban area FRSfiOOS.oIJ.51 xiv FRESNO-MTBE-O 13525 • Southwest Hydrogeologic Conditions.: DBCP and nitrate contamination occur in large portions of this area To the southwest of the urban area groundwater levels are substantially elevated due to wastewater disposal • Seasonal and carryover storage would allow more effective utilization of presently availabll~ surface water supplies. • It would be desirable. from a water quality point afview, to use mare of the high quality amponed surface water for municipal purposes, using more groundwater and reclaimed wastewater for agriculture. • FID has adequat'e capacities in the major canals to serve future urban and agricultural demands in most months; however, peak demands will have to be man~lged through system enlargement, conjunctive use, or altered recharge schedules. • Intentional recbarge in flood control basins could be increased substantially through revised design criteria and operations. • If the current pattern of well closures continues, urban water suppliers can expect pressures to fall below the statutory limit of 20 psi in some areas unless poor quality wells are kept operating and the customers notified. • The lack of red1.o1ndancy or reliability in the: distribution systems of the FCMA is a critical deficiency of the existing system. In order for the existing system to adequately serve the future needs in areas of well closures, the wells must be replaced or fitted with wellhead treatment. • The five agenci~: need to focus on renewaJ of USBR contracts for FID. Garfield Water I)istrict, and International Water District in the near term (1994-1995) andlhe Cil)' of Fresno contract in the fu'ure (2006). • . Municipal distnbution systems are typified by 12-inch pipes 8t 112 mile spacing. This grid is n01 large enough to provide adequate pressures in the vicinity of a 'Yo'Cll closure. • , The cities should firm up their amtracts with FlO to provide equitable, long·term commitments of surface water and wastewater. FRES NO-MTBE-O13526 2010 un.BAN WATER MANA(~EMENT PLAN Prepared for City of Fresno November 2012 439-02-11-10 Elizabeth Drayer Cha pter 4 Water Supply r -4.1.2.2 Groundwater Management 10631 (b)(/) A cop)' of any groU/Jtilt'(liL'r manag"1II1!1II P"III adllpIL\/ by /111' urOOI! II'(//(!r .wppJi~r, illc:Judillg pl()1l.~ (It/aplI'li purXlIIl/J/lu PCIr/ Z 75 (commencillg with Section 10750). ur all)' mllm' speci/it- alfli1nri:mioll/or gmumhl'tlll!r /IW/UlJt<'/1//."nl In 2006. the Fresno Af\.!U Regional Gruundw<J lcr ManagcInC'nt Plan (FARGMP) was pn:pan.:d to comply with A83030 and S13 1938. Participating agencies, including the City, adopted the FARGMP in 2006. Participating <Igcllci cs and adoption dates arc listed in Tabl'.! -l~S. Table 4-5. Groundwater Management Plan Participants • Agency Fresno Irrigation District Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 0210812006 City of Clovis • 0112512006 0211312006 02/14/2006 03/0112006 Malaga County Water DIstrict City of Kerman Bakman Water Company City of Fresno County of Fresno Pinedale County Water District Garfield Water District 03/13/2006 04/18(2006 07/18/2006 09/20/2006 11/0112006 The FARGMP boundaries generally coincide wi th F lO. hut also include a smull area northea"t of FID. The objectives of the FARGM P have been developed to monitor, protect, and slIstain groundwater within the region. Spcc~fic objectives include the following: ,. Preserve .md enhance the ex isti ng quality or lhe area' s groundwater; • Correci the overdratl and stabilize grou ndwater levels at the highest practical heneficial levels; • Preserve untreated groundwater as the primary source of domestic water: • Maximize the available water supply. including conjunctive usc ofsurfacL' water and groundwater: • Conserve the watcr resource for long· tenn bcneficial usc and assure an adequate supply lor thc future; • Manngc !;,'Totmdwatcr resources 10 the ex ten t n~essary beneficial, and continued usc of the resource; • MonilOr groundwater quality and qu:mtity to provide the requisite information for cstnblishing groundwater policics, gO<l ls. and recommended action!;: and • Improve coordination and consistency among agenc ies n::sponsible for the monitonng and management of groundwater in the Plan A rea. WEST 'l'OST AS50CIArfS November 2012 0 \ <· .)'1 ' 01·\ 1.IO\"I>\""'"~ ' 1l(l~1 \ .0.. 