Docstoc

AVIATION - PDF

Document Sample
AVIATION - PDF Powered By Docstoc
					AVIATION
                                                                         DRAFT
Issue Brief - AVIATION
I. Introduction and Overall County Grade

Facilities for commercial, general and military aviation have been a part of Orange
County since before World War II. Since then, the County has been one of the most
rapidly growing urban areas in the United States. This growth has been fueled by
significant investments in technology, corporate facilities, residential and commercial
development. The rapid growth in the economy has further generated requirements for
additional commercial and general aviation facilities. The regional need to satisfy the
demand for air transportation service is important to sustain both the local and regional
economy and the overall quality of life of residents. The Orange County system of
aviation infrastructure includes the John Wayne Airport (SNA), Los Alamitos Army
Airfield (SLI), and Fullerton Municipal Airport (FUL). General aviation is served by both
John Wayne and Fullerton Airports. Los Alamitos serves military and government
aviation exclusively.

On a regional level, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has
addressed these aviation demand requirements in their Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). This plan calls for improvements in surface and mass transit systems to facilitate
the movement of passengers and cargo to and from other under utilized regional aviation
facilities. It is expected that within the Orange County system of aviation facilities,
demand for commercial air travel will exceed the capacity of facilities. Without
significant improvements in surface transportation and mass transit systems, this
differential between capacity and demand will continue to grow.

The overall Infrastructure Report Card grade is a combined consideration of the general
facility grade and an evaluation of the impact of demand versus capacity for aviation
services. The Report Card Grade for the County was therefore reached through a
quantitative assessment and qualitative judgment of the three active aviation facilities. All
three aviation facilities were evaluated using the same six fundamental criteria; condition,
resilience/security, sustainability, operation, cost, and capacity/demand. The criteria
grades and overall grades for each of the three aviation categories are as follows:

   Report Card
                            Commercial           General Aviation            Military
      Criterion
Condition                        A                       B-                     C-
Resilience/Security              A                       B                      B
Sustainability                   B-                      C                      D
Operation                        A                       A                      B
Cost                             A                       B                      D
Capacity/Demand                  C-                      C                      C
                                                                       DRAFT
OVERALL GRADE

Based on this evaluation, the 2009 overall Infrastructure Report Card grade for Aviation
Infrastructure in Orange County is set at a B.

II. Infrastructure Assessment Methodology

Background

Three active aviation facilities are operational in Orange County. They are John Wayne
Airport, Los Alamitos Army Airfield and Fullerton Municipal Airport.

John Wayne Airport is the most significant with respect to operations because it is the
only one of the three Orange County airports that serves both commercial and general
aviation operations. General aviation aircraft generate approximately sixty five percent of
John Wayne Airport’s take-offs and landings.

Los Alamitos aviation facility is presently operated as the Los Alamitos Army Airfield
and is the home base for operations of certain units of the California National Guard and
the Army Reserve. Practically all operations are conducted by units of the California
National Guard and Army Reserve.

Fullerton Municipal Airport has approximately 91,000 general aviation operations
annually and, along with JWA, provides the County with all general aviation facility
assets.

Although John Wayne Airport is small in terms of land mass, it is a crucial component of
the national air transportation system. Serving about 9 million passengers in 2008, the
FAA ranked JWA the 42nd busiest airport in terms of enplaned passengers and 27th
busiest in terms of aircraft operations in 2008. The growth in passengers is directly
related to the growth in the County population and economy. This growth has most
recently been characterized by a shift from single and multi family low rise residential to
high rise mixed use residential and commercial. A significant portion of this new growth
is immediately adjacent to JWA. It is essential that this growth be managed to
complement the aviation environment that is helping to fuel it. There are four areas that
require this management 1) noise compatible uses; 2) safety compatible uses; 3) air
navigation compatible uses; and 4) traffic generation. Failure to address these issues will
result in degrading the JWA ability to meet the local demands for commercial and
general aviation.

Capacity is constrained at the John Wayne Airport by the Settlement Amendment
Implementation Plan, currently referred to as the Airport Improvement Plan (AIP). The
AIP will provide facilities that support the 10.8 Million Annual Passengers limit that was
agreed to by the County, Newport Beach, and two citizens’ groups. Construction of the
AIP is currently underway with scheduled for completion in winter 2011-2012.
                                                                                 DRAFT
Methodology

The Executive Committee of the UCI Affiliates and Orange County ASCE Section
Report Card Committee has established criteria for developing report card grades in each
infrastructure category, including aviation, and has specified that consideration should be
given to six fundamental components within each category. These fundamental
components are Condition, Resilience/Security, Sustainability, Operation, Cost and
Capacity/Demand.

The Aviation Infrastructure Working Group (“AIWG”) developed a methodology for
evaluating and assigning a grade to Orange County aviation infrastructure assets. That
methodology includes analyzing data obtained by the use of an objective questionnaire,
other relevant reports and materials, and supplemented by visual inspection.

A 14-part questionnaire was reviewed with the managers and operators of each of the
three Orange County airports to gather the initial data. The questionnaire was designed to
highlight pertinent macroscopic data about each airport and to provide crucial
information related to the six components selected for consideration. Additionally, the
questionnaire sought to quantify major elements of the airport infrastructure, to assess the
current condition of those assets, to identify management philosophy regarding planning
and infrastructure needs, and to assess each airport’s financial commitment to planning
for future demand, operational safety and environmental compliance. On-site inspection
and facility tours were used to supplement the data collection effort and to provide a
visual verification of infrastructure condition, resilience/security, sustainability,
operation, cost and capacity/demand. The AIWG analyzed each Orange County aviation
facility as a total infrastructure package and view each airport’s capacity and
effectiveness in meeting present and future demands with maximum safety,
environmental compliance and optimization of adequate annual funding for operations,
maintenance, repair and security for the next twenty years as essential elements of the
infrastructure package.

In the three aviation categories of Commercial, General Aviation and Military, the six
components were weighted as follows:

    Report Card
                               Commercial            General Aviation                Military
      Criterion
Condition                          20%                       30%                        40%
Resilience/Security*               25%                       25%                        20%
Sustainability                     10%                       10%                        10%
Operation                          25%                       20%                        15%
Cost                               10%                       10%                        10%
Capacity/Demand                   10% *                       5%                         5%
* The security component for John Wayne Airport includes physical security only. Operational security is
provided by others.
                                                                      DRAFT
The three aviation categories were further weighted at 75%, 20% and 5% respectively.

The Aviation Committee, in its effort to best translate the data assessment into a single
letter grade for the County’s aviation infrastructure derived the overall grade using the
following letter/numerical relationships

A = 100; B = 75; C = 50; D = 25.

Based on the process for quantifying the grade, the County is assigned the overall
category grades for its aviation infrastructure as shown in the table below.

                                         ORANGE COUNTY
                                      AVIATION REPORT CARD
                                         METHODOLOGY
                                    Commercial     General Aviation             Military
  REPORT CARD CRITERION
                                 GRADE   SCORE    GRADE SCORE              GRADE      SCORE
 CONDITION                         A        15      B-         4.2           C-         0.75
 RESILIENCE/SECURITY               A      18.75     B         3.75           B-         0.70
 SUSTAINABILITY                    B-      5.25     C          1.0           D         0.125
 OPERATION                         A      18.75     A          5.0           B         0.563
 COST                              A        7.5     B          1.5           D         0.125
 CAPACITY/DEMAND                   C-      2.81     C          0.5           C         0.125
                        SCORE               68               15.95                      2.39

      WEIGHTED GRADE                  Commercial       General Aviation           Military
       Grade         Score           Weight = 0.75       Weight = 0.20         Weight = 0.05
                                 Original   Reduced   Original  Reduced    Original    Reduced
        A            100         Weight     Weight    Weight    Weight     Weight      Weight
        B+           87.5         20%       15.0%      30%      6.0%        40%        2.0%
        B            75           25%       18.75%     25%      5.0%        20%        1.0%
        B-           70           10%       7.5%       10%      2.0%        10%        0.5%
        C+           62.5         25%       18.75%     20%      4.0%        15%        0.75%
        C            50           10%       7.5%       10%      2.0%        10%        0.5%
        C-           37.5         10%       7.5%        5%      1.0%         5%        0.25%
        D            25            100%       75%       100%       20%      100%         5%
        D-           12.5




III. Data Gathering and Sources

The fourteen-part questionnaires served as the primary data-gathering tool. Other
publicly available information and data relative to Condition, Resilience/Security,
Sustainability, Operation, Cost and Capacity/Demand of each airport were also
selectively reviewed. Visits were made to each airport to visually assess live operations
                                                                        DRAFT
and existing facility conditions. There were extensive discussions with operations
personnel, planning staff and facilities personnel.


IV. Evaluation and Conclusion

The aviation resources/assets in the County were evaluated on the basis of Condition,
Resilience/Security, Sustainability, Operation, Cost and Capacity/Demand.

Condition: The facilities at John Wayne Airport are in excellent condition with a
reported very low dollar value for the backlog of deferred maintenance. Annual
expenditures for maintenance and repair are sufficient to sustain the desired facilities
condition without affecting capacity. Proactive facilities maintenance management
practices are in existence and have been for several years. Facilities at the Fullerton
Municipal Airport are in average condition. The Los Alamitos Airport facilities are in
need of significant repair particularly in the area of maintenance and improvements to
both runway and operations facilities.

Resilient/Security: In this year’s analysis, resilience was considered in conjunction with
security. All three airports were evaluated on the ability to continue providing services in
the event of a natural disaster.

Security was again evaluated in three distinct areas, Commercial passenger, General
aviation, and Cargo. John Wayne Airport was one of the first U.S. airports handling
sizeable commercial passenger loads to regain the pre-September 11 levels. JWA has, as
well, been at the forefront of timely compliance with FAA and other federal initiatives
and directives for airlines and airports, post-September 11. This aggressive and highly
commendable management approach placed the airport in the unique position of
achieving federal compliance for the installation of Explosive Detection Systems by
December 31, 2002. Achieving these actions enhanced the airport security at JWA.

Sustainability: All three airports were evaluated with respect to sustainability in the sub-
categories of energy, waste reduction, urban design, urban nature, transportation,
environment health and water.

Operations: All three Orange County airports have excellent operational histories. This
record is the result of the commitment of the operating organizations and their ability to
allocate resources appropriately to tasks at hand. This commendable operation status is
characterized by excellent safety records, full compliance with FAA regulations, and
compliance with other appropriate directives that set environmental requirements or
community compatibility issues such as noise levels. Of particular note is JWA’s recent
record of performance on Federal Aviation Regulation Part 139 Annual Inspection.

The events of September 11, 2001 shifted operational priorities to increased airport and
airline security. Prior to these events, a significant initiative by the FAA dealt with
minimizing and prevention of runway incursion. JWA continues to provide an
                                                                      DRAFT
aggressive program to achieve these facilities improvement objectives, to limit the
confusion of pilots and reduce the probability of runway incursion by smaller aircraft.
This is extremely important at JWA because of the unusual 4 to 1 ratio of general
aviation to commercial operations.

All three airports are operated well within FAA standards and are in compliance with
other environmental and safety standards.

Cost: The ability to fund the costs of either sustaining an above average overall level or
increasing the grade by one letter grade was also evaluated for each category and is
reflected in the table above.

Capacity/Demand: The data provided indicates that present general aviation operational
capacity needs are being satisfied. Waiting lists for tie downs and hanger space are very
short and general aviation future demand indices do not project a future need for capacity
beyond that currently provided. Therefore, neither airport has plans for expansion of
general aviation facilities.

Commercial flights are available only at John Wayne Airport. The first regularly
scheduled commercial air service was initiated at John Wayne Airport in 1952; by 1965
the airport was serving more than 45,000 passengers annually. Subsequent planning and
expansion have dramatically trailed demand for commercial flights, and airport capacity
growth has been severely constrained by the terms of a Federal Court-approved 1985
agreement between the Board of Supervisors, Newport Beach and two community
groups, Stop Polluting our Newport (SPON) and the Airport Working Group (AWG).
The 1985 agreement settled numerous noise related lawsuits against Orange County and
resulted in the approval by the Board of Supervisors of a revised Master Plan, Airline
Access Plan and Land Use Compatibility Plan, which jointly provides the flight and
expansion constraint limits under which John Wayne Airport currently operates. John
Wayne Airport has adequately planned and expanded to meet present and future air travel
demand within the constraints referred to above, as well as those imposed by local public
opinion. Nevertheless, the resulting commercial aviation capacity has been, is presently
and continues in future planning to be well below the demand projected in numerous
studies for air transportation needs for Orange County and for the Southern California
region.

The Regional Aviation Plan for the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) published
by the Southern California Association of Governments forecasts the demand for the
region to be near 170 million annual passengers by the year 2025. This document also
suggests certain demand quantities for parts of the region including Orange County. That
demand distribution envisions approximately 37 million annual passengers in 2025 for
the County of that predicted future regional demand. This equates to the County
generating approximately 22% of the region’s demand in 2025. At the present time the
County facility is constrained to serve approximately 9.9 million annual passengers
which is about 6% of the regional demand. The AIP, currently under construction, will
increase the facilities capacity to 10.8 million annual passengers. This will continue to
                                                                                          DRAFT
fall short of the long term future demand. The current RTP looks to high speed regional
mass surface transportation systems to under utilized regional airport as the solution to
these capacity shortfalls.

                                     FORECAST OF COMMERCIAL AVIATION
                                           DEMAND VS.CAPACITY

                                     30
                                     25
                    Million Annual
                     Passengers

                                     20
                                     15
                                     10
                                     5
                                     0
                                          Jan-05   Jan-10          Jan-15        Jan-20
                                                            Year

                                                    Demand           Capacity

                Demand forecast - Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and
                Proposed Orange County International Airport, October 2001.
                Capacity forecast – Settlement Amendment Implementation Plan Program
                Overview, July 2005.


International commercial flights are not being provided at any of the three operating
airports in Orange County. Therefore, Orange County does not contribute to the
satisfaction of either local or regional demand for direct international air travel. The
Terminal “C” project currently under construction at JWA will satisfy a portion of the
current demand for international travel.




VI. References
• Southern California Association of Governments Regional Aviation Plan for the 2008
  Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
• Federal Aviation Administration Circulars
• Data Survey
• Airport System Master Plan, October 2001
• Settlement Amendment Implementation Program Overview, July 2005
• Environmental Impact Report 582
ENERGY
                DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee



             Orange County
       Infrastructure Report Card




Findings of the Energy Committee

                       DRAFT

               October 12, 2009




                                                        Page 1 of 39
                              DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
              Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


                                           Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------              3

2. Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------        4

3. Overview of Electric Providers’ Systems ----------------------------------------                     7

4. Assessment of Reliability -------------------------------------------------------------              9

        4.1 Condition of Local Distribution System Facilities -----------------                       11

        4.2 Condition of Regional Transmission Facilities ---------------------                       16

5. Assessment of Transmission – Distribution Capacity ----------------------                          17

        5.1 Availability of Adequate Supply (Generation) -----------------------                      17

        5.2 Capacity of Local Transmission – Distribution Facilities --------                         22

        5.3 Capacity of Regional Transmission Facilities -----------------------                      27

6. Assessment of Operations -----------------------------------------------------------               34

        6.1 Power Quality -------------------------------------------------------------------         34

        6.2 Maintenance / Repair and Replacement Funding Levels --------                              34

        6.3 Resiliency ------------------------------------------------------------------------       34

7. Summary and Conclusions -----------------------------------------------------------                36

8. Recommendations -----------------------------------------------------------------------            38

9. Epilogue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     39




1. Executive Summary

This report from the Energy Committee represents the first time that the specific topic of
energy infrastructure has been incorporated into the Orange County Report Card. A great
deal of information has been identified that has been useful in compiling the data and other
information in this report, and the Energy Committee feels confident in recommending a

                                                                                                   Page 2 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


grade of C+ in 2009 in regard to the overall condition of Orange County’s Energy
Infrastructure.

The Energy Committee went beyond the task of evaluating the present state of Orange
County’s Energy Infrastructure, and also projected the grade that it expected would be
earned in 2014, five years from now. That grade is C-. The significance of this “two-tiered
grading approach” is to illustrate not only where we are, but where we are headed. As
these grades indicate, the present state of the infrastructure might be characterized as
“average” or “mediocre”, and at the same time events and trends are noted that seem to be
driving the state of the infrastructure in a negative direction. This report addresses those
events and trends.

Publicly-available information has been used to develop this report, and many citations are
provided for those who may wish to delve further into the details of this topic. Due to
national Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) issues, the Energy Committee has
not sought to obtain or use any confidential or overly-specific information that could possibly
compromise security, especially since so much information is publicly available that is useful
for the purpose of the Report Card.

This year, the Energy Committee focused its efforts on assessing the applicable portions of
the electric power systems of Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego
Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), each of which serve areas of Orange County1. The
focus of any future efforts will be discussed when those efforts are initiated.

Following are various sections that provide the rationale for the Energy Committee’s Report
Card grade. At the end of the report are a summary and conclusions, followed by
recommendations.




1
   Besides its service to San Diego County, SDG&E serves the following cities in Orange County:
Dana Point, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano and portions of Laguna Beach, Laguna Nigel and
Mission Viejo. SCE serves other areas of Orange County, except the City of Anaheim which has its
own municipal utility. Although the City of Anaheim was not able to participate in this year’s
infrastructure report card effort, the assessment of the systems of SCE and SDG&E are believed to
be representative examples of the status of electric energy infrastructure throughout Orange County.


                                                                                   Page 3 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


2. Introduction

This is the first attempt to include the energy sector in the Orange County Infrastructure
Report Card. As the citizen support for the report card grows, so do the infrastructure areas
of concern. Several infrastructure areas have been added in the past few editions of the
report card. In the absence of any previous template for the energy sector, one was
created. The first attempt is largely informational. Some of the topics covered are not very
apparent to the residents of Orange County, and some topics affecting Orange County are
highly influenced well beyond the Orange County boundaries. Exploring the electrical
infrastructure serving Orange County, and the ultimate resulting reliability, encompasses a
range from a single customer’s meter to policy decisions made in Washington. Assessing
the infrastructure of the distribution system, which compares the older areas of Santa Ana
which go back nearly 100 years to south Orange County areas that were installed in the
past 10 years, illustrates a broad range of construction types and conditions. An attempt
was made to deal with the old and the new, to assess what the future of the infrastructure
might be based on current funding, economics, public policies and future forecasts.

It is recognized that this report may not be as focused or refined as some of the other more
“mature” areas of infrastructure that have been assessed a number of times in past report
cards. It is hoped that the feedback received from this report will allow for further refinement
and an even more useful product in the future.




                                                                                Page 4 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


The map below shows SDG&E’s Service Territory as shown in SDG&E’s posted Electric
Tariff Book2.




2
    http://www.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/ELEC_MAPS_Maps_-_Elec.pdf

                                                                    Page 5 of 39
                             DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
             Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


The map below shows SCE’s Service Territory as shown by Edison International / SCE3.