4· 5 \0 ensu re reasonable. CiT)' 01 F~~o 1010 Urbon WO lor Monogl!ml!n! 1'10., Chapter 4 Water Supply Although FID led the development of the FARCrMP, the October 2(}05 Memorandum of Understanding between the participating agencies makes il clear th<J\ each participating agency rL'tains authority and rcsponsibiliry for groundwater man<lgcmcnl within its own jurisdictiun. A copy of the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan is provided in Appendix E of this UWMP. 4 1.2.3 Description of Groundwater Basin J rJ631 (b)(2) A de.~crip'if'" of UI1Y gmllnd.... ~l/e,. hosill (II' hm"illsji'rllf1 which the! rwb<lll W(/I,'I' supl'lier pumps };I'Olilldwlllt!r. F,\r,hf>$1: h".rin~.r(Jr lJo'hich II c.'Jllr! or lite hl.Uwd has adjlldicllled Ih(' righ,:r (() I)llnl}) grmmJu~II,>r. " copy of fhe ardt'r or dl'f'rl..'C (ldoPTed hy 'hl' emwl or IIII' hoard "lid II d('.~cripllrm oflhe ulllmtnf of grmmdll'mt'r III,. urh(1Il wa/(:r slIppf/cr ha.~ Ihl! "'go/ righllo pump under fila orJel' or Jl'crc(,'. For hGsilJ.~ Ihaf JI/II'C nOl b('f!1J UI!illliicmed. illJormlilifln m lfj " ' ' ' ....Ihcr fhe dftplIrtllwlllhas;dell/ilil'dlhebMin OT hu.~ill.~ a~ flwrdraJu!d (IT haf I'l"Ojt"C!fed 111m thc ba~ill will }w"mlle (J1't'rtfrt!lied ifpr('.~1'1II mWI<I~.'lIIel/f condiliall.f cUlllilll/l'. mIlle ImJS/ rllrr~'1!1 t!(fki(ll depanmcntul bulletill thai chmTlctt!ri='l!.v the ("(1II(/itil'lI oJth€' grmmdnWl!r bILl;n. 011.1 (l (/.·tlllled dl!~·c/iplion ofthe effilYf.v hehlt: undertaken by tlte IIrban water slIl'pltrr'" t'ftminul(' Ihe long·reml overdraft r;mulitiulJ. A~ described below, the City of Fresno overlies the Kings S~tbbasin of the San Joaquin Vallcy Groundwater Basin. Thl.: Kings SlIbb,a~in (DWR Basin No. 5-22.08) underlies Fresno. Kings. and Tulare Counties and has a surface area of 976,000 acres (1,530 squ~re miles), The Kings Subbasin has not been adjudicated. However. as described furt her in Sl.:clion 4.1.2.3.6. the Kings Subbasin was identilicd in DWR's Bulletin liS-SO to be in a critical condition ofovcrdrafl. 4.1.2.3. 1 Basin Location The SJV Basin I.:ompriscs the southern portion of th..: Greal Central Valley of California. and is bounded io the north by th\.' SUCramC!110-San Joaquin Dl.:lta and Sacramento Valley. 10 Ihe ~ast by the Sierra Nevadas, to the south by the Sun Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains. and 10 the west by th(: Coast Ranges. The Kings SUbbasin. located within the southem half of the SJV Basin. is bounded to thc north by the San Joaquin River, to the cast by the alluvium·gr:m;le rock interface of [he Sierra Nevada foothills. and to the west by the Delta-Mendota and Westside Subbasins. The Kings Subbasin is bounded 10 the south by the northern boundary of the Empire West Side Irrigation District the southern fork of the Kings River. the soulhern boundary of the Laguna Irrigation District, the nonhern houndary of the Kings County Water District. and the western boundary of Slolle Corral Irrigation District. Figure 4·1 illustra.tes the lot:at ion oflhe City rdalivl! 10 til\.' boundari\.~s of the Kings Subbasin. 4.1 .2.3.2 Area Geology The upper several hundred feet within the KlIlgs Subhasin generally conSists ot h!ghly pernlcable. coars~·grailled deposits, whieh are termed older alluvium. Coarse· grained strcam channel deposito;, associated with deposits by the ancestral San JOJquin and Kings Rivers, underlie much of northwest fresno. Additionally, a recent study completed in 2004 indicated the rresentc of It laterally extensive clay layer, :.It an average depth of approximately 250 fcct below the ground surf~ec. beneath mosl of the south and solltheastcm portions of the City. ""'f~f Ves! ASSOCIAt[S Noven.be. 2012 ..... 4J'\Q:l·1 l.l0., wp ,v""'w\ 12o,' I <0.4 4-6 01r of Fr .. ..,o 1010 Urbem Wotor Monageme1'll Plan City of Fr esno 3 0(b) (6) - Brock Buche & Robert Little Page 260 UNITED STi,>T?:S DT STRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE : !"lethyl ':'ertiary But.yl E1..her ("M'I'BE" l Mllster Fi le No . 1 : 00-1898 MDL 1358 (SAS) ProdUCLS Liabilit.y Litigation This Document Relates to: City of Fresno v . Chevron U , S , A . Inc., et a1., et a1 ., Case no . 04 Civ . O~973 (SAS) I APRIL 1, ?-011 Videotaped Deposi t ion a f BROCK mJcHE and ROBERT C . Ll'l"I'LB, Volu!:\c II, City ot Fresno's 30(b) (6) Designee re Damages and Remedies, held in the Law Offices of McCormick Barstow LLP, 5 River Park Place East. Fresno, beginning at 9 : 04 a. m " before Sandra Bunch VanderPol, FAPR , RPR, RMR, eRR, CSR #3032 G01,KOW TECHNOLOGIES, TNC . 