3
    http://www.edison.com/files/SCE_Service_Territory_Map.pdf

                                                                         Page 6 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


3. Overview of Electric Providers’ Systems

Basic Statistics, Companywide as of End of 2007 (not explicitly Orange County)4
                                                 SCE                     SDG&E
Number of Customers5 / Accounts                     4.86 Million              1.4 Million
(Meters)
                               Residential          4.25 Million           1.211 Million
                              Commercial           0.536 Million           0.146 Million
                                 Industrial        0.013 Million                     500
Service Territory Population                    Over 13 Million               3.4 Million
Average 5-Year Investment (Capital)            Up to $19 Billion         Up to $5 Billion
                                                     2008-2012               2008-2012
Average Annual Investment (Capital)                  $3.8 Billion            $1.0 Billion
Total Utility Plant (net of depreciation)          $17.4 Billion          $6.011 Billion
Total Assets (including Utility Plant)             $27.5 Billion          $8.508 Billion

From the above data, the following information can be calculated (in dollars).
                                                   SCE                     SDG&E
Total Utility Plant per Customer                      $3,625.00                $4,293.57
Total Utility Plant per Person                        $1,338.46                $1,767.94

Total Assets per Customer                                   $5,729.17                 $6,077.14
Total Assets per Person                                     $2,115.38                 $2,502.35

Average Capital Investment per Year                           $791.67                   $714.29
per Customer
Average Capital Investment per Year                           $292.31                   $294.12
per Person


Though the numbers vary slightly from SCE-to-SDG&E, the numbers are considered to be
so close as to be insignificant, especially since spending can vary significantly from year-to-
year. Thus, the Energy Committee concludes that both SCE and SDG&E are investing
significant capital year-to-year to build new infrastructure to serve their customers. Yet, in
spite of the capital being spent, the accelerating aging of existing facilities appears to be
occurring at a concerning rate, as shown later in this report under “Condition of Local
Distribution System Facilities”.
4
   Data sources are the companies’ Annual Reports
(http://www.edison.com/investors/annual_rpts.asp and
http://www.sempra.com/financials/2007report/assets/SempraAReport07.pdf) and SEC 10-K Filings
(http://ir.edisoninvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=85474&p=irol-sec and
http://investor.shareholder.com/sre/sec.cfm).
5
   In keeping with the normal utility convention, a “customer” refers to a meter, regardless of the
number of people served at the residence or business at which that meter is located. To reflect the
figures in terms of the population served, the figures are also shown on a “per Person” basis.

                                                                                    Page 7 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


4. Assessment of Reliability

Electric service in Orange County is provided by SCE (for northern and central Orange
County) and SDG&E (for southern Orange County)6. Reliability statistics are reported to the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on an annual basis by each Investor-Owned
Utility (IOU) in California, including SCE and SDG&E. The most recent reports, at the time
this information was prepared, were for the year 20087. Although the statistics for Orange
County are not reported separately, it can be assumed that the reported figures are
representative of the reliability within Orange County for the portions served by SCE and
SDG&E, respectively.

The indices used by SCE and SDG&E to assess reliability are industry standards that were
developed by the IEEE (originally an acronym for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers) and subsequently, approved by CPUC as reasonable indicators of system
performance.
   • SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index) - A measure (in minutes per
      year) of how long the average customer was interrupted on interruptions lasting more
      than 5 minutes.
   • SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index) - A measure of how often
      (number of occurrences per year) the average customer experienced an interruption
      lasting more than 5 minutes.
   • MAIFI (Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index) - A measure of how often
      (number of occurrences per year) the average customer experienced an interruption
      lasting less than 5 minutes.

Reliability Average for SDG&E

CRITERIA                                                SAIDI        SAIFI         MAIFI
Including CPUC Major Events (2008)                      59.17        0.517         0.380
Excluding CPUC Major Events (2008)                      58.92        0.515         0.378
10-Year Average (1999-2008) Including Major Events     101.62        0.674         0.654
10-Year Average (1999-2008) Excluding Major Events      62.43        0.612         0.642

Reliability Average for SCE

CRITERIA                                                SAIDI        SAIFI         MAIFI
Including CPUC Major Events (2007)                     151.60        1.15          1.68
Excluding CPUC Major Events (2007)                     141.95        1.11          1.60
10-Year Average (1998-2007) Including Major Events      82.73        1.23          1.35
10-Year Average (1998-2007) Excluding Major Events      74.06        1.15          1.27

6
    Electric Utility Service Areas in California, including Orange County, are shown in maps at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/maps-pdf/UTILITY_SERVICE_AREAS_DETAIL.PDF and also at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/maps-pdf/UTILITY_SERVICE_AREAS.PDF. In addition, the City of
Anaheim municipal utility provides service to its own locality.
7
  http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/ElectricSR/Reliability/annualreports/2008.htm

                                                                               Page 8 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


National Reliability Average

According to the October 2008 report “Tracking the Reliability of the U.S. Electric Power
System: An Assessment of Publicly Available Information Reported to State Public Utility
Commissions”, funded by the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of the U.S.
Department of Energy, the reliability indices for the U.S. and the Pacific Region are as
follows8.

REGION                                                   SAIDI         SAIFI         MAIFI
United States                                             244           1.49          6.55
Pacific Region                                            296           1.99          3.40

As can be seen by the statistics, both SCE and SDG&E have performed better than the
national average and better than the Pacific Region average, both in terms of duration of
outages and frequency of outages. This speaks highly of the reliability of service in their
respective service territories. High-quality of service as provided by the utilities is naturally
inherent in such data, but also the favorable data is partly due to actions not under the
utilities’ control, such as milder weather and storms that occur with relatively low frequency
and intensity as compared to other climactic areas of the U.S.

The PA Consulting Group identifies a few selected utilities with its ReliabilityOne™ award9
to honor those which have excelled in delivering reliable electrical energy to their customers.
SDG&E has been honored with the award in 2008 and certain previous years, and SCE
likewise has received the award in 2002 and 2004. This is yet another indicator of the
reliable service that customers in Orange County have grown accustomed to experiencing.
In addition, SDG&E also received PA’s ServiceOne award10 in 2007, and was recognized
for “Outstanding Response to a Major Outage Event” for its efforts supporting the
community and restoring service to customers following the 2007 wildfires. Although those
fires were in San Diego County, again this is indicative in general of the quality of service
and effort put forth on behalf of customers by the utility. In 2003, SCE received the
Emergency Preparedness Commission’s Los Angeles Award for Outstanding Emergency
Response.

In addition to the reliability reports discussed above, SCE and SDG&E also each issue an
“Annual Corrective Maintenance Report” each year11. These reports detail each company’s
adherence to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order (GO) 165
compliance program for inspection and maintenance of electric distribution facilities.
Orange County is one of many areas served by SCE and SDG&E, and nothing was seen in
the reports to indicate an Orange County electric infrastructure issue.



8
   http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/941540-b8jpBo
9
   http://www.paconsulting.com/polaris/awards/reliabilityone
10
    http://www.paconsulting.com/polaris/awards/serviceone
11
    http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/ElectricSR/Reliability/go165Reports/2007.htm

                                                                                 Page 9 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


4.1 Condition of Local Distribution System Facilities

In terms of electric distribution infrastructure challenges, the California Energy Commission
(CEC) Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) notes that12:

“Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, SCE installed increasing amounts of underground cable,
much of which is approaching the end of its design life … It will therefore have to be
replaced in the near future to avoid failures. Depending on the amount and age of
underground cable in their service territories, utilities report replacing underground cable at
rates of 40 to 70 miles per year. Based on 43,108 miles of such cable, this is unlikely to
prove an adequate replacement cycle. Even if the rate of replacement is increased, it is
clear from the figure that in the SCE service territory, cable failures due to age are likely to
measurably increase in the next 5 to 10 years, impacting reliability…”.

Additionally, the Department of Energy noted in its Power Outage Study Team report,
published in 2000 that “the aging infrastructure and increased demand for power have
strained many transmission and distribution systems to the point of interrupting service. In
many cases, state and federal regulatory policies are not providing adequate incentives for
utilities to maintain and upgrade facilities to provide an acceptable level of reliability.” 13

Distribution reliability has been a very visible issue at the state level for the past 10 years.
As an example, in SCE’s 2006 General Rate Case a mechanism was approved to
encourage SCE to invest in inspections and equipment replacement as a method of
maintaining the high reliability that Southern Californians have come to expect. The
Reliability Investment Incentive Mechanism (RIIM) encouraged SCE to invest in both people
and equipment to overcome the massive amount of work that will be needed to replace its
aging system prudently. Over the 2002-2006 period, SCE ramped up spending by an
average annual 21.7% to meet the challenges of a progressively aging infrastructure.14

A utility’s distribution system is primarily made up of overhead and underground distribution
equipment. While there are a number of different pieces of equipment for both overhead
and underground, this report uses poles as a proxy to demonstrate the overhead issues and
uses cable as a proxy to demonstrate the issues of aging underground equipment. These
two types of equipment are perhaps the more capital intensive equipment to replace.

To give some context to the issue of aging infrastructure, data was taken from SCE’s 2009
Rate Case Testimony focused on Capital Expenditures relating to reliability.


12
   2007 IEPR, pages 152-153, http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-100-2007-
008/CEC-100-2007-008-CMF.PDF.
13
   SCE 2009 General Rate Case, SCE-03, Volume 3, Part 3, page 13,
http://www3.sce.com/sscc/law/dis/dbattach1e.nsf/0/7E3AE253600FED95882573B6007602DF/$FIL
E/S03V03P03.pdf.
14
   SCE 2009 General Rate Case, SCE-03, Volume 3, Part 3, pages 1-2.


                                                                                Page 10 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


As can be seen from the SCE graphs below (Figures II-5 and II-7), the average age of
distribution poles (approaching 40 years) and underground cable (approaching 20 years) is
increasing. Figure II-11 shows the increasing demands placed on the SCE system
correlating to the increasing population.15 The increased demands also represent a change
in consumer loads as a result of increasing presence of electronic devices throughout our
work and home environments.




15
        SCE 2009 General Rate Case, SCE-03, Volume 3, Part 3, pages 10, 11 and 15,
http://www3.sce.com/sscc/law/dis/dbattach1e.nsf/0/7E3AE253600FED95882573B6007602DF/$FIL
E/S03V03P03.pdf. The figure numbers shown here, and throughout this report, are the figure
numbers used in the original source documents.

                                                                           Page 11 of 39
                DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee




                                                        Page 12 of 39
                DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee




                                                        Page 13 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


Replacing aging infrastructure is a costly and resource intensive undertaking. Certainly, a
proactive approach to planned replacements versus emergency replacements upon failure
is more cost effective. The most recent Rate Case decision for SCE (March, 2009) provided
a clear message from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding future
reliability versus the existing economy. In the decision the CPUC provided funding for load
growth projects and for infrastructure essential to bring renewable energies to the greater
Los Angeles/Orange County areas. However, the CPUC reduced funding for much of the
infrastructure replacement programs. The message clearly indicating that the CPUC
recognizes a need to continue to provide infrastructure for growth which results in increased
rates. However, the current economy requires a tradeoff be made regarding future
reliability. The message was that the economy cannot support increased rates to mitigate
future reliability, thereby some decline in reliability will be seen going forward.

The impacts of the aging infrastructure are demonstrated in the following graph which
shows the contributions to both SAIDI and SAIFI resulting from increasing underground
cable failures.16




16
        SCE 2009 General Rate Case, SCE-03, Volume 3, Part 3, page 71,
http://www3.sce.com/sscc/law/dis/dbattach1e.nsf/0/7E3AE253600FED95882573B6007602DF/$FIL
E/S03V03P03.pdf.


                                                                             Page 14 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee




Another issue that was highlighted by both SDG&E and SCE in various CPUC filings is the
aging utility workforce and the difficulties that the utilities experience in attracting and
training both new operational and engineering talent. As a career field, power engineering
does not attract many students, and the number of universities and colleges at which it is
taught is declining. Attracting and keeping skilled field and construction staff are also issues.
Over the next five years, this issue is expected to worsen and will impact the ability of
utilities to rebuild their distribution systems and provide reliable service in the future. New
technologies including automation, sensors, and controls will assure that staff resources are
used as efficiently as possible.




                                                                                 Page 15 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


4.2 Condition of Regional Transmission Facilities

Generally, the condition of the regional transmission facilities does not tend to be an issue,
nor has it historically been problematic17. The overall age of the transmission infrastructure
in the area is relatively new and in good condition. SCE has made a number of changes to
its insulators that have served to improve the overall reliability of the transmission system.
There are vegetation issues that are managed annually to ensure there are no large area
outages due to overgrown vegetation. The installation of underground transmission cable
is a relatively new transmission construction practice and as such is newer than most
underground distribution cable and in good condition. Please refer to the later section
“Capacity of Regional Transmission Facilities” for a comprehensive overview of these
transmission facilities.


5. Assessment of Transmission – Distribution Capacity

5.1 Availability of Adequate Supply (Generation)

An understanding of the adequacy of generation supply to Orange County requires an
understanding of how that subject relates to the operation of the interconnected
transmission grid.

In the distant past, electric utilities acted largely in a provincial manner, as “islands” serving
their own customers with their own generation via their own distribution systems.
Connections between utilities were very limited and even if available, were often used only
for emergencies. In that scenario, where power system transmission voltages were
relatively low, adequacy of local generation was a key issue.

The electric systems of SDG&E and SCE were tied together in Orange County as early as
1918 by a “high voltage” 66 kV transmission line linking the two systems at San Juan
Capistrano18. The interconnection could transfer up to 5 Megawatts – an enormous amount
at the time, but extremely small by today’s standards of high voltage power transmission.

That has changed dramatically, especially since the 1960s. It was in that decade that many
events unfolded that would radically improve reliability and the economy of the electric grid
in California – the grid that serves Orange County.

“The beginning of 1962 saw the completion of arrangements to establish pool operations of
the electric generating resources of four California utilities. The power pool, created by

17
    The regional transmission facilities may be occasionally threatened by wildfires, and temporarily
out-of-service as a result, but this is not an aging infrastructure issue. For example, see
http://www.caiso.com/1c7f/1c7fd37357d80.pdf and http://www.caiso.com/1c83/1c83c7ba4d010.pdf.
18
   Engstrand, Iris, and Crawford, Kathleen, “Reflections: A History of the San Diego Gas & Electric
Company 1881-1991”, published by The San Diego Historical Society and San Diego Gas & Electric
Company, 1991, page 69.

                                                                                    Page 16 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


SDG&E and the three other major investor-owned utilities in California – Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company and California Electric Power
Company – was designed to provide for mutual aid during emergencies and to permit
various economies in operation. The power pool joined practically all the electrical
resources and facilities in California into one interconnected system.” 19

The 1960s also saw the development of the Pacific Intertie, high voltage transmission lines
linking California and Oregon, bringing huge amounts of economical hydroelectric power to
the systems of SCE, SDG&E and others. In addition, the first generating unit at the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) was developed20, and along with it, came
transmission lines interconnecting the plant to the transmission systems of SCE and
SDG&E. SONGS now has two units in operation, Units 2 and 3, which have been in
operation since the 1980s21. The switchyard at SONGS provides a strong transmission
interconnection between SCE and SDG&E.

Four transmission lines emanate from the SONGS switchyard into the system of SCE22,
each of which serves Orange County as well as interconnecting to the transmission grid.
Five transmission lines emanate from the SONGS switchyard into the system of SDG&E.
Two of those lines terminate at Talega Substation, serving SDG&E’s service area in Orange
County, while the other three lines head southbound into SDG&E’s San Diego County area.
Another transmission line runs from Escondido Substation to Talega Substation, providing a
third line into Talega to provide further system reliability, including reliability to Orange
County customers.

Much has happened since the strides of the 1960s to further expand the interconnected
system and ensure its reliability. Today, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) provides overall reliability standards that cover North America23. The transmission
grid that is relevant to Orange County is known as the “Western Interconnection”, which is
planned and operated based on the reliability criteria of the Western Electricity Coordinating
Council (WECC)24, as well as other relevant planning standards and reliability
considerations. SCE and SDG&E, among many other utilities throughout the western U.S.,
western Canada and Baja California, are members of WECC and cooperate in terms of the
reliable planning and operation of the Western Interconnection.



19
   Engstrand, Iris, and Crawford, Kathleen, “Reflections: A History of the San Diego Gas & Electric
Company 1881-1991”, published by The San Diego Historical Society and San Diego Gas & Electric
Company, 1991, page 178.
20
   Myers, William A., “Nuclear Pioneer: The Story of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station’s Unit
1”. SONGS Unit 1 was permanently shut down in 1992, and has subsequently undergone a
decommissioning / dismantlement process.
21
   Myers, William A., “Iron Men and Copper Wires: A Centennial History of the Southern California
Edison Company”, page 215.
22
   http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/aspen/viejosystem/mnd/text/B_initialstudy.pdf
23
   http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20
24
   http://www.wecc.biz

                                                                                  Page 17 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


Another organization, which has existed since 1998 when new regulations resulted in “re-
regulation” of the utilities under the jurisdiction of the CPUC in California, is the California
Independent System Operator (California ISO or CAISO)25. The CAISO also functions
within the NERC/WECC framework, and operates the transmission grid reliably and
efficiently in California26, while providing fair and open transmission access. The CAISO
also works in facilitating effective markets, planning the transmission grid and promoting
needed infrastructure development.

Due to the nature of the modern-day interconnected transmission grid, areas such as
Orange County do not generally tend to be limited by local generation supply. Both local
generation and very distant generation feed into the transmission grid, and loads such as
residential, industrial and commercial customers are fed from the transmission grid through
local distribution systems – in that way, the transmission grid acts as a “pool” of electricity
resources. However, in some cases, local generation issues may arise in terms of
transmission line loading or voltage support issues.

The CAISO, working closely with the utility companies, performs annual assessments of
“Local Capacity Requirement” (LCR)27. These assessments are performed to determine the
amount of generation resources needed to be operated for grid reliability in a local area. To
the extent that a resource limitation is seen, that would mean that certain generators might
not have the option of running or not, which is generally based on economics, but rather
they would be required to run to support the reliable operation of the transmission grid. This
operating study process is contrasted to the planning study process, which occurs years in
advance.

SONGS is close to Orange County, in both a geographic and electric system modeling
sense, and has been a reliable, steady source of power into the transmission grid. The
SONGS Steam Generator Replacement Project (SGRP)28 represents a very significant
effort to address an aging infrastructure issue, and will keep SONGS operating into the
future. Without the SGRP, one unit at SONGS, followed by the other, would need to be
shut down as the existing steam generators approached the end of their useful life. Such a
scenario would result in a significant loss of power and energy29, and would also result in
transmission grid issues. By addressing that aging infrastructure issue, the SONGS owners


25
    http://www.caiso.com
26
    Although not all utilities in California operate under the CAISO, most of the transmission grid in
California is under the CAISO’s Operational Control, including the transmission grid owned by SCE
and SDG&E in Orange County.                     The CAISO Control Area map is shown at
http://www1.caiso.com/aboutus/infokit/map and the CEC provides an excellent Control Areas map at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/ISO_NON-ISO_SERVICE_AREAS.PDF.
27
             http://www.caiso.com/1c44/1c44b8e0380a0.html           (2009      and     prior)     and
http://www.caiso.com/20ad/20ad77d04d70.pdf (2011 and 2013)
28
    http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/aspen/sanonofre/deir/b_proj_desc.pdf
29
    The term “power” is used to denote electrical demand at a moment in time, typically expressed in
kilowatts or megawatts. The term “energy” is used to denote electrical usage over a period of time,
typically expressed in kilowatt-hours or megawatt-hours.

                                                                                     Page 18 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


(including SCE and SDG&E) are providing a continuing source of reliable power and energy
to the interconnected transmission grid, serving Orange County and other areas.

A major goal in California involves development of new renewable energy generation – as
much as 33% by 2020.30 To the extent that sites in Orange County can be identified and
developed, such development would lessen the need for future additional transmission
infrastructure to import such power.

To ensure adequate reliability, the utilities perform annual technical studies to determine
new distribution and transmission projects needed to be added to the existing infrastructure.
The California ISO, in cooperation with the utilities and other stakeholders, also performs
technical studies on a regional basis31. Each of these studies are based on current
projections of system demand out for at least ten years (the “demand forecast” or “load
forecast”)32, and sometimes longer.

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has operated the systems of SCE
and SDG&E (among other utilities in California) since its inception in 1998. If and when
generation begins to fall short as compared to the load demand, the CAISO issues alerts
and takes action as follows33.
   • Stage One, a call for voluntary conservation, occurs when reserve level has fallen
      below 7%;
   • Stage Two, involving the dropping of certain loads that have been voluntarily pre-
      arranged (such as certain air conditioner loads), occurs when operating reserve level
      has fallen below 5%; and
   • Stage Three, during which involuntary outages will be implemented, occurs when it
      has become unavoidable that operating reserve will be below 1.5%.




30
   http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/06/15/california-dreaming-good-luck-meeting-the-
33-renewables-target/
31
           The     CAISO’s     regional   transmission     studies     can   be     accessed     at
http://www.caiso.com/1f42/1f42d6e628ce0.html.
32
    Demand forecasts are discussed in Chapter 2 of the 2008 Integrated Energy Policy Report
(IEPR) Update at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-100-2008-008/CEC-100-2008-
008-CMF.PDF.
33
   http://www.caiso.com/1b5b/1b5bd334b760.html

                                                                                  Page 19 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


It is uncommon for such alerts to be called. The CAISO alerts are based on regional issues,
as opposed to local issues such as a distribution circuit failure. In the past, CAISO alerts
have typically been called on unusually hot days when customer demand is spiking higher
than expected, or when major generation is off-line due to unanticipated failure. Such alerts
may also be called if significant transmission lines are out-of-service, which may occur due
to wildfires or any of a number of issues that result in a failure, such as a short-circuit known
as a “fault”. The procedures for implementing rotating outages are available on the CAISO
website at www.caiso.com. The schedule for rotating outages of SCE and SDG&E
customers can be found on their websites34.

Based on the foregoing discussion, the availability of adequate generation supply to serve
Orange County is a complex issue that involves a comprehensive examination of local
generation and regional transmission. There is generalized opposition to constructing new
generation in Orange County, and there is likewise significant opposition to major new
transmission facilities. The experiences of SDG&E during the Sunrise Powerlink 500 kV
Transmission Line proceedings, and the experience of SCE during the Palo Verde – Devers
#2 500 kV Transmission Line proceedings are examples of the complex and time-
consuming process, often with hurdle-after-hurdle to overcome. Although no specific
shortage is identified for 2009, these issues remain as chronic issues that can result in
future shortages, depending on how successful future infrastructure maintenance and
expansion may be.

Reliably serving customer load involves the trade-off between constructing local generation
versus constructing transmission to bring in power generated elsewhere. As an example,
following the 2006 summer heat wave, SDG&E issued a Request for Offers (RFO) seeking
new in-basin (local) generating capacity to meet the region’s reliability and energy needs.35
In response to the RFO, a developer proposed to construct a gas-fired turbine project
adjacent to an SDG&E substation in Orange County. The small plant was ideally located to
serve customers in the immediate area, thus, off-loading the 138 kV transmission system
during critical times. No Network Upgrades were necessary to accommodate the proposed
plant. The developer planned to operate the peaker plant and sell the output to SDG&E.
Unfortunately, this project was greeted with overwhelming opposition36 and has not moved
forward with construction.37 Lack of generation development in a local area, especially on a
cumulative basis, ultimately results in the need for further transmission development, which
also generally meets with opposition. It is obvious that this presents a quandary in terms of
infrastructure development needed to serve the public needs.

34
    SDG&E’s schedule for rotating outages, outages that may last 60 - 90 minutes at a time at any
particular location during an emergency shortfall of generation resources, is at
http://www.sdge.com/outages/rotatingOutageStatus.shtml. SCE’s schedule for rotating outages is at
http://www.sce.com/PowerOutageCenter/Rotating/default.htm.       The information may change
frequently and should not be unduly relied upon.
35
   http://primezone.com/newsroom/news.html?d=119478
36
   http://www.ocregister.com/articles/plant-county-wellhead-2045395-community-
ladera?orderby=TimeStampDescending&oncommentsPage=1&showRecommendedOnly=1
37
   http://www.ocregister.com/articles/county-wellhead-plant-2046491-ladera-hope

                                                                                 Page 20 of 39
                             DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
             Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


5.2 Capacity of Local Transmission and Distribution Facilities

Largely for reasons of economy and environmental impact, utilities and their regulators have
the long-standing practice of adding new facilities only if and when necessary, and seeking
to minimize environmental impact when doing so. The “Garamendi Principles” outline steps
that utilities consider when adding transmission infrastructure38, including the following.
   • Encourage the use of existing rights-of-way by upgrading existing transmission
        facilities where technically and economically justifiable.
   • When construction of new transmission lines is required, encourage expansion of
        existing rights-of-way, when technically and economically feasible.
   • Provide for the creation of new rights-of-way when justified by environmental,
        technical, or economic reasons, as determined by the appropriate licensing agency.
   • Where there is a need to construct additional transmission, seek agreement among
        all interested utilities on the efficient use of that capacity.

SCE and SDG&E support those principles, and seek to minimize cost and environmental
impact when possible by using existing rights-of-way and reconductoring existing lines when
feasible. Thus, reconductoring projects or “rebuilds”, as opposed to the construction of new
transmission lines when greater transmission capacity is required, are often proposed by the
utilities.

Two major SCE projects in recent years that have improved the capacity in the region were
the splitting of the San Onofre transmission lines and the addition of Viejo Substation in
Foothill Ranch. These projects provided capacity that will support future growth for the next
7-10 years. The splitting of the San Onofre transmission lines provided line capacity and an
alternate source to support future Orange County load growth. The addition of Viejo Sub
provided the much needed south County ability to offload existing substations and provide
future capacity for growth.

SDG&E transmission projects for load growth are indicated in the November 20, 2008
presentation at the CAISO web site39.
   • Reconductor Talega – Pico 138 kV Line (Jun 2009, slide 32);
   • Tap San Mateo - Laguna Niguel 138 kV Line into Talega Substation (Oct 2009, slide
      13), which will allow cancellation of other projects;
          o Delete Reconductoring of San Mateo – Talega 138 kV Line; and
          o Delete Reconductoring of Laguna Nigel – Capistrano 138 kV Line.

Another electric infrastructure improvement in Orange County planned by SDG&E,
particularly to address issues of aging infrastructure and vulnerability, is also indicated in the
presentation (slides 19-21).
   • Capistrano Substation Rebuild (replace aging, obsolete 138/12 kV Capistrano
       Distribution Substation with new 230/138/12 kV Substation to provide a second 230

38
     http://energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-700-2007-002/CEC-700-2007-002-CMF.PDF
39
     www.caiso.com/2083/2083d70472190.pdf

                                                                                  Page 21 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


      kV substation source in southern Orange County and minimize vulnerability (rebuild
      San Mateo – Laguna Niguel 138 kV Line into a double-circuit 230 kV Line from
      Talega to Capistrano by Oct 2013).

One more electric infrastructure improvement in Orange County being planned by SDG&E
is the new Rancho Mission Viejo 138/12 kV Substation to serve the growing load in the
area.

SCE is planning to add a 56MVA 66/12kV substation in 2011 to serve new and existing load
in the northern Irvine area including the Northern Sphere and support the Great Park. In
2014 SCE plans to add a 56MVA 66/12kV substation to serve new and existing load in the
Tustin area near to former Tustin Air Base. In 2016 SCE plans to increase the capacity of
Viejo Sub to serve increasing load in the Ladera Ranch area. Such plans are subject to
updates and changes, and are generally studied on an annual basis based on current load
forecasts and other information.




                                                                          Page 22 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


As an example of the planning efforts to address Orange County electric infrastructure,
diagrams illustrating SDG&E’s proposed Orange County Transmission Expansion Project,
which includes the Capistrano Substation Rebuild described above, are shown below as
presented at the November 20, 2008 SDG&E Grid Assessment Stakeholder meeting.40




40
     Although this information and other information in this report was current at the time that
information was prepared, plans are updated as needed, generally on an annual basis. Accordingly,
this information is provided as examples for educational purposes, but should not be unduly relied
upon. Proposed plans such as this are subject to approval by CAISO and subject to change.

                                                                                  Page 23 of 39
                             DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
             Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


All of the above efforts are indicative of the efforts being put forth by SDG&E and SCE to
keep the electrical transmission infrastructure of Orange County in a healthy state, adding or
replacing infrastructure when needed.

In addition, SCE has made available a “Backgrounder” fact sheet entitled “Renewing
California’s Essential Electricity Infrastructure”41. They state “To keep pace and ensure
future service reliability, SCE has undertaken a major infrastructure expansion and
replacement project. The company has proposed investing $15.3 billion during coming
years to expand and renew the region’s essential distribution and transmission grids,
making the power grid greener and smarter for 13 million Southern Californians.”

In terms of distribution facilities, both SCE and SDG&E routinely plan, on an annual basis,
the expansion of their distribution systems to add the capacity needed for growing
residential and commercial electricity demand. They also address issues in regard to their
distribution systems, to the extent that there is any indication of aging infrastructure issues.

SDG&E’s 2008 General Rate Case (GRC) Application42 includes plans for distribution
system expansion, due to growing system load, and also addresses the aging infrastructure
issue43.

In SDG&E’s 2008 GRC, Exhibit SDG&E-4, page CAW-129:

While SDG&E has been proactive over the past several years in trying to address aging
infrastructure issues, equipment failures still continue and impact service to customers.

Cable failures remain the biggest contributor to SAIDI and SAIFI and SDG&E continues to
experience and forecast an increase in polymeric cable failures. The rise in the number of
cable failures is primarily due to the remaining 2,100 circuit miles of high-failure rate
unjacketed branch cable. Two particularly bad vintages of polymeric cable are responsible
for approximately 20% of the failures. The unjacketed branch cable represents about 28%
of all the annual outages and continues to increasingly tax the workforce and impact
customers.

In SDG&E’s 2008 GRC, Exhibit SDG&E-4, pages CAW 131-132:

As discussed earlier, SDG&E as well as most utilities in the United States has an aging
infrastructure problem across broad categories of equipment. While the introduction of new
infrastructure in each category will lower or reduce the increase in average age of an
equipment classification on a yearly basis, it will not change the amount of equipment above
a certain age. Only replacement of the aging assets can accomplish this reduction.

An assessment of substation transformer banks installation history was completed in 2006

41
     http://www.edison.com/files/backgrounder_7a.pdf
42
     http://www.sdge.com/regulatory/A06-12-009.shtml
43
     http://www2.sdge.com/grc/dec082006/sdge/testimonies/4_CWinnED.DOC

                                                                                Page 24 of 39
                                      DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
                      Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


…the single largest amount of transformers were installed in the 1950’s. … The 4 kV, 10/12
MVA banks are clearly older than the 12 kV, 30 MVA banks which are SDG&E’S current
standard. … 61% of these banks have been in service 50 years or more, 94% of these
banks have been in service at least 40 years and the minimum age of a 4 kV bank to be 18
years. Many of these stations are either approaching obsolescence or are obsolete due to
excessive maintenance requirements, operational limitations, lack of spare parts and
deteriorating condition. Even with increased operating procedures, these stations cannot
continue to deliver adequate service without equipment replacement.

In SDG&E’s 2008 GRC, Exhibit SDG&E-4, page CAW-133 clearly illustrates the age of its
12 kV and 4 kV distribution transformer banks by decade (many of which are seen to have
been installed over 50 years ago):

                                       Banks Installation Histogram

          50


          45
                                                                             12 kV
          40                                                                 4 kV
                                                                             Total
          35


          30
 Number




          25


          20


          15


          10


          5


          0
               1920      1930   1940       1950      1960      1970   1980           1990   2000
                                                    Decade




                                                                                                   Page 25 of 39
                             DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
             Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


5.3 Capacity of Regional Transmission Facilities

The CAISO, in conjunction with the utilities and stakeholders, conducts an annual
transmission planning assessment to determine regional transmission requirements. The
most recent report is the January 2008 “CAISO Transmission Plan: A Long-Term
Assessment of the California ISO’s Controlled Grid (2008-2017)”.44

The California Energy Commission (CEC) sponsors the “Integrated Energy Policy Report”
(IEPR), which entails a study and report that is issued annually45:
   • in the odd years, such as 2007, a full report is issued46; and
   • in the even years, such as 2008, an abbreviated “update” report is issued47.

The IEPR states that48:

Electric distribution systems throughout California still mainly use designs, technologies, and
strategies that were designed to meet the needs of mid-20th century customers. These
large and complex systems have historically provided reliable electric power to millions of
customers throughout the state; however, aging infrastructure coupled with modern
demands is starting to erode this capability. About 90 percent of all customer interruptions
and outages are caused by distribution problems.

The IEPR goes on with that thought, to further state that49:

With California’s strong commitment to distributed renewable energy, combined heat and
power, demand response, and reduced production of greenhouse gases, the design of
these systems will have to change to accommodate the integration of these new resources.

The concepts presented in the IEPR largely address statewide issues. For example,
California has established renewable resource goals of 20% of retail electricity sales by
2010 and 33% by 2020. Also, “Smart Grid” initiatives based on new technology have been
initiated by both SCE and SDG&E. Such goals and initiatives include Orange County as
well as other areas of California.

There are a number of major projects under development in Southern California intended to
allow access to renewable energy sources located in the surrounding less densely
populated areas. A project in SCE’s territory (Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project)
is underway that will build transmission facilities allowing the transfer of primarily wind
energy from the Tehachapi area ultimately to a major substation in Montebello. In addition,

44
     http://www.caiso.com/1f52/1f52d6d93a3e0.pdf
45
     http://www.energy.ca.gov/energypolicy/
46
     http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-100-2007-008/CEC-100-2007-008-CMF.PDF
47
     http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-100-2008-008/CEC-100-2008-008-CMF.PDF
48
     2007 IEPR, page 7.
49
     2007 IEPR, page 151.


                                                                               Page 26 of 39
                             DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
             Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


SDG&E’s Sunrise Powerlink Project will involve construction of facilities that will allow the
transfer of a number of types of renewable energies from the Imperial Valley into SDG&E’s
system. A third project which is in SCE’s territory will be a second transmission line from
the Arizona border to Devers substation, just outside of Palm Springs. This project will allow
the transfer of energy from a number of largely solar projects, in the desert area. The fourth
project is known as Green Path North (GPN), a joint venture between the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Southern California Public Power Authority
(SCPPA) and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). GPN is expected to construct facilities
from Coachella Valley to Devers (near Palm Springs), and from Devers to Hesperia, that will
allow the transfer of renewable energies from such sources as geothermal, wind and solar
generators.50

More specific to Orange County infrastructure in particular, a major focus of the regional
transmission facilities in Orange County involves the SCE-SDG&E interconnection at the
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). That interconnection is described earlier
under the heading “Availability of Adequate Supply (Generation)”.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has recognized the need for additional energy
infrastructure by designating the “Southwest Area National Corridor”51 as a “National
Interest Electric Transmission Corridor”, which is one of only two such corridors in the U.S.
Orange County is specifically cited as one of the counties in the corridor52.

An additional concern regarding maintaining regional capacity is a proposal to eliminate the
“once through cooling” process that is commonly used at the power plants along the
California coast. These plants, primarily gas turbine generators utilize seawater to cool
down the steam that is used to turn the turbines for creating electricity. The process
requires drawing in large volumes of seawater, passing it through a cooling tower and
discharging it back to the ocean. This process impacts the environment by pulling in fish
that are near the intake and altering the water temperature near the outlet where the water
is returned to the ocean. The water absorbs the heat from the steam and is at a higher
temperature than the intake water when it is returned to the sea. The impact of shutting
down the coastal power plants could have a dramatic impact on the region’s generating
resources.




50
     http://www.greenpath.us/gp_projects.html
51
     http://nietc.anl.gov/documents/docs/NIETC_Southwest_Area_Corridor_Map.pdf
52
     http://nietc.anl.gov/documents/docs/National_Corridors_Counties_List.pdf

                                                                                 Page 27 of 39
                DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee




                                                        Page 28 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


Orange County is shown as central to the “Critical Congestion Area”53. Although that may
not create great public awareness so long as the lights stay on, this is an important issue to
those who plan and operate the electric power system, both from the standpoints of
engineering and cost. Designation of an area as a National Interest Electric Transmission
Corridor is significant, in that it allows the possibility of federal intervention through the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the national interest if state permitting
issues impede the development of needed infrastructure. The importance of the congestion
issue is as follows, as explained in the Executive Summary of the 2006 “National Electric
Transmission Congestion Study”54.

Transmission congestion occurs when actual or scheduled flows of electricity across a line
or piece of equipment are restricted below desired levels — either by the physical or
electrical capacity of the line, or by operational restrictions created and enforced to protect
the security and reliability of the grid. The term “transmission constraint” may refer either to
a piece of equipment that limits electricity flows in physical terms, or to an operational limit
imposed to protect reliability.

Power purchasers look for the least expensive energy available to ship across the grid to
the areas where it will be used (“load centers”). When a transmission constraint limits the
amount of energy that can be transferred safely to a load center from the most desirable
source, the grid operator must find an alternative (and more expensive) source of
generation that can be delivered safely, and re-instruct the owners of generators on how
they should schedule electricity production at specific power plants. Further, if a large
portion of the grid is very tightly constrained — as when demands are very high and local
generation is limited — grid operators may have to curtail service to consumers in some
areas to protect the reliability of the grid as a whole. All of these actions have adverse
impacts on electricity consumers.

The study discusses how congestion was determined.

There are many ways to measure transmission congestion. This study developed
congestion metrics related to the magnitude and impact of congestion (for example, the
number of hours per year when a transmission constraint is loaded to its maximum safe
operating level; and the number of hours when it is operated at or above 90% of the safe
level) and the cost of congestion (such as the cost of the next MWh of energy if it could be
sent across a facility already at its safe limit). Because no one metric captures all important
aspects of congestion, the analysts identified the most constrained transmission paths
according to several different congestion metrics and then identified those paths that were
most constrained according to a combination of metrics.

53
    Based on the amended Federal Power Act, congestion of the electric power grid was studied in
2006 and is studied every three years. The “2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study”
website is at congestion09.anl.gov, with information on the ongoing study to be released later in
2009. The current study, the basis for the map illustrated in this report, was completed in 2006 and
is at nietc.anl.gov/congestionstudy.
54
   http://nietc.anl.gov/documents/docs/NIETC_ExSum_8Aug08.pdf

                                                                                   Page 29 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


The study goes on to explain the meaning of Critical Congestion Areas, of which there are
only two in the nation, and one of the two is centered around Orange County.

Critical Congestion Areas. These are areas of the country where it is critically important to
remedy existing or growing congestion problems because the current and/or projected
effects of the congestion are severe. As shown in Figures ES-2 and ES-3, the Department
has identified two such areas, each of which is large, densely populated, and economically
vital to the Nation. They are:
    • The Atlantic coastal area from metropolitan New York southward through Northern
        Virginia, and
    • Southern California.

     Figure ES-3. One Critical Congestion Area and Three Congestion Areas of Concern
                                in the Western Interconnection




                                                                             Page 30 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


One manner in which local congestion can be mitigated, with an expected cost savings, is
by the addition of local generation. However, even in the case of the critical congestion
identified in the Orange County area, significant additional local generation does not seem
forthcoming. The California ISO maintains a “queue” of proposed generation projects55. No
generation projects within Orange County are presently foreseen.