877.370 . 3377 phI917.591.5677. fax deps@golkow . com Golkow Technologi es. Inc. l.877.370.DEPS b 72bB21 f·5837 4b92-b5f7 -o017270e4b46 City of Fresno 30 (b) (6) - Brock Buche & Robert Little Page 261 1 APPEJl..RANCES : 2 3 4. , MILLER, AXLINE & SAWfER MICHAEL AXLINE , Esq . Maxline@toxictorts.o:r-g 1050 Fulton .l\venuE, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95825-4272 (916) 488-6688 Counsel for the Plaintiff G -7 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP WHITNEY JONES ROY, Esq. 8 wroy@sheppardmullim.com 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor 9 10 Los Jl.Jlgeles, California 90071-1448 (213) 620-1780 Counsel for Defendan1: Exx0!1Mobil Corporation ' 1 12 13 " ARNOLD & PORTER LLP JAMES FINSTEN, Esq . James. finsten@aportel[. com 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-5844 (213) 243-4125 Counsel for Defendant BP 15 lE MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP LEO GOLDBARD, Esq . (Via telephone) 17 leo .goldbard@rnto . com 355 South Grand Avenue, 18 19 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 -1 560 (213) 683-9296 Counsel for Defendants Shell Oil Company, Enterprises and Equiva Services, LLC Equilon 20 21 22 23 24 KING & SPALDING DAVID GRENARDO, Esq . dgrenardo@kslaw . com 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, Texas 77002-5213 (713) 276 -7378 Counsel for Defendant: Chevron u . s. A. Golkow Technologies. Inc. - 1.877 .370 .DEPS b72b821 f·5837 4b92-b5f7 -O01727004b46 City of Fresno 30(b)(6) Brock Buche & Robert Little Page 36 7 Page 365 1 2 3 4 5 BY MR. FINSTEN, Q. Has thc City ever incurred treatment costs for any constituent that it decided. on its own. it needed to incur those costs where the constituent was below the stale Action Level or the 6 7 Mel? MR. MILLER: Same ohjection and same 8 9 ;. 0 11 1~ ] 3 objcctiuns . It was covered repeatedly in dcp>{)sitions with Mr. Linle. Will) is the morc appropriate person 14 ! 5 MR. MILLER: Same objection . MR. FINSTEN : That's directly under tiw t<l ask. BY MR. FINSTEN: Q. Wilt the City institute treatment for MTBE al levels below the sl.:condary Mel.? J 6 notice. ThaI's -- ifyou'rc going to instruct on 17 that -- 18 MR. MILLER: I didn't instruct. j 9 "Same Objection." 20 J said, MR. FINSTEN: Okay . Okay . You can answer the 4ucstion . ' don't have a definitive answer Ii:)f 21 Q. 22 A. 23 thai. 24 Q. ? 5 definitive Who at the City would have a answer as to whether or not it would 1 MR. MILLER: Argumentative. 2 T HE W ITNESS : WelL they -3 MR. MILLER: Go ahead. 4 THE WI TNESS: I mean, I don't know-S Counci l has been made aware, the Mayor has been made 6 aware in. you know. authorized pursuit of the "I lawsuit. S I'm not aware they've been given information 9 in the int(.'rim or continuing basis. Pcrhups -- wl'll. 10 I uon't know. Can' talk about city al1orney? 11 MR. FlNSTEN: No. l~ MR. MILLER: No. 13 I3Y MR. FINSTEX 14 Q. Arc you aware of any cost-benefit 15 analysis involving det(.'ctions to treat Fresno water 16 for MTBE contamination? 17 A. Where co~t? 18 Q. Cost·henefit analysis. 19 A. I'mllolawarc. 20 Q. Do you know what cost-benefit 21 analysis is'! 2? r-- A . Yes. 23 Q. Typicnlly your construclion projeCls 24 [or w~llhead Ireulmen! arc subject !O cost-bene lit 25 analYsis, right? Page 368 Page 366 t 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 .3 institute treatment tor MTBE at levels helow the secondary MCL? A. ' don't think that policy decision has been made yet. Q . Okay. But the City. nevertheless. expects thm il will need to spend at leasl $40 million to construct f"l1ture treatment costs for MTBE? A. At a minimum. Q . At a minimum. Okay. Anybody at the City Council know that? A. I'm not aware. Q. Anybody at the Mayor's office kllOW 14 that? 15 A. 'don't know . 16 Q . You've nl' vcr talked to unybody at the 17 Mayor's office about the need to spend $40 million 18 for treating MTBE? 19 A. ' have not. 20 Q . You haven't talked to anybody <II the 21 City Council about thai? 22 A. I have no\. Q. Why not? Not important? 2'A. No. Absolutely it"s important. 25 Q. Then why haven't you told them? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MILLER : Objection. Agsumc~ facts not in evidence ..A,rgumentativc. Vague. TilE WITNESS: Ifthcre'g a contaminant in our water. like the DBCP, we have litigation that we can go instull that wellhead treatment. There's not a cost-benefit analysis for that. Our - our priority is to maintain the quality ()f our aquifer. Onee a contaminant has impacted our wells. it's -- the preservation orlhat resource, thm w(' install the treatment so we can pump and trcat and extract the contaminant. y()u know, fmm Ihut resource. I don't know thai a cost-henent analysis is nece-~sarily approprime for every installation when the higher calling is to protect and pre-serve Ihe t..£!:oundwatcr supply . BY MR. FIN$TEN: Q. Do you think ii's appropriate in the case ofMTBE. where we·rc talking about detections that arc 250 times below the secondary MCL? A. Appropriate? It's always appropriate to be monitoring and watching what's happening. When - you know. we go through these tiles here. and we see free product setting on the water. and. you know. it's migrating for how many years because it 28 (Pages 365 to 368) Golkow Technolo9ies, Inc . 1 . 877.370.DEPS b 72b821 f·5837 4b92·b5f7..o017270e4b4Ci Westlaw. Page 1 West's Ann.Cal. Water Code § 10610.4 WEsrs ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES WATER CODE DIVISION 6. CONSERVATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND UTI LIZATION OF ST AIE WATER RESOURCES PART2,6. URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNrNG CHAPTER I. GENERAL DECLARATION AND POLICY Copr. (C) West Group 1998. All rights reserved. § 10610.4. Policy regarding water resources The Legislature iinds and declares that it is the policy oflhe Slale.as follows : (a) The management of urban waler demands and efficient use. of water shall be actively pursued 10 protect both the people of the slate and their water resources. (b) The management of urban water demands and efficient usc of urban water supplies shall be a guiding criterion In public decisions. (c) Urban WOlter suppliers shall be required to develop waler management plans to actively pursue th~ efficient usc of available supplies. CREDIT(S) 1992 Main Volume (Added by Slats.198}, c. 1009. § I.) 1998 Electronic Pocket Part Update (Amended by Srnts.1995, c. 854 (S.B.IOII), § 2.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 9C\P 1995 LegiSlation Section 19 0(S18ts, 1995, c. 854 (S.B.IOII), prcovidcs: "This act d~s not apply 10 any urban water management plan du(' before January I. 1996," West's Ann. Cal. Waler Code § 10610.4 CA WATER § 10610.4 END OF DOCUME."NT 102013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim 10 Orig. US Gov, Works. Westlaw Page 1 West's Ann.Cal-Water Codl! § 10631 WEsrs ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES WATERCOm~ DIVISION 6. CONSERVATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND UTILIZATION OF SlATE WATER RESOURCES PART 2.6. URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANKING CHAPTER 3. URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS ARTICLE 2. CONTENTS OF PLANS COpT. (C) West Group 1998, All rights reserved. § 10631. Descriptions and provisions in plans A plan shall be adopted in accordance with thi.<; chapter and shall do all ofrhe following: (a) Describe the s,"'f'Vicc area of the supplier. including curn:n! and prujected population, climate, and other demographic faclor.; affecting the suppliers water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the stale, regional, or ioc,al service agency population projections within the service area of the urban wliter supplier nod shall be in five -yea:r increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. (b) Identify and quantify, to the eXlent practk:able, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as des.cribed in subdivision (a). (c) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage. to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of following: ( I) An average wdter year. (2) A single dry water year. (3) MUltiple dry water years. For any water source that may nol be available al a consistent leV\":1 of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to replace that soun:e with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable. d) Describe the opportunities tor exchanges o:r transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis. (e)(I) Quantif)', to the extent records are available. past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected waler usc, identifying the uses among w:tter use sectors