Unfortunately, people want electric power, but don’t want associated facilities located
nearby56. For example, people in urban areas often want electric power facilities located
elsewhere, particularly in the desert. At times, there may be technically-valid reasons for
that, particularly if characteristics of desert regions make it likely that significant renewable
resources that are “locationally-constrained” (for technical reasons, cannot be developed
elsewhere) are suitable for development there. Yet, people living in the desert regions
object strongly, especially in regard to transmission facilities needed to move power from
one area to another, and want people in urban areas to leave “pristine” areas alone and
take care of their own needs. At the same time that developers seek to build homes and
businesses, objections arise as to infrastructure to serve those homes and businesses.
Hence, it should not be a surprise that Orange County, which has experienced enormous
growth over the past decades, lies at the epicenter of the southern California transmission
congestion area. That congestion can be alleviated by adding local generation or adding
new transmission infrastructure to import power.

Clearly, the information and issues should leave the reader with a suitably negative
impression regarding the state of the generation and bulk power (high-voltage) transmission
electric system infrastructure serving Orange County and the surrounding areas of southern
California. However, the utilities have been making significant efforts that would help
correct this problem.

The CPUC and U.S. Bureau of Land Management have recently approved SDG&E’s
proposed Sunrise Powerlink (Sunrise) after an exhaustive environmental review and many
challenges. Sunrise will be a major 500 kV transmission line that will extend from the
Imperial Valley to SDG&E’s service area, and will also include 230 kV and 69 kV additions
and improvements to the transmission grid and substations. Sunrise is presently scheduled
for operation in 2012. Although there are additional challenges being made in legal and
regulatory processes, SDG&E expects that Sunrise will be constructed and energized as the
hurdles are overcome.

SCE, likewise, has had its challenges in terms of determining the final path for its Tehachapi
Renewable Integration Transmission Project (TRTP). There are multiple issues relating to
environmental, economics, and aesthetics that need to be resolved prior to completing this
project.

55
   The current projects proposed by generation companies within the California ISO Controlled Grid
(which includes the Orange County area) are indicated at www.caiso.com/14e9/14e9ddda1ebf0.pdf.
56
   As one example, see www.ocregister.com/articles/electricity-county-demand-2055502-wellhead-
plant.


                                                                                  Page 31 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


These examples show that both SCE and SDG&E have shown dedication to pursuing
projects to replace aging infrastructure as well as adding new infrastructure to
accommodate growth in electric demand, while being sensitive to the needs of business as
well as all other customers and the public in general. In spite of the present economic
downturn, the lead time to construct new facilities makes it imperative to continue
proceeding with needed infrastructure so as to not have limited infrastructure become a
reliability issue or an impediment to economic recovery.

Other proposed projects, such as the Green Path North project proposed by the Los
Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) and others, have also met with fierce
opposition from various opponents who have come to be known as “Not In My Back Yard”
(NIMBYs), “Not In Anyone’s Back Yard” (NIABYs) and “Not On Planet Earth” (NOPEs)
advocates.

As has been seen through many examples such as these, public support is vitally necessary
to bolster the efforts to improve the energy infrastructure in southern California, which
directly affects serving the electric power needs of Orange County residents and
businesses.




                                                                          Page 32 of 39
                              DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
              Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


6. Assessment of Operations

6.1 Power Quality

“Power Quality” is yet another issue involving the electric infrastructure. Power Quality goes
beyond issues regarding outages – it involves the characteristics of the electricity that is
provided. It is essentially the compatibility of the power provided with the customer’s
equipment. As customers’ loads rely increasingly on electronic devices that have switched
power supplies, the vulnerability to surges and spikes increases. Some of these surges and
spikes are the result of customer’s internal equipment and some are the result of utility
switching or line faults. Both SCE and SDG&E have Power Quality programs for customers
that are especially sensitive to issues of a complex engineering nature, like voltage sags
and waveform harmonics. Utility representatives visit the customer’s site and assess what
is causing the problem and determine if it requires a fix on the utility side of the meter or the
customer’s side of the meter. These utility representatives are highly skilled technicians
trained to work with customers to resolve power quality problems. As illustrated below, both
SCE and SDG&E seek to be informative to the public, and highly-responsive to Power
Quality issues.
    • SCE has a Power Quality Demonstration Lab at its Technology Center in Irwindale.57
    • SDG&E         describes      various     issues     involving      power      quality    at
       www.sdge.com/email/energyatwork/fall02/story4.html, lists power quality services
       provided by SDG&E at www.sdge.com/reliability/services.shtml, explains sensitivities
       at www.sdge.com/documents/reliability/equipment_sensitivities.pdf and provides an
       e-mail address PowerQuality@sdge.com where customers can correspond to
       address their specific power quality issues.

6.2 Maintenance / Repair and Replacement Funding Levels

The privately owned utilities of California come under the jurisdiction of the CPUC and are
required to follow General Order 165, which outlines the inspection requirements for utility
equipment. This Order details the inspection cycles and reporting requirements for utility
equipment based on equipment type and location. An annual report summarizing the
inspections completed, conditions found and repairs made is required to be filed by each
utility on an annual basis.58 In addition, utility facilities must be maintained in accordance
with General Order 95 for overhead facilities and General Order 128 for underground
facilities.

The funding for inspecting, maintaining and repairing utility facilities is determined through
General Rate Case proceedings which typically occur every three years for each utility.
Historically the funding for utility facilities was based on the numbers of facilities in service
and the time it took to inspect, repair or replace the facility. As mentioned previously,
nationwide the industry is experiencing a turning point in the replacement of aging
infrastructure. It is not feasible to fund the wholesale replacement of aged infrastructure

57
     www.sce.com/b-sb/energy-centers/tour-ctac/electric-magnetic-power-quality.htm
58
     www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/ElectricSR/Reliability/go165Reports

                                                                                     Page 33 of 39
                             DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
             Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


and as such, utilities are increasingly required to prioritize and determine creative methods
of extending the life of facilities that are beyond their expected life. Given the current
economy there is little support for increasing rates to maintain or replace equipment to avoid
the failure of equipment on a proactive basis.

6.3 Resiliency

SCE and SDG&E have developed Event Recovery and Response Protocols to ensure
timely restoration of service due to emergencies and catastrophes. These are procedures
that allow the transition from normal operational mode to “storm mode”. These procedures
were developed and are continuously updated to improve timely repairs and
communications to customers during major events. With the advent of the cell phone,
dramatic increases in the number of calls received during an event have occurred. One of
the utilities’ goals is to improve their ability to keep the customer informed as to the status of
their outage.

These procedures are expandable to allow for staffing and restoration of a small event to a
major event with little change in process. The various elements of these procedures are:
   • Activation of a storm management center
   • Mobilization of manpower and equipment
   • Utilization of contractors
   • Activation of storm support organizations
   • Activation of mobile command centers
   • Activation of mutual assistance

Over the past 15 years both SCE and SDG&E have invested in technologies to improve
their identification of problems and management of emergency events. Their Outage
Management Systems track customer outages and allow the dispatching of the appropriate
resources in order to assure efficient use of our limited resources.

SCE has four locations where emergency dispatch centers can be activated. SDG&E has a
facility dedicated to managing an emergency event. In addition both SCE and SDG&E have
mutual agreements with various Western US utilities whereby these utilities agree to send
manpower and equipment when requested by the other utility. These agreements have
been utilized a number of times in the past 10 years as a result of significant events such as
earthquakes, high winds, and fires.

Other Infrastructure Issues

The “Smart Meter” concept will provide a significant improvement in customer-utility
interface. Smart Meters are planned to be installed by SDG&E59 and SCE 60 as a means to



59
     http://www.sdge.com/smartmeter
60
     http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/smartconnect

                                                                                  Page 34 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


benefit both customers and the utilities61. Smart Meters will use wireless technology to help
customers monitor their energy use through the Internet, keeping them well–informed to
help them control their energy use and costs. For the utilities, energy usage information will
be available on a real-time basis to assist customers, and to help locate and repair problems
more easily and quickly. For customers served by SDG&E in southern Orange County,
installation of Smart Meters is scheduled for August 2010 to December 2011. SCE is
installing Smart Meters between 2009 and 2012.




61
        Additional information at http://www.sdge.com/documents/smartmeter/distributechTR.pdf
illustrates an SDG&E presentation for the DistribuTECH Conference and Exhibition regarding Smart
Meters.


                                                                                Page 35 of 39
                            DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
            Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


7. Summary and Conclusions

The range of electric energy infrastructure issues involving Orange County is challenging.
There is no doubt that there is an extensive network of aging energy infrastructure. At the
same time, SCE and SDG&E, which largely serve the electric requirements of Orange
County62, are seen to be very much aware of the issues.63

Serving the ongoing and future electric energy needs of Orange County involves not only
improving the energy infrastructure within Orange County, but also improving the energy
infrastructure external to Orange County, since that infrastructure is also essential in terms
of serving Orange County by means of imported power and energy. Both SCE and SDG&E
have made significant strides in planning and implementing improvements, and continue to
do so. In addition to addressing aging existing infrastructure, SCE and SDG&E plan new
infrastructure needed for growing needs, and also plan infrastructure improvements such as
the new Smart Meter technology. All of these efforts work to the benefit of Orange County,
along with other areas.

In general, the Report Card scoring tends to give lower marks in terms of the existence of
existing, older infrastructure, and higher marks in terms of recognition of the issues and
improvements being made. The fact that the state of the Orange County Energy
Infrastructure has been given an overall grade of C+ does not indicate that “all is well”. It
indicates that work is progressing to address aging infrastructure issues, and yet there
continue to be funding issues as well as great public opposition to most any form of
infrastructure improvement that involves any environmental impact whatsoever. There is
not cause for panic, nor is there reason to rest easy. Extensive planning, engineering and
design, environmental, regulatory and legal efforts must continue with determination in order
to maintain and improve the energy infrastructure necessary to keep Orange County healthy
and assist in the widespread economic recovery that is needed.


The utilities each have periodic General Rate Case (GRC) filings, in which the need for
future funding is explained and hearings take place. To the extent that local governments
and others express support for increasing funding for replacing aging infrastructure in such
subsequent GRCs, progress can be made and an acceptable level of reliability can be
maintained.




62
     Although SCE and SDG&E participated in providing data and support to this Report Card effort,
Orange County is also served by the City of Anaheim municipal utility.
63
    The intent of this report is to illustrate, above-and-beyond the meeting of all applicable laws and
regulations, the condition of the existing energy infrastructure and the trends into the future. Nothing
in this report, even if seemingly-negative in tone, should be erroneously construed to imply that the
utilities do not meet all applicable laws and regulations.

                                                                                       Page 36 of 39
                                              DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
                              Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


                                        SCORE CARD – Current Grade vs. Future Grade
                                       2009 Report Card Evaluation Criteria and Scoring
                                           for Orange County Energy Infrastructure

                                                                                                              Proj-
 Major                              Category                 Basis for Evaluation/           Maxi-            ected
Grouping                           Description               Criteria for Grading            mum        2009  2014
                                                                                             Score      Score Score
                              Condition of Local        Age of facilities. Condition of
Reliability




                              Distribution System       facilities. Known issues.             15         10.5    8.5
                              Facilities
                              Condition of Regional     Age of facilities. Condition of
                              Transmission              facilities. Known issues.             15         11.0    10.8
                              Facilities
                              Availability of           Sufficient projected supply for at
                              Adequate Supply           least the next 10 year period.        10         8.0     8.0
Transmission – Distribution




                              (Generation)              Risks to supply. Strategy /
                                                        contingency plan for various
                                                        components of local and
                                                        imported supply.
        Capacity




                              Capacity of Local         Capacity to meet peak day
                              Transmission and          demand. Bottlenecks or needed         15         11.8    11.5
                              Distribution Facilities   upgrades.
                              Capacity of Regional      Capacity of imported power
                              Transmission              facilities to meet peak day           10         7.5     7.5
                              Facilities                demand. Capacity of
                                                        transmission grid to sustain
                                                        power consumption levels.
                              Power Quality             Issues regarding compatibility
                                                        between power provided and            10         8.3     8.3
                                                        customers’ equipment (sensitive
                                                        equipment issues).
Operations




                              Maintenance and           Evaluation and outlook for
                              Repair and                Annual Maintenance and Repair         10         7.8     6.5
                              Replacement (R&R)         & Replacement (R&R) funding
                              Funding Levels            levels.
                              Resiliency (Ability to    Readiness Plan and Resources.
                              React to Storms and                                             15         12.3    11.8
                              Catastrophes)
                                                                                              100        77.0    72.8
TOTALS                                                                                       points      (C+)    (C-)




                                                                                                      Page 37 of 39
                             DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
             Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


8. Recommendations

Recommendations of the Orange County Report Card Energy Committee include the
following.

  •   Support the electric utility companies serving customers in Orange County, in
      continuing the efforts to assess aging infrastructure in Orange County, as well as
      assessing the need for additional new infrastructure due to growing public need,
      identifying specific infrastructure improvements when warranted.

  •   Encourage the California Public Utilities Commission to provide additional regulation
      that would address cost recovery of aging electric infrastructure in a manner to
      support timely replacement of facilities whose significant age alone may represent a
      reliability risk.

  •   Support needed infrastructure projects during the environmental / regulatory review
      and approval process, to help ensure their viability. This would include:

         •    support of funding to address replacement of aging infrastructure and
              development of needed new infrastructure in the utilities’ General Rate Case
              filings;

         •    support of transmission projects to import increased amounts of power into
              southern California, including Orange County; and

         •    support of clean-burning or renewable energy generation projects in Orange
              County that will help relieve electric congestion.

  •   Promote active input by professional societies and other stakeholders in the
      processes to bring attention to aging infrastructure issues, as well as the need for
      expanded infrastructure to meet growing public demand, through technical papers,
      conferences and other means as appropriate.

  •   Encourage prospective college students to seriously consider careers in the electric
      power industry, to replace the “aging infrastructure” of the present workforce that is
      nearing retirement age.

  •   Recognize that any changes in trends will have long lead times. Waiting until
      significant reliability problems actually materialize in aging infrastructure is too late,
      since any actions to be taken (whether political, social, financial or otherwise) need to
      be taken years in advance of when results are to be seen.




                                                                                Page 38 of 39
                           DRAFT Report as of 10/12/09
           Orange County Report Card – Findings of the Energy Committee


9. Epilogue


This report is the result of a significant effort by a team of individuals with diverse
backgrounds and experiences. By their combined energies, cooperative spirit and
dedicated efforts, the quality and extensiveness of this report have been made possible.
The team hopes that its report will not only be informative, interesting and useful, but also
that the issues it raises will inspire others in their further research and productive future
efforts.

The team thanks all those who take their valuable time to read this report and appreciate
the issues that not only result in the current state of Orange County’s Energy Infrastructure,
but also will result in the trends seen into the future. The team especially thanks those who
will take that one step further, not only deriving information and inspiration from this report,
but also taking constructive action to actively promote the improvement of the energy
infrastructure needed to serve the future needs of Orange County residents, businesses
and other institutions.

The team members are listed below.


Terry Hartman, Vice President of Community Infrastructure, the Irvine Company


Quang Vu, President and CEO of Dahl, Taylor & Associates – Engineers + Constructors


Bob Woods, Manager, Distribution Engineering, Southern California Edison Company


Rich Sheaffer, Principal Engineer, San Diego Gas & Electric Company




                                                                                Page 39 of 39
FlOOD CONTROL
   & LEVEES
                                           Page 1 of 10


                Issues Brief
Orange County Infrastructure Report Card 2009




                Flood Control
                  July 2009




                                       Revised 8/03/09
                                                                                    Page 2 of 10

Introduction:

As a result of the recent disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina, additional attention has
been focused on the condition of flood control infrastructure throughout the nation. Even
more scrutiny has been placed on leveed flood control facilities due the devastating
effects that could result from the failure of such facilities.

With this in mind, ASCE’s Orange County Flood Control Infrastructure Working
Committee, comprised of eight representatives from public agencies, private industry,
and the development community, evaluated the current condition of the
mainline/backbone flood control infrastructure. In order to properly conduct such an
evaluation, this committee needed to establish methodology and criteria for the
evaluation. The criteria included factors that consider Orange County Flood Control
District (OCFCD) design standards, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
and State of California regulations.

The Orange County flood control system consists of the regional channel system
(drainage areas of 1000 acres or greater) as well as sub-regional (drainage areas of 640
acres to 1000 acres) and local drainage facilities (channels, storm drains and other smaller
facilities with drainage areas less than 640 acres).

The flood control infrastructure considered by the Working Committee for grading
consisted of only the mainline/backbone regional man- made flood control facilities
which are operated and maintained by OCFCD (i.e., only the major regional facilities
were studied and not all of the regional facilities that are tributary to the
mainline/backbone facilities were included in the study). Local and sub-regional
drainage facilities and natural drainage courses were not considered in this study since
the mainline/backbone regional flood control facilities were deemed to have the most
impact on the rating as they provide the majority of the flood protection within the
County. Attached is an exhibit showing Orange County’s thirteen watersheds which are
designated alphabetically from A to M.

Flooding can occur when climate, geography, and hydrology combine to create
conditions where water flows outside of its usual course. In Orange County, these factors
combine to create chronic seasonal flooding. In 1938, the Santa Ana River flooded parts
of cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana and Garden Grove, reportedly killing more than 50


                                                                                Revised 8/03/09
                                                                                    Page 3 of 10

people. If the County was not protected and the 1938 flood hit today, government
officials estimate that as many as 3,000 lives might be lost and damage may exceed $25
billion. More than 110,000 acres of land would be flooded with 3 feet of water and
255,000 structures would be damaged (S.Gold, LA Times, 1999). The next big storm to
hit the Orange County was in January of 1969. Had it not been for the dams constructed
by the Corps of Engineers upstream, large areas of Orange County would have been
devastated. Another very damaging and record breaking storm covered about 100 square
miles of Orange County in 1983. Severe property damage in Huntington Beach,
Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa occurred. Again in 1997, large parts of Laguna Beach,
Lake Forest, and Irvine suffered flood related damage due to an approximate 100-year
rainfall that covered over 200 square miles of County’s 800 square miles. The winter of
2005 is considered one of the wettest seasons in recent history, where the total season
rainfall was about double the seasonal average. Fortunately, the large rainfall volume
was spread over a long period and, therefore, the rainfall intensities were less than a ten
year event. Unfortunately, the prolonged flows may have contributed to the undermining
of levee lining and the near complete breach of a portion of the levee along San Juan
Creek in San Juan Capistrano.

Criteria:

Six criteria were considered in evaluating the current state of the flood control
infrastructure in Orange County. They are:

       1.      Condition

       2.      Capacity

       3.      Cost

       4.      Maintenance and Operation

       5.      Resiliency

       6.      Sustainability

Although the scoring system primarily rates the positive aspects of the flood control
infrastructure in Orange County, it also includes negative points that were adopted for
categories having elements with higher risk, known deficiencies, or established
shortcomings. These elements include uncertified levees, channels with FEMA

                                                                            Revised 8/03/09
                                                                                  Page 4 of 10

floodplains, infrastructure elements without contingency plans, and features that may
increase risk (i.e. dams, pump stations, levees etc.). Negative points were ut ilized for
such elements to avoid impacting the scores for facilities that are not affected by such
elements (i.e., not all channels have dams, levees, pump stations, or FEMA floodplains).

The aforementioned six criteria are described below:

           Condition: This criterion includes the age of the facility compared to its
           design life, the current physical condition of the facility, and if applicable, the
           soundness of the levee structure (certified or uncertified). This category was
           given the highest possible score point because of the importance of these
           items in enabling public agencies to provide flood protection for residents and
           properties. The age category is assessed by comparing it to the estimated
           design life of the facility. The life of each facility is largely dependent upon
           the boundary material of the facility, i.e. concrete channels would have a
           longer life expectancy than riprap lined or earthen channels, etc.