including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses·: (A) Single-jiunily residential. (B) Multifamily. (C) Commercial. (0) Industrial. (E) Institutional and governmental. (F) Landscape. (0) Sales to other agencies. (H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwat'~r recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof. (I) Agricultural. (2) The water use projections shall be in ihe same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a). (f) Provide a description orthe supplier's wat,:r demand managemcnI measures. This description shall include all of the (ollowing: ( I) A description of each waler demand management measure that is curremly being implemented. or scheduled for implementation, including the steps necessary to implement nny proposed measures, including, bUI no! limited to, all me 0 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 2 ofthe following: (A) Interior and exterior water audits and incenti ... e programs for single-family residential, multifamily residential, governmental, and institutional customers. (8) Enforccment of plumbing fixture efficicncy standards and programs to re trofit less efficicnt fixtures. (C) Distribution systcm watcr audits, leak dctection, and repair. (D) Metering with commodity rates for all new connections und retrofit of ex is ling connections . (E) Large landscape water audits and i1lCenti ...es. (F) Landscape water conservation requirements for new and existing commercial, industrial, institutional, go ...ernmcntlll, and multifamily developmcnts. (G) Public information. (H) School education. (I) Commercial and industrial wlltcr conser... ation. (J) New commcrcial and industrial watcr use re ... iew. (K) Conservation pricing for watcr service and conservation pricing for sewcr service, where the urban water supplier also provides sewer service. (L) Landscape water conscrvation for new and existing single-family homes. (M) Water waste prohibitions. (N) Water conservation coordinator. (0) Financial incenti ...es 10 encourage water conservation. (P) Ultra-low-flush toilet re placemcnt. (2) A schedule of implementation for all waler demand management measurc! proposed or described in the plan. (3) A description of the methods, if ruty, that the supplier will usc to evaluate the effecti ...enes.s of waler dcm:md management measures implemented or describ.::d under the plan. (4) An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use within the supplier's scrvice area, Md thc effect of such savings on the supplier's ability to funhcr «.'duce demand. (g) An cvaluation or each water demand management measure listed in paragraph (1) ofsubdi... ision (f) that is not currently being implemented or scheduled for implementation. In the course of the evalUation, first consideration shall be gi ...en to water demand management measures, or combination of measures, which offer lowcr incremental costs than expanded or addition31 watcr supplies. This e...aluation shall do all of the following: ( I) Take imo account economic and noneconomic factors, including environmental. social, health, customer impact, and technological factoTS. (2) Include a cost-benefit analysis, identirying total benefits and total costs. (3) Include II description of funding a"'3i1able to implcment any planned water supply projcct tllat would provide water at a higher unit cost. (4) Include a description of the water supplicr's legal authority to implemcnt the measure and eITons to work with other rcle ...ant agencies [0 ensure the implementation of the measure and to sharc Ihe cost ofimplcmentation. (h) Ur ban water suppliers thaI arc members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council and submit annual repans to that council in accordance with the "Memorandum of Undcrstanding Regarding Urban Water ConsCTV'J.tion in California," dated September 1991 , may submit the annual rcpons idcntifying wutcr dcmand managemtnt measures currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation. to satisfy the requirements ofsubdi· visions (f) and (g). CREDIT(S) 1992 Main Volume (Added by St<l\s. 19S3. c. 1009, § I. Amended by St8ts.\990. e. 355 (A.(l2661 ). § 1: Sta15.I99I-92 , 1st ExSess., c. 13 (A.B.I l), § 3; Slats.1991, c. 938 (A.B. I 869), § 3.) 1999 Electronic Pocket Pan Upd31e 0 2013 Thomson Reule~. No Claim 10 Orig. US Go .... Works.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?