           Physical condition is determined by visually observing bank erosion,
           condition of concrete or other structural elements, invert stability, etc. A
           certified levee (or one that is in the process of being certified by FEMA) is
           considered to provide desired flood protection whereas an uncertified levee is
           considered to provide a lesser level of protection and assigned a negative
           value since FEMA, in their recent map modernization effort, assumed those
           levees do not exist for mapping purposes.

           Capacity: This criterion is based on the ratio of a facility’s existing capacity
           to the facility’s ultimate condition 100-year flow capacity and points are
           assigned accordingly.

           Full points are credited for a channel having an ultimate condition 100- year
           capacity. A channel that is shown to have a floodplain on FEMA Flood
           Insurance Rate Maps has points deducted to reflect its deficient status.

           Cost: This category is divided into two elements; future funding availability
           for improving the channel to an ultimate condition 100- year capacity and the
           funding availability for routine operation and maintenance. The OCFCD‘s 7-
           Year Plan for improving flood control facilities is used as a basis for scoring.

                                                                             Revised 8/03/09
                                                                       Page 5 of 10

This category carried the third highest aggregate points because it reflects the
OCFCD’s ability to improve upon and continue to maintain the condition of
its flood control infrastructure. Cost is an important factor since it is
estimated that with the current flood control infrastructure deficiencies (more
than $ 2.5 billion, in construction costs) and OCFCD’s current annual tax
revenue, it will take more than 90 years to improve the flood control system to
accommodate runoff from 100-year storm events.

It should be noted that the State of California plays a significant role in
funding a portion of the local share of flood control projects, if such projects
are federally funded. As an example, the State reimburses the OCFCD up to
70 percent of its local share for the Santa Ana River project. Currently, the
State owes the OCFCD over $50 million and more reimbursement claims are
being submitted. Considering the dire fiscal condition of the State’s budget,
such reimbursements are potentially jeopardized and may negatively impact
the amount of upcoming flood control improvements anticipated within this
report card update.

Finally, property taxes are a significant source of revenues for improving and
maintaining the flood control infrastructure. With the decline in property
values, the revenue, similarly, has been reduced. This reduction will impact
the overall schedule of raising the level of protection for Orange County.

Maintenance and Operation: This category reflects the current and on- going
maintenance capability for OCFCD. The ability to perform routine
maintenance, including the ability to obtain various required regulatory
approvals, is deemed to be a necessary consideration for the rating criteria as
it is an essential element in ensuring that the health of Orange County’s flood
control infrastructure can be sustained. It is becoming increasingly difficult to
obtain regulatory permits to perform maintenance work necessary for
channels to be maintained in a condition consistent with the design
assumptions for such facilities. (OCFCD and the regulatory agencies need to
work together to provide the necessary level of flood protection while meeting
reasonable permit requirements).



                                                                  Revised 8/03/09
                                                                                  Page 6 of 10

           Resiliency: This is a category that takes into consideration contingency plans
           for flood control facilities as well as the additional or residual risks inherent to
           certain types of flood control facilities (dams, levees, and pump stations).
           Because this category account s for issues that are not inherent to all flood
           control facilities, negative points were assigned to the items with higher risk
           in this category. Notwithstanding the consideration of the condition and the
           capacity of a channel, systems without dams, levees, or pump stations are
           deemed to be more resilient and assigned zero point s whereas systems with
           such facilities are assigned negative points to reflect the higher risk associated
           with such facilities.

           Sustainability: This category addresses the existing or potential joint use of
           flood control facilities for other activities such as recreation and water
           conservation. An in-place element of either feature would score higher than
           facilities that only have the potential for such joint use or no potential.

The aforementioned discussion of the criteria does not reflect the challenges facing
OCFCD in terms of regulatory requirements and its fallout on Capacity, Cost and
Maintenance and Operation of flood control facilities. For example, removal of certain
types of vegetation may be restricted or require mitigation. This often results in the
diminution of channel capacity. The need for additional right-of-way, mitigation, or
restricted maintenance periods often significantly increases construction and maintenance
costs and extends the amount of time required for the planning and design of flood
control facilities. As an example, one flood control maintenance activity that required the
removal of vegetation that choked one of the creeks, cost approximately $700,000.
However, the cost of mitigation for this work was well over $1.8 million. The cost of
mitigation should be more in proportion to the cost of the necessary flood control
maintenance, otherwise much needed maintenance may be discouraged due to the high
cost of the mitigation work.




                                                                              Revised 8/03/09
                                                                                   Page 7 of 10

Methodology:

The OCFCD was created to protect the developed areas of Orange County by planning,
designing, and constructing regional flood control infrastructure. Most of the County has
a topography that approximately resembles a flat table top that slopes toward the ocean.
Orange County has 13 major watersheds (see attachment). Runoff from local areas drain
to tributaries which flow into regional natural and/or manmade flood control facilities.
The flood control channels are supplemented by retarding basins, pump stations, dams,
and reservoirs. Each watershed has its own set of flood control facilities that vary in
condition, length, type, capacity, design features, and function. In Orange County, there
are approximately 260 miles of regional channels and about 1800 miles of smaller sized
channels, storm drains and other drainage devices. In addition, there are about 15 dams,
11 pump stations and 34 retarding basins.

Within each watershed, each major channel was divided into segments or reaches that
were of a distinct geometric section or lining material (rectangular concrete, steel sheet
pile, trapezoidal riprap, natural, etc.) and/or capacity via the review of record drawings.
A field review was conducted for each channel to ascertain its condition. The majority of
the data was collected for OCFCD owned and maintained channels as these are the
regional flood control facilities that provide the primary flood control protection for
Orange County. If a small reach of channel among OCFCD segments was privately
owned, and expected to be improved and dedicated to OCFCD, it was still considered a
part of the entire channel and the data for that reach was included in the rating.

Approved, ultimate condition, 100-year design discharges, prepared in accordance with
OCFCD’s current Hydrology Manual, were used when available. In cases of facilities
that did not have an approved hydrology report, a very rough, ultimate condition, 100-
year discharge was estimated solely for the purpose of this study. These rough estimates
will be replaced with approved discharges as they become available in the future.

Construction costs were estimated utilizing unit costs from the latest bid abstracts. When
projects are designed in the future, costs will be revised to reflect the current prices.

The rating criteria was applied to each individual channel reach and a composite rating
was obtained by proportioning and averaging each channel reach’s score based on the
total length of the channel. After all channels in a watershed were rated, a composite of


                                                                              Revised 8/03/09
                                                                                 Page 8 of 10

the watershed score was obtained. Finally, the composite Orange County rating and
grade were developed by weighting the score for each watershed based on the length of
flood control facilities within each watershed compared to the total length of flood
control facilities Countywide.

Results:

The process of arriving at a grade for the flood control infrastructure consisted of
evaluating current conditions and determining deficiencies within each watershed. A
watershed was analyzed, channel by channel and within each channel, segment by
segment.

Following data was used for the scoring and grading:

   Size of each watershed         SCORE           DAMS             P. S.       RET.BASINS


   Total            260 Miles       73*             15              11                 34


     A               30 Miles       72               2


     B               15 Miles       74                              2                  6


     C               45 Miles       68                              3                  5


     D               20 Miles       84                              2                  1


     E               51 Miles       78               4                                 3


     F               65 Miles       75               1                                 14


     G               + 1 Miles      60               2


     H               < 1 Miles      88


      I               2 Miles       55                                                 1


      J              10 Miles       67               2                                 1


     K                1 Miles       62                              1


     L               18 Miles       69               3              1                  3


     M                3 Miles       78               1




                                                                            Revised 8/03/09
                                                                                 Page 9 of 10

The total score for the entire County was 73 when based on the channel lengths totaling
260 miles.

The following scoring guide was used:

       A – 90 to 100

       B – 80 to 89

       C – 70 to 79

       D – 60 to 69

       F – 59 and below

Based on the above, the overall Orange County grade is a ‘C-’.

Since the deficiency criteria are mostly based on the Orange County Hydrology Manual
and since Orange County’s hydrology methodology differs from that used by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for floodplain delineation purposes, the results
do not have a direct relationship to the FEMA related floodplains in the watersheds.

2009 Orange County Infrastructure Report Card Organization:

The final grade was arrived at by the joint effort of three committees involved in
evaluating, reviewing and vetting available data. The three committees were as follows:

   •    The Infrastructure Working Committee

   •    The Review Council

   •    The Executive Committee

The makeup and responsibilities of each committee are as follows:

The Infrastructure Working Committee

        a) The committee consists of technical experts from related field, public and
             private sectors, involving representatives from public agencies, private
             industry and the development community.

        b) Responsibilities of the Working Committee:

                i)      Develop methodology and scoring criteria for a specific category.


                                                                            Revised 8/03/09
                                                                              Page 10 of 10

               ii)     Gather existing data or compile new data required to assess the
                       status of infrastructure and the cost associated with accomplishing
                       the needed improvements.

               iii)    Compile and analyze the data and prepare a report, to be reviewed
                       by the Review Council.

               iv)     Determine an initial grade.

               v)      Develop a report explaining and summarizing the above
                       methodology, criteria used, results and the data source.

The Review Council

       a) The Review Council consists of 2 to 4 senior management experts from public
           sector, consultant/private industry, academia and where needed, the
           environmental community.

       b) Responsibilities of the Review Council:

               i)      Review and evaluate methodology.

               ii)     Review and validate Infrastructure Working Committee
                       findings/Report

               iii)    Develop overall assessment statement and general overview
                       statements of what the grade means.

       c) The Review Council has the ability to adjust the grades up or down, based on
           information not considered by the Infrastructure Working Committee.


Executive Committee

The Executive Committee is responsible for organizing and guiding the report card effort.
They are responsible for gathering the grades from the Review Councils and printing up a
distributable report card. The Executive Committee is responsible for planning and
hosting the press and publicity, and all other PR events.




                                                                           Revised 8/03/09
    GROUND
TRANSPORTATION
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




                                         FINAL REPORT

               ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION

                                        OCTOBER 30, 2009




I. INTRODUCTION

The transportation infrastructure provides for the safe and efficient movement of people and
goods. For all areas of development, a community is known and valued by its transportation
system, either how bad or effective it is. Orange County has achieved high standards for
transportation system maintenance and improvements but will require high levels of continued
investment to maintain this standard.


II. OVERALL COUNTY GRADE

Applying a weighting of 70 percent to Highways, 20 percent to Transit, and 10 percent to
Bridges, the overall grade for Transportation is a B-.


III. POLICY OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Commitments Fulfilled
During the latter part of the 20th century, Orange County’s transportation system had been
neglected. Frustrated with a lack of transportation choices and efficient movement of peoples and
goods, voters in November 1990 approved Measure M, the one-half cent sales tax for
countywide transportation improvements. Measure M will ultimately generate approximately
$4.1 billion over the 20 year lifespan of the Measure to create a balanced multimodal
transportation system and provide near-term relief on existing freeways, streets, and roads.
Funds that go to cities and the County of Orange to maintain and improve local street and roads,
along with transit fare reductions for seniors and persons with disabilities, will continue until
Measure M ends in 2011.

                                                                                                    1
OCTOBER 2009                                        ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




For the past 20 years, the citizens of Orange County have seen vast improvements to their
freeways as well as to their streets and roads. The Centerpiece of the Measure M program was
the widening and reconstruction of Interstate 5 (I-5). Additional improvements were made to the
Orange Freeway (SR-57), Riverside Freeway (SR-91), and the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55),
and the Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22).


Additionally, the nation’s fastest growing commuter rail system, Metrolink, was created to serve
over 2.6 million riders annually on the Orange County lines alone.


If the Orange County Report Card had been issued 20 years ago, the overall County grade would
undoubtedly have been a failing grade. Today, with over 20 years of Measure M improvements,
the condition, operation, and capacity of our transportation system has improved greatly and
receives an overall grade of B-.


Continued Investment
Orange County continues to grow. By the year 2030, Orange County’s population will increase
by 24 percent from 2.9 million in 2000 to 3.6 million in 2030; jobs will increase by 27 percent;
and travel on our roads and highways by 39 percent. Without continued investment average
morning rush hour speeds on Orange County freeways will fall by 30 percent and on major
streets by 40 percent. Responding to this continued growth and broad support for investment in
Orange County’s transportation system, the Orange County Transportation Authority considered
the transportation projects and programs that would be possible if Measure M were renewed.
The Authority, together with the 34 cities of Orange County, the Orange County Board of
Supervisors and thousands of Orange County citizens, participated in developing a
Transportation Investment Plan for consideration by the voters.


On November 7, 2006, the a half-cent local transportation sales tax was extended for an
additional 30 years in the form of the Renewed Measure M (M2). The M2 Transportation




                                                                                                   2
OCTOBER 2009                                                                    ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




Investment Plan is a 30-year (2011 -2041), $11.8 billion program1 designed to address both
existing and future transportation needs in Orange County by upgrading key freeways, fixing
major freeway interchanges, improving and maintaining streets and roads, synchronizing traffic
signals countywide, improving Metrolink and its connections to communities, providing new and
expanded community based transit, and protecting our environment from the street runoff. The
transportation investment plan is focused solely on improving the transportation system and
includes tough taxpayer safeguards, including a Taxpayer Oversight Committee, required annual
audits, and regular, public reports on project progress. The Renewed Measure M Transportation
Investment Plan must be reviewed annually, in a public meeting, and every 10 years a detailed
review of the plan must take place. If circumstances require the voter-approved plan to be
altered, certain changes must be taken to the voters for approval.


Key elements of the M2 Program are highlighted below:


        Relieving Congestion on Freeways: Relieving congestion on the Riverside Freeway (SR-91)
        is the centerpiece of the freeway program, and will include new lanes, new interchanges and
        new bridges. Other major projects will make substantial improvements on the San Diego
        Freeway (I-5) in southern and central Orange County and the San Diego Freeway (I-405) in
        western Orange County. The notorious Orange Crush — the intersection of the I-5, the
        Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) and the Orange Freeway (SR-57) near Angel Stadium —
        will also be improved and upgraded due to freeway improvement projects. Under the plan,
        major traffic chokepoints on almost every Orange County freeway will be remedied.
        Improving Orange County freeways will be the greatest investment in the Renewed Measure
        M program: 43 percent of net revenues, or $4.871 billion, will be invested in new freeway
        construction.


        The freeway program provides for innovative environmental mitigation of its impacts
        through a proactive and comprehensive approach. The goal is to provide higher value
        environmental benefits while streamlining individual project reviews through an upfront

1
    It must be noted that the original M2 Transportation Investment Plan was an $11.8 billion program, however, due to the recent and severe
downturn in the local economy, M2 program revenue forecasts are down by as much as 40 percent.



                                                                                                                                               3
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    master agreement with the state and federal resource agencies in exchange for earlier
    commitment to protection and/or restoration of sensitive habitat.


    Delivering Visionary Transit: As Orange County continues to grow, Renewed Measure M
    will help build a visionary rail transportation system that is safe, clean and convenient, uses
    and preserves existing rights of way, and provides high-speed connections both inside and
    outside of Orange County. Twenty-five percent of the net revenue from Renewed Measure
    M, or $2.83 billion, will be dedicated to transit programs countywide. About 20 percent, or
    $2.24 billion, will be dedicated to creating a new countywide high capacity transit system
    anchored on the existing, successful Metrolink and Amtrak rail line, and about 5 percent, will
    be used to enhance senior transportation programs and provide targeted, safe localized bus
    service.


    Repairing 6,500 Miles of Streets: More than 6,500 lane miles of aging streets and roads will
    need repair, rejuvenation and improvement. City streets and county roads need to be
    maintained regularly and potholes have to be filled quickly. Thirty-two percent of net
    revenue from the Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan, or $3.625 billion,
    will be devoted to fixing potholes, improving intersections, synchronizing traffic signals
    countywide, and making the existing countywide network of streets and roads safer and more
    efficient. OCTA has been working on a master plan for the regional traffic signal
    synchronization program. The $450 million (plus 20 percent local match) program is funded
    by M2. The goal of the program is to improve the flow of traffic by developing and
    implementing regional signal coordination through more than 2,000 intersections. The master
    plan effort is scheduled to be complete in fall 2009.


    Protecting the Environmental: Every day, more than 70 million gallons of oily pollution,
    litter, and dirty contaminants wash off streets, roads, and freeways and pour onto Orange
    County waterways and beaches. When it rains, the transportation-generated beach and ocean
    pollution increases tenfold. Under the original plan, 2 percent of the gross Renewed Measure
    M Transportation Investment Plan, or $237 million, will be dedicated to protecting Orange




                                                                                                      4
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    County beaches from this transportation-generated pollution (sometimes called urban runoff)
    while improving ocean water quality.


Challenges Going Forward
As reported by the Public Policy Institute of California, infrastructure funding is going to be one
of California’s primary challenges going forward:
    California faces tremendous challenges as a result of the current economic downturn and the
    state budget crisis. Addressing these challenges will force the state to reopen politically
    difficult discussions about what level of services to provide to the public and how to pay for
    them. Infrastructure finance—essential to California’s long-run growth and development—
    must be part of these discussions. Meeting infrastructure needs will be expensive: The state
    administration estimates a $500 billion price tag for rebuilding California’s transportation,
    water, school, and other systems over the next 20 years. Moreover, California’s system for
    financing these investments is seriously flawed. Today’s fiscal challenges make it even more
    imperative to address these flaws.
Recognizing these funding challenges, it is imperative that the County of Orange should continue
to aggressively evaluate opportunities to harness the Obama administration’s intention to devote
resources, such as American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, to rebuilding the
nation’s infrastructure in order to multiply the improvement benefits of the M2 program.
Further, efforts must remain focused on the reauthorization of the current six-year federal
transportation act, SAFETEA-LU, which expires on September 30, 2009, and needs to be
reauthorized by Congress.


IV. TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND GRADING

The Transportation Infrastructure has three components that were evaluated in arriving at a
combined grade: Highways, Transit, and Bridges. Within each component, there are categories
of Condition, Operation, Capacity, Resilience, Sustainability and Cost as appropriate.


In weighing each component, consideration was given to the relative person trips and
corresponding vehicle miles traveled on each of the components. The highway system carries at
a minimum over 90 percent of the person trips. However, the transit system provides critical


                                                                                                     5
OCTOBER 2009                                            ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




mobility to a segment of the population. This consideration resulted in the assignment of
70 percent weighting to Highways, 20 percent to Transit, and 10 percent to Bridges. Within the
Highway, Transit, and Bridge components, the Condition, Operation, and Capacity will capture
75 percent of the weighted evaluation. Resilience, Sustainability and Cost will capture the
remaining 25 percent.


A. Highways

    1. Condition. Within this general area of evaluation, freeways and arterial highways were
    rated based on their pavement and related facilities condition and countywide programs in
    place that address pavement management.


        County Arterial Highways. Orange County, through OCTA, completed a Countywide
        Pavement Condition Assessment Study in 2006, which builds upon the previous 1998
        countywide assessment study that produced an overall pavement condition rating system,
        convertible to a grading system. Currently, almost all agencies have adopted the 100
        point scale, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), and made considerable progress in
        standardizing their annual reports to OCTA. The 2006 study is based on pavement
        condition data collected from 33 of 35 city agencies in Orange County and the County of
        Orange.


        The OCTA Arterial Highway Rehabilitation Program (AHRP) provides a significant
        incentive (50 percent match) for local agencies to develop rehabilitation projects. In
        addition, Measure M established a local maintenance of effort (MOE) to ensure
        continued investments in construction and maintenance programs. These funding and
        MOE programs improve the overall grade.


        According to the Countywide Assessment of Existing and Future Pavement Needs (March
        2006), the pavement condition of more than two-thirds (69 percent) of Orange County’s
        streets (arterials/collectors and local streets) is considered to be in fair or better condition,
        with 48 percent of the streets rated at good or very good. However, when compared to
        1998, the average condition has declined by 7 percent from 81 in 1998 to 75 in 2005. The


                                                                                                        6
OCTOBER 2009                                             ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




        overall PCI grade for the County Arterial Highways condition is the average of two
        grades: 75.8 for Arterials/Collectors and 74.7 for Local Streets, which results in an
        overall grade of 75, or a C grade. Note that not all agencies responded to the surveys in
        1998 (only 16). The 2005 data are much more accurate. Nonetheless, there is a clear
        trend that pavement conditions have gradually deteriorated since 1998.


        The cost to maintain the current pavement condition on arterial and local street facilities
        is approximately $79 million per year or $1.18 billion over a 15-year period.


        The cost to raise the grade by one level over the current pavement condition on arterial
        and local street facilities is approximately $111 million per year or $1.67 billion over a
        15-year period.



                                 2005 Countyw ide Pavement Conditions


                                  V e ry Poor
                                                                 Ve ry Good

                                                18.7%    26.3%


                                  Poor   12.7%


                                                 20.8%   21.5%

                                                                 Good
                                          Fair




        Caltrans Facilities:
        Pavement. The pavement inventory of District 12 in Orange County has 279 centerline-
        miles (2 percent of State total), of which 140 miles are freeway miles, 51 miles are toll
        miles, and 88 miles are conventional miles. The total lane-miles for the district is 1,964
        lane-miles (4 percent of State total), of which 1,059 miles are mix-flow, 226 miles are




                                                                                                      7
OCTOBER 2009                                                                 ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




           high-occupancy vehicle (HOV), 314 miles are toll, and 365 miles are conventional
           miles.2


           There were 261 (13 percent) distress lane-miles in 2008 that qualifies the pavement
           facilities to earn an 87 (B+ grade). The projected distress miles based on District 12
           pavement management system. The combined (rehab and preservation) cost to maintain
           the pavement portion has been approximately $42,917,000 for 468 lane-mile of
           rehabilitated pavement ($91,700 per lane-mile).


           Orange County has one of the highest densities of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
           in the country. (2008 AADT for Interstate 405 at the junction of SR-22 in Seal Beach is
           381,000 vehicles per day).


           Transportation Management System. Electrical systems consist of traffic signals,
           freeway lighting and signs illumination lighting, changeable message signs (CMS), ramp
           metering systems and vehicle detection systems (RMS & VDS), closed circuit television
           cameras (CCTV), pump houses, flashing beacons, highway advisory radios (HAR), the
           traffic management center (TMC), fiber communication network, and hubs and nodes
           (video and data) on freeways and State highways in Orange County. The given grade is
           the average of percentage scores of each system evaluated based on its existing condition
           and performance. The condition evaluation criteria include hardware, loops, electrical
           services, illuminated street name signs, lights out, ages, and graffiti. The performance
           evaluation criteria include system efficiency, lights out, communication links from field
           elements to TMC, active/inactive, trouble calls, repairs to knock downs due to accidents.
           The final grade for systems condition is 85 percent for a B grade.


           Travel way Condition. The Caltrans maintenance program performs self-examination
           of our assets once a year, and quantifies results into maintenance levels of service scores
           (MLOS). The travelway (essentially anything pertaining to the roadbed), drainage

2
  The SR-91 express lanes are not part of the official State inventory of Sate Highway lanes operated and maintained by Caltrans. They are
operated and maintained by the OCTA. The express lanes are comprised of 40 lane miles.




                                                                                                                                             8
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




        systems, roadside areas (essentially anything from the shoulder of road, including the
        fence), and traffic guidance systems (delineation of lanes, signage, guardrail, and center
        median protection) are all evaluated. A numeric score is given to each system. Weighing
        these four scores and applying an average, we arrive at a score of 94 for an A grade for
        the current condition of the Orange County freeway system from a Caltrans maintenance
        perspective. This score is dependent upon resources budgeted and projections to
        maintenance.


        To maintain the facilities from right-of-way border to right-of-way border, the current
        routine maintenance cost is approximately $11,800 per lane-mile in 2008, which includes
        crack sealing, patching, sweeping, maintaining and improving landscape (80 areas of
        improved landscape). This cost does not include the pavement rehabilitation/ preservation
        works.


        The overall grade for the freeway condition is the average of these three grades: 87, 85,
        and 94, which will give us an 89, or a B+ grade.


    The overall grading of Highways Condition considered the relative vehicle miles traveled on
    the freeways compared to County highways, which results in 50 percent weighting to
    freeways and County highways each. The grade for freeways is B+ (89) and for County
    highways is C (75).


    Combining these grades and raising the result a half grade in recognition of the
    comprehensive countywide AHRP results in a grade of B+ (numerical value of 87).


    2. Operations (Current Capacity Performance). Operations of the existing highway
    system were rated based on existing traffic demand relative to available capacity. This
    category is a direct evaluation and measure of the benefits received through the Measure M
    freeway and arterial capacity improvements during the last 15 years.




                                                                                                     9
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    The evaluation criteria considered the existing volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio on each
    highway link. A V/C ratio is an expression of the traffic volume on a highway divided by its
    capacity. A ratio of 1.00 means the highway is at full capacity. For example, the SR-91 to
    Riverside County is at full capacity or a V/C ratio over 1.00, during peak hours. These ratios
    were then weighted to consider vehicle miles traveled and then summed countywide. The
    weighted V/C ratios were then converted to grades A through F.


    In general, the urban highway system in Orange County is designed to perform at a V/C ratio
    of 0.90 and the freeways at a V/C ratio of 1.00 in the peak hours. Because that is the design
    criterion, the grading system reflects these V/C ratios as acceptable, or a grade of C.


    The existing freeway system received a V/C ratio of 1.15 and a letter grade of F+ during peak
    periods of travel. The arterial highway system calculated to a V/C ratio of 0.74 and a letter
    grade of B+.


    Combining the freeway and arterial highways and weighting by vehicle miles traveled
    yields a V/C ratio of 0.97 and a letter grade of C+ (numerical value of 78).


    3. Capacity. Capacity of the future highway system considers future growth in population
    and employment and a committed highway system consistent with OCTA’s Long-Range
    Transportation Plan and Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan. This
    represents a conservative analysis approach and underscores the need for continued County
    resources similar to Measure M and Renewed Measure M programs.


    The evaluation criteria for the future highway system are consistent with that applied to the
    existing highway system.


    The freeway system received a V/C ratio of 1.22 and a letter grade of F. The arterial
    highway system calculated to a V/C ratio of 0.79 and a letter grade of B.




                                                                                                    10
OCTOBER 2009                                           ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    Combining these two and weighting by vehicle miles traveled yields a V/C ratio of 1.03
    and a letter grade of C- (numerical value of 72).


    4. Resiliency. A resilient infrastructure is a component, system, or facility that is able to
    withstand damage or disruption, and if affected, can be readily and cost-effectively restored.
    Resilience in effect encompasses protection, prevention, deterrence, risk-based mitigation,
    response, recovery and longer-term restoration. Resilience, by its nature, takes infrastructure
    interdependencies into account and is based on assessed risk. The existing system of arterial
    highways and freeways throughout the County of Orange provide for an inherently resilient
    transportation system. In the event that any one facility or system link is interrupted,
    multiple detours typically exist that will enable the system as a whole to continue to operate
    at reasonably acceptable levels of service. There are two notable exceptions to this: 1) State
    Route 91 between Orange County and Riverside County, and 2) Interstate 5 between Orange
    County and San Diego County. In both cases, if these facilities are interrupted for any length
    of time, it will cause substantial challenges for transportation, emergency operations and
    goods movement between these regions. The most effective approach to addressing the
    resiliency deficiencies for SR-91 and I-5 is to provide parallel sources of highway capacity.
    Two major transportation planning studies have been prepared to evaluate the need for
    additional system capacity and how it might be delivered: 1) the SR-91 Major Investment
    Study and 2) the South County Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Project
    (SOCTIIP). For both facilities, project development activities are on-going.


    A letter grade of B+ (numerical value of 88) is assigned to Highways resiliency.


    5. Sustainability. Sustainable transportation infrastructure includes designing highways in
    such a manner that improves the quality of the nation’s infrastructure. For instance, lifecycle
    energy reduction sets a standard that the highway will have a long-term life that will
    accommodate traffic flows with minimal congestion. Designing a highway in such a manner
    not only reduces the cost of energy and maintenance, but also increases the capacity of the
    highway and reduces emissions caused by vehicles stuck in congestion. Sustainable
    transportation infrastructure is a system of highway and transit facilities that mitigate the


                                                                                                    11
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    negative impact on the environment to a level past minimum standards. Sustainable
    transportation infrastructure construction techniques include; the use of recycled materials,
    ecosystem management, energy reduction, increasing the water quality of storm water runoff,
    and maximizing overall societal benefits.


    In terms of delivering highway improvement projects, County of Orange projects have
    shown a strong commitment to the concept of sustainability. While this practice has not
    historically been a formal component of project development and delivery, these concepts are
    being actively discussed and incorporated into highway improvement projects. As the
    concept of sustainable transportation infrastructure continues to mature and have greater
    definition, it is anticipated that project development requirements will be implemented on a
    wide and recurring basis.


    A letter grade of B (numerical value of 85) is assigned to Highways sustainability.


    6. Cost. During the latter part of the 20th century, the transportation system had been
    neglected. Frustrated with deteriorated transportation infrastructure and inefficient
    movement of people and goods, voters in Orange County approved a sales tax initiative for
    county-wide transportation improvements. On Nov. 6, 1990, Orange County voters
    approved Measure M, a half-cent local transportation sales tax for 20 years. On November 7,
    2006, nearly seventy percent of Orange County voters approved the renewal of Measure M, a
    half-cent local transportation sales tax, for an additional 30 years beginning in 2011 until
    2041. The Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan is an $11.8 billion program
    designed to reduce traffic congestion, strengthen our economy and improve our quality of life
    by upgrading key freeways, fixing major freeway interchanges, maintaining streets and
    roads, synchronizing traffic signals countywide, building a visionary rail-transit system, and
    protecting our environment. The recent economic downturn will likely cause near-term
    project delivery challenges due to the substantial reduction in generated tax revenues.
    Alternate funding sources will have to be obtained to maintain program viability.




                                                                                                    12
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    Also in November 2006, Proposition 1B was passed at the state level to issue $19.9 billion in
    bonds to assist county and local jurisdictions with transportation improvements. Funding is
    also obtained from an ongoing, but limited stream of federal and state funds and matching
    funds from local agencies and various other funding sources. This increased funding level
    will go far to help create a more balanced multi-modal transportation system, provide near-
    term relief on clogged highways and arterials, upgrade obsolete bridges, and expand mass
    transit systems.


    It is essential that funding continue without interruption to maintain the vital transportation
    infrastructure in Orange County. As we have seen in the past, without a continuing source of
    funds and resources dedicated for maintenance, there will be tremendous depreciation of
    transportation assets once again. For example, gridlock will tend to worsen again along our
    highways and arterials, bridges will increasingly become deficient or obsolete, and mass
    transit systems will continue to be under-utilized.


    As previously discussed, California faces tremendous challenges as a result of the current
    economic downturn and the state budget crisis. Addressing these challenges will force the
    state to reopen politically difficult discussions about what level of services to provide to the
    public and how to pay for them. Infrastructure finance—essential to California’s long-run
    growth and development—must be part of these discussions. Meeting infrastructure needs
    will be expensive: The state administration estimates a $500 billion price tag for rebuilding
    California’s transportation, water, school, and other systems over the next 20 years.


    A letter grade of C (numerical value of 75) is assigned to Highways cost.


    Combining the six Highway categories of Condition (88), Operation (78), Capacity (72),
    Resiliency (88), Sustainability (85) and Cost (75), and accounting for category
    weighting, yields an overall grade of B- (80) for Highways.




                                                                                                      13
OCTOBER 2009                                           ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




B. Transit


    1. Condition.


    Bus Transit: The overall condition of the Orange County transit system is based on a
    qualitative assessment of customer perception based on a customer survey conducted by
    OCTA in 2007, called the OCTA Bus Satisfaction Study. A key objective of this study was
    to determine customer satisfaction with various aspects of the OCTA bus system as well as
    overall satisfaction. The results of this study indicated total satisfaction with the transit
    system was high as evidenced by the fact that almost half of the customers stated they were
    very satisfied. Almost half of customers said bus service is better than one year ago.
    Customers were most satisfied with bus driver courtesy, information in the bus book and at
    the bus stop, and bus driver knowledge. Some of the improvements customers would like to
    see to the bus system included more frequent service as well as more evening and weekend
    service. In response to customers’ request, OCTA increased service by about 63,300 annual
    hours, an increase of 3.4 percent in the last four years. However, to reach a sustainable level
    of service while transit revenues (mostly sales taxes) are dropping, OCTA will be reducing
    bus transit service by 25% to 30% by 2010 or 2011.


    Given that service levels and customer satisfaction reached an all-time high in 2007 but
    dramatic reductions in service are imminent, a grade of B- (numerical value of 82) was
    assigned to Bus Transit condition.


    Commuter Rail: There are two segments of the commuter rail infrastructure in OC. An
    east-west corridor owned by the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway extends
    from Buena Park, Fullerton, Placentia, Yorba Linda, and the Santa Ana River Canyon toward
    Corona. It is mostly two main tracks, with segments of a third track in Fullerton and in the
    canyon; except for local curve restrictions, it is mostly 65 and 79 miles per hour (mph) rated
    track. OCTA owns former Santa Fe Railway lines, which join the BNSF at Fullerton and
    extend southeast through Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, and Irvine to San Clemente and
    connects with tracks to San Diego and a five-mile connection between Orange and the BNSF


                                                                                                    14
OCTOBER 2009                                         ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    line at Atwood, about three miles east of Placentia. Approximately 60 percent of this route is
    two tracks, and all tracks are rated at 60 to 90 mph as above.


    The OCTA lines are in a good to excellent state of maintenance and are supported by robust
    rehabilitation budgets. There are a few local vulnerabilities to storm damage (along the
    beach at San Clemente, at 4th Street in Santa Ana, and some hillside erosion in El Toro).
    Recently initiated projects to expand Metrolink service will result in significant main line and
    terminal capacity, rehabilitation of key communication systems and safety improvements at
    all 52 at-grade crossings on the OCTA owned lines. The BNSF lines are in average to very
    good state of maintenance. They are subject to very high levels of freight traffic and thus
    experience more rapid wear of track components than the OCTA segments. Some
    vulnerabilities are generally older and more worn rail, a smaller percentage of concrete ties,
    and some deteriorated road-crossing surfaces.


    OCTA line rating: B (84). BNSF line rating: C+ (78). A combined grade of B (78) was
    assigned to Commuter Rail condition.


    Combining the overall OCTA Bus Transit (82) with the overall Commuter Rail (82)
    and reflecting the approximate twenty-five fold difference in passengers between Bus
    Transit and Commuter Rail service yields an overall grade of B- (82) for the Transit
    condition.


    2. Operations.


    Bus Transit: The evaluation of operations is focused on measuring the efficiency of current
    operations. The specific efficiency measure, boardings per dollar of operating expense,
    indicates how much ridership is produced for each dollar invested in operating the bus
    system. To quantify Orange County’s standing for this measure compared to similar
    agencies in the United States, OCTA reviewed population, service area, and fleet size data
    from the nations’ transit agencies. This analysis led to the selection of Oakland, Dallas,
    Minneapolis, Portland, San Diego, and San Jose as a reasonable peer group for comparison


                                                                                                  15
OCTOBER 2009                                         ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    purposes. The results show that OCTA ranks 2nd among peer agencies with 0.33 boardings
    per dollar spent for operating the transit system, reflecting OCTA’s excellence performance
    in providing efficient bus service to Orange County residents and workers.


    Based on the peer comparison, a grade of B (numerical value of 85) was assigned OCTA
    Bus Transit operations.


    Commuter Rail: The OCTA and BNSF lines operate at approximately 95 percent on time
    (expressed as within five minutes of arrival time at last station). Exceptions to on-time
    performance are freight train congestion (discussed below), occasional accidental or criminal
    (i.e., suicide) incidents, and occasional signal and communication system failures. There
    have been train-to-train collisions in recent history that may have been preventable by
    installation of a more-sophisticated train control system. Recently adopted federal legislation
    requires the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC) by 2015. Metrolink and its member
    agencies, including OCTA, are working diligently to ensure the deployment of PTC by the
    end of 2012.


    OCTA line rating: B+ (87). BNSF line rating: B (83). A combined grade of B (85) was
    assigned to Commuter Rail operations.


    Combining the overall OCTA Bus Transit (85) with the overall Commuter Rail (85)
    and reflecting the approximate twenty-five fold difference in passengers between Bus
    Transit and Commuter Rail service yields an overall grade of B (85) for the Transit
    operations.


    3. Capacity.


    Bus Transit: The evaluation of capacity focused on measuring the amount of service
    provided by the current system relative to the County’s population. The specific
    effectiveness measure describes how many revenue hours of service are provided per
    100,000 population. The peer review shows that OCTA ranks 7th, compared with the peer


                                                                                                16
OCTOBER 2009                                           ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    group agencies, providing 61,571 revenue hours per 100,000 people. Even at the all-time-
    high level of service recently achieved, available funding has limited and will continue to
    limit the capacity of the Orange County bus transit system.


    Based on the peer comparison, a grade of D (numerical value of 65) was assigned to
    OCTA Bus Transit capacity.


    Commuter Rail: The OCTA segment has capacity to add some more passenger trains
    between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel, specifically on weekends and off peak periods.
    Current mainline capacity and terminal station improvements under construction are
    expected to be completed in mid-2010 and will allow for nearly a doubling of train service in
    the near future. Increased freight traffic is constrained by infrastructure limitations in San
    Diego. Increased through passenger traffic (i.e., Los Angeles to San Diego) is constrained by
    limitations on the BNSF west of Fullerton and by the single-track segments south of Laguna
    Niguel and in San Diego county.      There are community impact pressures that will likely
    limit expansion of capacity south of San Juan Capistrano; the expansion of the BNSF lines to
    three and four tracks is being driven by freight and passenger traffic as discussed above.
    While significant investment is being made in the Fullerton to Laguna Niguel segment of the
    San Diego – Los Angeles (LOSSAN) corridor to support increases in local train service, the
    capacity constraints in Southern Orange County, San Diego County, and Los Angeles County
    severely limit its function as an interregional corridor.


    The BNSF segment is at or over capacity on peak days. Rail traffic fluctuates weekly, with
    five working days of commuter traffic and variations in ship arrivals/departures that affect
    merchandise container shipments. On weekdays, there are 27 weekday-only Metrolink
    commuter trains, 24 daily (7-day) Amtrak intercity trains, and 40–55 BNSF freight trains.
    Projected growth in both passenger and freight traffic is driving the BNSF and Caltrans
    Division of Rail to fund incremental expansion of third main track segments between Los
    Angeles and Fullerton. Traffic analyses for this line indicate an annual growth rate of 6–8
    percent, which will double freight traffic within two decades (driven by port traffic and
    diversion from highways). The BNSF segment is unable to sustain projected 2010 traffic.


                                                                                                     17
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    OCTA line rating: B- (83). BNSF line rating: C- (71). A combined grade of C+ (77)
    was assigned to Commuter Rail capacity.


    Combining the overall OCTA Bus Transit (65) with the overall Commuter Rail (77)
    and reflecting the approximate twenty-five fold difference in passengers between Bus
    Transit and Commuter Rail service yields an overall grade of D (65) for the Transit
    capacity.


    4. Resiliency. A resilient infrastructure is a component, system, or facility that is able to
    withstand damage or disruption, but if affected, can be readily and cost-effectively restored.
    Resilience in effect encompasses protection, prevention, deterrence, risk-based mitigation,
    response, recovery and longer-term restoration. Resilience, by its nature, takes infrastructure
    interdependencies into account and is based on assessed risk. The existing OCTA Bus
    Transit and Metrolink Commuter Rail system throughout the County of Orange provides for
    an inherently resilient transportation system. In the event that any one facility or system link
    is interrupted, the system has the capacity to continue to operate a reasonably acceptable
    levels of service through transit system flexibility and available capacity.


    A letter grade of B+ (numerical value of 88) is assigned to OCTA Transit resiliency.


    5. Sustainability. A key component of a sustainable transportation infrastructure is a system
    of transit facilities that mitigate the negative impact on the environment to a level past
    minimum standards. Mass transit systems are inherently sustainable and OCTA’s Transit
    system has always been an area of strength in Orange County’s transportation infrastructure.
    Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service will further enhance the transit system
    sustainability. Future enhancements could include an entire fleet of “clean” transit vehicles
    and implementation of a network of community based, mini-bus services in areas outside of
    the central county rail corridor. Recently OCTA has acquired 299 CNG 40 ft busses. All
    four bus bases now have CNG fueling capabilities. This will lead to a reduction in by diesel
    and LNG busses in coming years.


                                                                                                    18
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    A letter grade of B+ (numerical value of 88) is assigned to OCTA Transit sustainability.


    6. Cost. Renewed Measure M is expected to raise $11.8 billion to improve Orange County’s
    transportation system for an additional 30 years beginning in 2011 until 2041. Twenty-five
    percent of net revenues from Renewed Measure M—$2.8 billion—is allocated to building
    and improving rail and bus transportation in Orange County. The funds will be allocated to
    operations and expansion of the Metrolink system in Orange County, and developing transit
    extensions to the Metrolink corridor, thereby enhancing the overall transit system. In
    addition, five percent of the revenues will be used for senior citizens and for establishing
    local bus circulators.


    The key element of the Renewed Measure M transit program is improving the 100-year old
    Santa Fe rail line, known today as the Los Angeles/San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor,
    through the heart of the county. Then, by using this well-established, operational commuter
    rail system as a platform for future growth, existing rail stations will be developed into
    regional transportation hubs that can serve as regional transportation gateways or the
    centerpiece of local transportation services. A series of new, well coordinated, flexible
    transportation systems, each one customized to the unique transportation vision the station
    serves, will be developed. Transportation solutions for each transportation hub can range
    from monorails to local mini-bus systems to new technologies.


    The new, localized transit programs will bring competition to local transportation planning,
    creating a marketplace of transportation ideas where the best ideas emerge and compete for
    funding. The plan is to encourage civic entrepreneurship and stimulate private involvement
    and investment.


    In terms of bus services, more specialized transit services, including improved van services
    and reduced fares for senior citizens and people with disabilities, will be provided. Safety at
    key bus stops will be improved. And a network of community based, mini-bus services will
    be developed in areas outside of the central county rail corridor.


                                                                                                   19
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    Proposition 1B is expected to issue $19.9 billion in bonds to assist county and local
    jurisdictions with transportation improvements. Funding is also obtained from an ongoing,
    but limited stream of federal and state funds and matching funds from local agencies and
    various other funding sources. This increased funding level will go far to help create a more
    balanced multi-modal transportation system, provide near-term relief on clogged highways
    and arterials, upgrade obsolete bridges, and expand mass transit systems.


    It is essential that funding continue without interruption to maintain the vital transportation
    infrastructure in Orange County. As we have seen in the past, without a continuing source of
    funds and resources dedicated for maintenance, there will be tremendous depreciation of
    transportation assets once again. For example, gridlock will tend to worsen again along our
    highways and arterials, bridges will increasingly become deficient or obsolete, and mass
    transit systems will continue to be under-utilized.


    As previously discussed, California faces tremendous challenges as a result of the current
    economic downturn and the state budget crisis. The downturn will likely cause near-term
    project delivery challenges due to the substantial reduction in generated tax revenues.
    Alternate funding sources will have to be obtained to maintain program viability.
    Addressing these challenges will force the state to reopen politically difficult discussions
    about what level of services to provide to the public and how to pay for them. Infrastructure
    finance—essential to California’s long-run growth and development—must be part of these
    discussions. Meeting infrastructure needs will be expensive: The state administration
    estimates a $500 billion price tag for rebuilding California’s transportation, water, school,
    and other systems over the next 20 years.


    A letter grade of C (numerical value of 75) is assigned to Transit cost.


    Combining the six Transit categories of Condition (82), Operation (85), Capacity (65),
    Resiliency (88), Sustainability (88) and Cost (75), and accounting for category
    weighting, yields an overall grade of C+ (79) for Transit.


                                                                                                      20
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




C. Bridges

    In California, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed the California Bridge
    Health Index to judge the performance of its bridge maintenance and rehabilitation efforts.
    The Index includes all structures that are assigned a bridge number (e.g., overcrossings,
    undercrossings, overpasses, pedestrian overcrossings) within the State of California right-of-
    way. In Orange County, there are approximately 606 bridges in the District 12 inventory.


    The Bridge Health Index is a 0–100 numerical rating that utilizes inspection data to
    determine the remaining asset value of a bridge or network of bridges. The Health Index
    (HI) operates on the premise that each element on a bridge has an initial asset value when the
    element is in new condition. Over time, an element may deteriorate to a lower condition,
    resulting in a reduction in the asset value of the element. When maintenance or rehabilitation
    actions are performed, the condition of the element will likely improve, and the
    corresponding asset value of the element will be increased. At any point in time, the current
    element condition can be ascertained by field inspection or predicted for future years using a
    deterioration model. Once the condition is known, the current element value can be
    determined for all elements on the bridge. The HI for the bridge is the ratio of the current
    element value to the initial element value of all elements on the bridge.


    Orange County (Caltrans District 12) has 606 bridges (5 percent of State total), with Network
    Health Index (NHI) of 98.8 (State’s NHI is 94.0) in 2008.


    For the purposes of this report, the bridge categories of condition, operations and
    capacity are considered to be captured by the Bridge Health Index. In Orange County,
    the cumulative average of all the bridge health indexes results in a grade of A (99).


    Resiliency, Sustainability and Cost. As bridges are an integral part of the countywide
    highways system, the categories of resiliency, sustainability and cost will be assigned the
    same grades as for the Highways component.



                                                                                                   21
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    Combining the six Bridge categories of Condition (99), Operation (99), Capacity (99),
    Resiliency (85), Sustainability (75) and Cost (60), and accounting for category
    weighting, yields an overall grade of A- (93) for Bridges.


V. COMPLEMENTARY TOPICS


Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Land-use: SB 375 builds on AB 32,
California's first-in-the-nation law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by adding the nation's
first law to control greenhouse gas emissions by curbing sprawl. The bill intends to take
California's fight against global warming to a whole new level. As stated by Governor
Schwarzenegger said. "When it comes to reducing greenhouse gases, California is first in
tackling car emissions, first to tackle low-carbon fuels, and now with this landmark legislation,
we are the first in the nation to tackle land-use planning. What this will mean is more
environmentally-friendly communities, more sustainable developments, less time people spend
in their cars, more alternative transportation options and neighborhoods we can safely and
proudly pass on to future generations."


In order to reach the greenhouse gas reduction goals set out in AB 32, the Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, Californians need to rethink how we design our communities. SB 375
does this by providing emissions-reduction goals around which regions can plan-integrating
disjointed planning activities and providing incentives for local governments and developers to
follow new conscientiously-planned growth patterns.


SB 375 enhances the Air Resources Board's (ARB) ability to reach our AB 32 goals by directing
ARB to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to be achieved from the
automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. ARB will also work with California's 18
metropolitan planning organizations to align their regional transportation, housing and land-use
plans and prepare a "sustainable communities strategy" to reduce the amount of vehicle miles
traveled in their respective regions and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its greenhouse
gas reduction targets. Spending less time on the road is the single-most powerful way for
California to reduce its carbon footprint.


                                                                                                     22
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




Additionally, SB 375 provides incentives for creating attractive, walkable and sustainable
communities and revitalizing existing communities. The bill also allows home builders to get
relief from certain environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act if they
build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. It will also encourage
the development of more alternative transportation options, which will promote healthy lifestyles
and reduce traffic congestion.


It should be noted, however, that SB 375 and related greenhouse gas legislation present new
challenges in planning and delivery of transportation improvements. These new requirements
present an added risk on delivery of major infrastructure projects given lack of accepted
technical procedures, policy guidance and legal precedence.


The rulemaking for the new GHG regulations is underdevelopment by the ARB and other state
agencies, and there is not enough information thus far on how the changes will impact project
delivery. However, it is likely that implementation of new requirements will require additional
time and potentially result in project delays through the environmental process as lead agencies
face new and undefined challenges related to GHG issues.


Moreover, the underlying assumption of SB 375 is that by more closely linking land use,
transportation, and housing planning, this will in turn promote mode shifting, increasing the
demand for alternative transportation, including transit, and thereby decrease emissions. If the
state continues the trend of eliminating state sources of transit capital and operating funds, in
addition to the decrease in local transit funds due to downward economic trends, it will be
impossible for transit agencies to meet any increased demand, and thereby achieve the regional
GHG targets.


The Governor also signed SB 732 by Steinberg which will provide a comprehensive statutory
framework to implement new programs under Proposition 84, the $5.4 billion initiative voters
passed in 2006 for safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, natural resource
protection and park improvements. The bill also establishes the Strategic Growth Council and


                                                                                                    23
OCTOBER 2009                                          ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




will appropriate $500,000 from Prop 84 to the Resources Agency to support the Council and its
activities.


The bill requires the Council to take certain actions with regard to coordinating programs of
various state agencies to do the following:
       improve air and water quality,

       improve natural resource protection,

       increase the availability of affordable housing,

       improve transportation,

       meet the goals of AB 32,

       encourage sustainable land use planning and

       revitalize urban community centers in a sustainable manner.



Planning for High Speed Rail: In October 2008, the Orange County Business County
completed a study addressing the economic impact of high speed trains for Orange County
transportation and its job market:

    High Speed Trains with stops in Orange County promises significant positive economic
    impact for residents and businesses of Orange County. Research by Cambridge Systematics
    (2007) finds that Orange County is poised to gain almost 23,000 jobs by 2030.
    In addition, the local transportation infrastructure will be enhanced through harnessing
    investments at the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) thus
    increasing the efficiencies of the Metrolink train system and the Orange County
    Transportation Authority bus system as well as supporting new visions of transit oriented
    development in Orange County. Furthermore, access to popular attractions such as the
    Disneyland Resort, Honda Center, Knott’s Berry Farm, Angels Stadium, and Honda Center
    will be enhanced. With high number of premier attractions, enhancing the travel options of
    potential visitors to Orange County will grow the tourism industry which is responsible for
    over 86,000 jobs in Orange County.


                                                                                                  24
OCTOBER 2009                                           ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




    Such intensive investment and efficiencies gained in transportation infrastructure encourages
    greater land-use density around the train stations which reduces the developed footprint of
    the region. Orange County will also gain from increased density around the train station
    locations since these types of locations disproportionately benefit employers and employees
    in the Services, Finance, Insurance and Real Estate and Government sectors, which are very
    strong in Orange County. Travel costs of approximately $300,000 annually and indirect
    costs in time saved of over $1.7 million annually can be saved for commuters traveling by
    High Speed Trains instead of by automobile.
    Furthermore, High Speed Trains promise to enhance the local economy and residents of
    Orange County through providing an alternative mechanism for long-distance travel to
    locations in California that are typically reached through increased usage of John Wayne
    Airport. Through substituting flights to California locations such as San Francisco, San
    Jose, Fresno and Sacramento, residents can save $300,000 per year in travel time losses and
    $22.6 million annually in direct ticket costs. In addition, substituting these flights will
    enhance Orange County commercial cargo capabilities for “just-in-time” goods as well as
    promoting greater overall economic efficiency with more alternatives for travel.
    Finally, quality of life for Orange County would be enhanced through reduced greenhouse
    gas emissions and air pollution, reduced congestion on the roads and at airports, increased
    personal exercise through encouraging a more pedestrian oriented lifestyle, and increased
    road safety with fewer cars on the road and separate tracks for the network independent of
    freight trains. High Speed Trains will create a new travel alternative for Orange County
    residents that promises significant benefits and a new approach to short and long distance
    transportation.
The study underlines the importance of High Speed Rail to Orange County, particularly when
considered in relation to the passage of Proposition 1A, $8 billion of ARRA High Speed Rail
funds, the continued development of ARTIC, and the on-going efforts to deliver the first segment
of high speed rail from Anaheim to Los Angeles.




                                                                                                  25
OCTOBER 2009                                           ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




Goods Movement: Perhaps the most pressing issue for the Southern California region and
Orange County is to accommodate the anticipated increase in demand for goods movement in the
region. As a region, the five Southern California county transportation commissions (LACMTA,
OCTA, SANBAG, RCTC, and VCTC), four Southern California Caltrans districts, and SCAG
are funding the “Southern California Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan.” This Goods
Movement Action Plan evaluates goods movement issues and strategies for the region as a whole
and for each individual county.

The following are objectives of the Southern California Multi-County Goods Movement
Action Plan:

         Document existing freight movement systems and constraints

         Identify projected goods movement growth and trends, and possible private sector
          responses

         Identify strategies to lessen community and environmental impacts

         Identify optimal short-term and long-term infrastructure and operational strategies

         Identify private- and public-sector roles in implementation, and funding sources

         Identify partnership opportunities and solutions for implantation and needed public-
          private institutional arrangements


According to SCAG, the region’s need for goods movement projects over the next 10 years is
close to $30 billion in current dollars. The study explored the total need for Orange County in
goods movement projects over the next 10 years in the action plan. A few major goods
movement projects in Orange County that are unfunded include the SR-57 truck-climbing lane
($68 million) and the Alameda Corridor East ($2.5 billion total, which includes Orange County’s
total).


On a parallel track, Caltrans is developing its own goods movement action plan for the State of
California. In the current draft of Caltrans Goods Movement Action Plan, OCTA and Caltrans
District 12 have submitted 13 projects for at least $1.2 billion in proposed short-, mid-, and long-
term projects.


                                                                                                  26
OCTOBER 2009                                         ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




Funding Needed to Raise Our Grade by One Level: The Orange County Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) provides transportation strategies to support Orange County’s growing
and changing population, employment, and housing trends. The LRTP provides the transportation
vision to keep the County mobile in the future. The last LRTP, known as New Directions, was
developed in 2006.


As of the last LRTP, an investment of $40.9 billion in our transportation system would be
required to raise our grade by one level. This amount is approximately $12.4 billion more than
the $28.5 billion that was identified in the financially constrained portion of the 2006 LRTP for
funding transportation improvements. Of the $28.5 billion investment, OCTA revenues account
for 65 percent of the total. The balance of revenues is from Caltrans, the Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration discretionary funds, Transportation Corridor
Agencies, local jurisdictions, and private sources. A key assumption of the 2006 LRTP was that
the $12.4 billion funding gap would be primarily addressed by passage of Renewed Measure M,
which was estimated to provide $11.8 billion. However, the unprecedented state economic
conditions have drastically affected the financial assumptions and this new revenue stream is
unlikely to provide the estimated gap funding.


VI. DATA GATHERING AND SOURCES

Each component of the Transportation infrastructure—Highways, Transit, and Bridges—
required unique data sources. The Condition category of Highways was heavily dependent on the
Countywide Pavement Condition Assessment Study 2005 and a similar Caltrans report, the 2007
Pavement Condition Survey. The Operation and Capacity categories of Highways utilized
output data from Orange County Traffic Analysis Model 3.3 (OCTAM), applying OCP-
2006/RTP-2006 socioeconomic data.


The Condition category of Transit utilized data from an OCTA Bus Satisfaction Survey 2008 of
transit passengers. The Operations and Capacity categories utilized data gathered for a National
Transit Database (2007) that provided comparable data on similar transit systems across the
country.


                                                                                                 27
OCTOBER 2009                                         ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




Data for Bridges was gathered from a Caltrans California Bridge Health Index, which is
maintained for all bridges in California.


VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Highway Grade

As a result of the County’s significant investment in new construction and rehabilitation over the
past 20 years through financing provided by Measure M sales tax revenue, the overall Condition
of both our highway system and freeway system is very good.


Again, as a result of the added capacity provided through Measure M, the current operation of
the highway system is adequate; however, the freeway system is operating slightly over capacity
while the county arterial system is well below.


In the future, the demand for the freeway system will far exceed the Capacity and the arterial
system will be approaching capacity, resulting in substantial congestion and delays. This strongly
underlines the need for additional local funding sources and the recent renewal of the Measure M
funding source. The recent economic downturn will continue be a significant challenge in the
near term.


Overall, the Highway component receives a grade of B- (80).


Transit Grade

The current Condition and Operations of the OCTA bus system and Metrolink commuter rail are
excellent based on customer surveys and technical efficiency characteristics compared to other
representative transit systems. In the area of Capacity, the OCTA bus system ranked seventh
based upon a peer comparison. The recent economic downturn will continue be a significant
challenge in the near term and will limit bus system capacity.


Overall, the Transit component receives a grade of C+ (79).


                                                                                                 28
OCTOBER 2009                                         ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




Bridge Grade

As a result of the major investments in new freeway construction and the relative age of all
bridge structures in the County, the overall condition of bridges is very good.


The Bridge component receives a grade of A- (93).


Transportation Grade

Applying the weighting of 70 percent to Highways, 20 percent to Transit, and 10 percent to
Bridges, the overall grade for Transportation is a B- (81).


REFERENCES

1. Countywide Pavement Condition Assessment Study, June 2005, prepared for OCTA.

2. Freeway and Arterial Level of Service Analysis, June 2009, prepared by OCTA.

3. National Transit Database 2007.

4. California Bridge Health Index, Caltrans, Jim Beil, District 12.

5. Condition Assessment Report—Commuter Rail, June 2005, prepared by Michael McGinley,
    P.E., M. ASCE, Director of Engineering and Construction, SCRRA.

6. OCTA 2006 Long-Range Transportation Plan, New Directions

7. OCTA Bus Satisfaction Study, January 2008

8. National Transit Database 2007

9. Public Policy Institute of California, Paying for Infrastructure: California’s Choices, January
    2009

10. The Economic Impact of High Speed Trains for Orange County, prepared by the Orange
    County Business Council, October 2008




                                                                                                29
OCTOBER 2009                                         ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD—TRANSPORTATION




TRANSPORTATION WORKING committee
Bob Kallenbaugh, Chief Executive Officer, RBF Consulting
Kia Mortazavi, Director of Development, OCTA
Darrell Johnson, Director of Transit Project Delivery, OCTA
Paul Taylor, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, MTA (formerly of OCTA)
Jim Beil, Deputy District Director, Caltrans District 12
Les Card, P.E., Chief Executive Officer, LSA Associates, Inc.
Bill Bennett, President, HDR, Inc.
Hamid Bahadori, Principal Trans. Engineer/Senior Policy Analyst, American Automobile Assoc.
Bo Burick, Vice President, RBF Consulting


TRANSPORTATION EXECUTIVE REVIEW committee
Peter Buffa, OCTA Board Chairman
Wally Kreutzen, Assistant City Manager, City of Irvine
Sarah Catz, Director, Center for Urban Infrastructure




                                                                                                30
PARKS/RECREATION/
  ENVIRONMENT
 Parks, Recreation & the
Environment Report Card




        August 2009
              



                           0
        ORANGE COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT CARD – 2010 
                PARK, RECREATION & ENVIRONMENT 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
The American Society of Civil Engineers created a common methodology for all report card 
committees to use.  The grades for the Park, Recreation and Environment (PR&E) report were 
derived from detailed surveys completed by the managers of each of the city, county, state, 
federal and non‐profit conservancy parks and facilities.  Since the 2005 Report Card, the PR&E 
category has seen some improvements in the investment of park programs and parklands.  The 
overall grade for PR&E is C+, which is an improvement over the 2005 grade of C.     
 
An important change for parks in our county occurred when the Orange County Harbors, 
Beaches and Parks Department, largely as a result of 2005 Grand Jury recommendations,  
undertook a Strategic Planning process and made significant progress in streamlining, 
budgeting, planning and transparency.  The Department’s name was changed to OC Parks and 
its location moved to historic Irvine Company land and buildings; both consistent with 
improving the autonomy and identity of parks within the government infrastructure.  More 
significantly, OC Parks was relocated in the county government structure to be part of Orange 
County Community Resources whose mission is “Connecting People & Resources.” 
 
Due to the passage of Park Bond Acts and per capita allocations from Propositions 12 and 40, 
there has been a flurry of activity related to park rehabilitation and development statewide.  
However, the 2008‐2009 economic recession means the outlook for PR&E for the next five 
years will change.   
 
According to a Gallup poll taken in 2009, for the first time in 25 years, Americans say that the 
economy takes precedence over the environment.  Whereas 60% chose the environmental 
option in 1984, this has slipped to 42% in 2009.  Today many Americans are confronted with 
overwhelming personal financial worries, unemployment and restricted budgets.   These 
uncertainties can be directly connected with parks and park programs.  History tells us parks 
and associated staffing are vulnerable to major reductions in services, program cuts, and capital 
expenditures during fiscal crises.  The PR&E Committee recognizes that it has yet to see the full 
extent of the impacts to local parks and park programs from the down‐turned economy due to 
lag time.   
 
The three most significant issues currently affecting PR&E are:  
     • the economy, and funding for parks,  
     • lack of activity outdoors, and  
     • catastrophic wildfires.   
 



                                                                                                1
In terms of the economy, the state’s budget issues, the bond freeze, and proposed closure of 
80% of California’s state parks demonstrate how the situation with PR&E seems quite dire.  In 
addition, more children are staying indoors instead of getting outside to play.  These cultural 
changes have serious consequences including: childhood obesity, increased stress, and lack of 
understanding of the natural world.  Finally, since the 2005 Report Card, Orange County has 
endured two of the most catastrophic wildland fires in its history.  These are due in part to a 
statewide drought, increased development in the wildland urban interface, and more highly 
flammable vegetation.  These three factors are discussed below. 
 
Park Demand 
According to a market research study commissioned by the California Park and Recreation 
Society and finalized in March 2009, “98% of California households report having visited a park 
or participated in a program during the past year, and two‐in‐every‐three households did so at 
least once in the past month.”  With the federal unemployment rate at 9.4% (14.5 million 
individuals), the state’s unemployment rate of 11.0% (2.0 million individuals), and Orange 
County’s unemployment rate of 8.3% (261,000 individuals), access to recreation areas and local 
programs is essential.  With significant job losses, families have turned to “staycations” instead 
of vacations.  In other words, families are staying home during their time off and are now more 
than ever in need of inexpensive activities and accessibility to parks and community programs.  
Of course, with increased use we are now grappling with issues associated with ‘loving our 
parks to death.’  Conflicts between the types of use and detrimental impacts to and overuse of 
the natural resources, coupled with limited funding for operations and maintenance make 
balancing recreational needs with resource protection difficult.  For example, there needs to be 
a balance between educating the public about tide pools while at the same time protecting tide 
pool species from being trampled to death during educational programs or family outings. 
 
Regardless of the current economic trends, in the long term “to protect public lands for future 
generations, all segments of the population need to be engaged and have a sense of 
ownership,” says George McDonald who coordinates the National Park Service’s Youth 
Programs.   
 
PR&E AND THE ECONOMY 
 
Park Bond Acts 
As mentioned above, there has been a significant increase in funding allocated to parks and 
park programs.  Voters approved Proposition 12 in 2000, and within its $2.1 billion funding 
package, roughly $827 million was earmarked for urban recreation projects and allocated on a 
per capita basis.  In March 2002, voters approved Proposition 40 ($2.6 billion) and, like 
Proposition 12, this Park Bond Act included per capita funds for local jurisdictions.  These funds 
really began to flow into our parks and recreation facilities after the 2005 Report Card.  
 
Since Proposition 40, two other Park Bond Acts have been approved.  Proposition 50 was 
approved in November 2002, and though it included $3.44 billion to fund water projects, 
develop river parkways and improve water quality and security, it did not include per capita 


                                                                                                  2
allocations.  Consequently Proposition 50 didn’t have the same impact to local cities as 
Propositions 12 and 40.  In 2006, voters approved Proposition 84, which included $5.388 billion 
for safe drinking water, water quality and supply, and waterway and natural resource 
protection.  Again, there was no per capita allocation for local jurisdictions.  These funds have 
not yet really begun to flow into park acquisitions and river parkway projects.   
 
The Bond Freeze 
Though the state sells and administers the general obligation bonds, it wasn’t initially clear how 
dependent cities, counties, contractors and conservation organizations were on the bond 
funds.  It became much more apparent when in December 2008, the state issued a “stop work 
order” that required every contractor or grantee working on projects funded with state bond 
dollars to stop their work.  This had a devastating effect on conservation projects throughout 
the state.  In fact, $2.274 billion in funding was halted totaling 3,271 projects statewide.  
According to the State Department of Finance, Orange County had 110 projects frozen totaling 
$70 million.  The state budget stalemate also took its toll on projects that were to improve 
parks, but by early April 2009, the state did sell $6.54 billion in general obligation bonds, and in 
late April had another successful sale of $6.9 billion in bonds.    
 
Governor Schwarzenegger lifted the bond freeze on April 22, 2009 after the second successful 
bond issuance.  All back invoices were ordered to be paid and projects restarted.  The process 
by state financial staff has been to go through each bond, beginning with the lowest number, 
and assuring that the money gained from the proceeds of the latest bond sale can in fact be 
used to support each project under that bond.  By mid‐June the state began issuing payments 
for Propositions 40 and 50. 
 
Proposed State Park Closures 
The 2008‐2009 state budget was cut by over $18 billion and the 2009‐2010 budget by $8.6 
billion.  Since revenue continues to decline precipitously month to month, the state General 
Fund now faces an additional shortfall of $24.5 billion.  Because of this budget shortfall, in early 
June 2009 Governor Schwarzenegger proposed cutting $143 million of General Fund support to 
the California Department of Parks and Recreation – an 86% decrease in support.  In addition, 
his proposal included closing 220 of the state’s 270+ state park units.  
 
The only Orange County state park affected by this proposed closure is Chino Hills State Park – 
with roughly half of its 14,000+ acres in Orange County.  In three counties, and bordering a 
fourth, park users have asked, “how exactly do you close this Park?”  Park officials were quoted 
in the Orange County Register stating that it would cost essentially the same to keep Chino Hills 
State Park open as it would to close it.   Recognizing the fiscal and safety impacts of the closure 
of Chino Hills State Park, the City of Chino Hills passed a resolution in support of keeping all 
State Parks open.   
 
In a press release from the California State Parks Foundation: 
         “Based on a 2002 study, park visitors generate more than $6.5 billion in total output and 
         new sales for private businesses in communities around State Parks yearly as a result of 


                                                                                                   3
       visitor spending.  The tax revenue from that spending generates $2.35 in General Fund 
       revenue for the State for every dollar of General Fund received by State Parks to 
       operate the system (primarily from sales and income taxes on the travel and tourism 
       industry).” 
        
       Therefore, based on the study, saving $149 million by closing State Parks would cost the 
       General Fund more than twice that amount in lost revenue (more than $350 million). 
       Also, eliminating that $149 million eliminates the $6.5 billion in profits generated by 
       visitor spending in local businesses around parks.”      
 
With the proposal to close the majority of California’s State Parks there was significant outcry 
from the public.  In the two weeks after the proposal came to light, 36,000 individuals sent 
more than 90,000 letters to the Governor and Legislators.  The State’s joint Budget Conference 
Committee voted in June 2009 to impose a $15 vehicle registration fee as a permanent funding 
mechanism for parks.  This was not approved by the Legislature as it was interpreted as a new 
tax.  In the end, the Governor took $14.2 million from State Parks, but it is expected this will 
result in the closure of perhaps more than 100 state parks.   Additionally in August, there was an 
increase for State Park day use and camping fees to help cover some of the costs of running the 
parks. 
 
PR&E AND GETTING OUTDOORS 
 
Reduced Outdoor Activity 
Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods, coined the phrase ‘nature deficient disorder,’ 
which is not technically a medical diagnosis.  It is instead the articulation of what many have 
come to realize in the past few decades: more children are spending less time outside.  This lack 
of hands‐on experience has dramatic impacts as shown from several published surveys 
synthesized in the Children and Nature Network’s publication Children and Nature 2008 – A 
Report on the Movement to Reconnect Children to the Natural World: 
        •    Children at eight years old can identify 25% more Pokémon characters than wildlife 
             species; 
        •    Only 22% of children walk to school (of their parents 71% walked to school as a 
             child);  
        •    Obesity in California children has increased from about 10% in 1985 to 22.6% in 
             2007; and 
        •    Of parents surveyed, 94% said that safety is their biggest concern when making 
             decisions about whether to allow their children to engage in free play in the out‐of‐
             doors. 
 
According to the Children and Nature Network, “[o]besity, attention‐deficit disorder, impaired 
social skills and what can be characterized as a “culture of depression” are adding to the stress 
levels and severely impacting our young.”  A growing movement has realized the benefits of 
reconnecting children to nature and is working to ensure this occurs.   
 


                                                                                                 4
According to the aforementioned California Park and Recreation Society study, it is clear in the 
findings that park “spaces, places, facilities and services are an essential component of the 
everyday lives of Californians.”  From this study, one conclusion that can be drawn about the 
highest priorities of Californians is that “topping the list of the most highly valued/highest 
personal priorities is the preservation of, and access to, outdoor spaces.”  The study concludes 
that two types of outdoor spaces are specifically indicated:  
        • Space that is minimally developed, in a nearly natural state; and 
        • Space with facilities for play (especially related to children), exercise and group 
            sports (for both children and adults). 
 
The study further suggests that the benefits that motivate these preferences are: 
        • These types of spaces make a community a better place to live now and in the 
            future, 
        • The serenity and awe of nature must be available (to see, touch, smell and hear) 
            now and in the future, 
        • Children, especially, and adults need outdoor spaces for play and exercise, and 
        • Friends and family need these types of spaces for group sports. 
 
The health benefits of recreational opportunities and access to open space are immense, from 
stress release to enhancing cognitive flexibility and problem solving to self‐esteem.  For 
example, when children experience nature they are smarter, happier, and healthier.   Access to 
recreation programs, parks and just plain “playing outdoors” will help improve the lives of 
children.  These experiences transcend more than just the immediate benefits as these children 
are future voters – the same voters that may one day decide to pass a Park Bond Act.  If they 
haven’t experienced nature and the outdoors, even in an urban park, would they vote to 
protect it?   
 
Santa Ana Parks 
One Orange County organization working to change the pattern of increased obesity and lack of 
access to parks is the Santa Ana based Latino Health Access (LHA).  LHA is faced with a 
challenge – Santa Ana is 98% built out, and offers only 0.9 acres of park space for every 1,000 of 
its people.  Residents are limited in their access to safe and nearby parks. Schools with green 
fields and sports facilities can be found in virtually every neighborhood, but are unavailable for 
public use.  In 2005, in an effort to address the severe lack of open space and the countless 
social and health‐related issues associated with it, LHA partnered with The Trust for Public Land 
and is now working with the City of Santa Ana, the Santa Ana Unified School District, and police 
agencies to advance the Santa Ana Safe Neighborhood, Safe Park and After‐School Recreation 
Measure, a ½‐cent sales tax that would generate approximately $13.5 million annually. 
  
Based on polling, LHA learned that three in five voters would support a potential ½‐cent sales 
tax measure to make school grounds available after hours as safe places for recreation. Polling 
also shows Santa Ana voters are enthusiastic about investing in safer parks and recreational 




                                                                                                 5
activities for local youth.  Though the measure has not yet gone before Santa Ana voters,  this is 
a promising idea with support from a broad coalition. 
 
Ensuring Children Experience Nature 
Because of seriously changing cultural and economic conditions, getting children outdoors is a 
growing challenge.  It can’t be met with a once a year field trip to the out‐of‐doors or by 
watching nature programs on television.  It needs to become a lifestyle engendered by 
innovative programs at the local level which engage people in a personally satisfying / 
inspirational way with hands‐on programs and projects. 
 
Ironically, while there is a need to focus on getting people out‐of‐doors to increase their 
appreciation of nature as well as their health, the out‐of‐doors is increasingly in peril from 
environmental disasters and current economic limitations.  Land use decisions have a significant 
impact on public health and the environment.  Changes, such as more bike lanes, sidewalks, 
and allowing mixed use developments, need to be made in local and state policies to better 
ensure the health and well‐being of California’s residents as well as its natural environment.  
Yet chaotic financial circumstances, especially at the state level, impact the ability of local 
agencies and organizations to plan and carry out needed projects and plans. 
 
PR&E AND WILDFIRES 
 
According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the state is in the third year 
of a drought. Rain and snowfall for 2007 and 2008 were well below average and 2009 is no 
different.  Locally, according to the Municipal Water District of Orange County, the County 
normally averages 13.01 inches of rainfall per year, but recent records show 8.5 inches (2007), 
2.19 inches (2008) and 9.45 inches (2009).  In February 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger 
declared a statewide drought and called for immediate action to remedy the crisis.  Local water 
districts are now implementing voluntary water conservation measures to ensure a reliable 
supply of water to Orange County residents, but limited rainfall impacts more than just the 
residents – it also impacts natural lands in the form of wildfires. 
 
High Fire Hazard Areas 
From June to September 2008, Cal Fire began posting recommended maps for Very High Fire 
Hazard Severity Zones in local responsibility areas. The map is based on fuels, terrain and 
weather included in each county.  All of Orange County’s undeveloped wildlands, including, but 
not limited to, the Laguna Coast, Irvine Ranch lands, Santa Ana Mountains and Puente‐Chino 
Hills are in the very high fire hazard areas.   
 
Though local plant communities, specifically coastal sage scrub and chaparral, have adapted to 
Southern California’s Mediterranean climate, even they are struggling with the limited rainfall.  
Since the 2005 Report Card, Orange County has experienced two of its most devastating 
wildfires in the County’s history.  There is no doubt that extremely dry conditions, increased 
wildland urban interface, and, more importantly, Santa Ana winds factored into the 
catastrophic impacts to local wildlands and families. 


                                                                                                 6
The Santiago Fire (2007) 
The 2007 Santiago Fire in the foothills of the Cleveland National Forest burned 28,517 acres. 
This fire was understaffed for quite some time as it was one of 16 fires in Southern California 
that was burning between October 20 and October 31. This firestorm along with several others 
became known as the Southern California Fire Siege of 2007.  The Santiago Fire forced 
thousands of people to evacuate their homes from Silverado Canyon to Trabuco Canyon and 
into the more urban areas of Irvine, Lake Forest and Portola Springs. At its peak, this fire utilized 
1,982 fire personnel, 212 engines and 15 aerial crews.  Started by an arsonist, this Santa Ana 
wind‐driven fire consumed 14 homes entirely, and damaged eight more. Cal Fire and the U.S. 
Forest Service estimated this fire to cost $20.5 million. 
 
The Freeway Complex Fire (2008) 
The 2008 Freeway Complex Fire in the foothills of north Orange County burned 30,305 acres.  
This ultimately became one of the largest wildland fires in Orange County history. It forced 
nearly 40,000 people to evacuate from their homes in four counties (Riverside where the first 
started, Orange County where the second fire started, San Bernardino and Los Angeles County).  
It burned 14 acres per minute – in other words it moved the length of 14 football fields every 
60 seconds. Ninety percent of Chino Hills State Park burned as a result of this wildfire.  At its 
peak, the fire utilized 3,800 fire personnel, 650 engines and 19 aerial crews.  Two Santa Ana 
wind‐driven fires eventually converged and destroyed in their paths 187 homes entirely and 
damaged 127 homes. The cost of this fire to date is $16.1 million.  
 
A Changing Landscape  
Local plant communities are changing significantly due to the frequency and intensity of 
wildfires.  What were once hillsides covered with an “elfin forest” are now grasslands with 
weedy, flammable, non‐native species dotted with a few native oak or walnut trees.  Hills For 
Everyone, the non‐profit organization that formed Chino Hills State Park, explained this 
transition (known as type conversion) best in its recent newsletter: 
         “Since fire is a natural part of the ecosystem ‐ plant species have adapted to survive. 
         Some plants use the heat of fire to open or awaken their seeds and start a new plant. 
         Fires that are too frequent don’t allow young plants to mature enough to develop these 
         seeds. Other plants store energy in their roots and then re‐sprout from stumps. 
         Repeated fires can sap so much energy with the demands of frequent re‐sprouting that 
         plants run out of stored energy. As the bushes die off, non‐native vegetation takes over. 
         These annual grasses not only can’t provide the cover or the nutrition for wildlife, but 
         they also die off faster in spring than native grasses and this extends the fire season. 
         Non‐native grasses also ignite easier and spread fire faster than the native chaparral, 
         coastal sage scrub and woodlands we hoped we were protecting as parkland.” 
 
PR&E 2010 AND BEYOND 
 
Regional Planning  
In 2006, California made international headlines by passing legislation for climate change with 
the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32.  The goal is simple: reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 


                                                                                                   7
1990 levels by 2020.  In 2008, California added a regional planning component to the land use 
arena with Senate Bill (SB) 375.  SB 375 is an incentive‐based bill that provides significant 
financial, planning and environmental review incentives to encourage orderly development.  
This legislation synchronizes land use planning, housing and transportation with an emphasis 
toward emissions reductions. 
 
 According to Governor Schwarzenegger:  
        “California is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change . . . increased 
        temperatures threaten to greatly reduce the Sierra snowpack, one of the State’s 
        primary sources of water … increased temperatures also threaten to further exacerbate 
        California’s air quality problems and adversely impact human health … rising sea levels 
        threaten California’s 1,100 miles of valuable coastal real estate and natural habitats; and  
        … the combined effects of an increase in temperatures and diminished water supply and 
        quality threaten to alter micro‐climates within the state, and result in variations in crop 
        quality and yield.”  
 
These two pieces of legislation offer an opportunity that has yet to be tapped on a large scale 
basis – acquisition of open space to reduce greenhouse gases through carbon sequestration.  
Vegetation naturally converts carbon dioxide (CO2) into biomass via photosynthesis reactions.  
The more CO2 utilized by plants, the less is released into the atmosphere thereby reducing this 
greenhouse gas.  In other words, the more trees we allow to grow and the more trees we plant, 
the less CO2 reaches the atmosphere. 
 
One of the leaders in terrestrial carbon sequestration is the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service.  The Service began its program in 1997 and has added 40,000 acres of restored habitat 
to its national wildlife refuges, and restored more than 80,000 acres for wildlife. Through its 
partnership, the Service has planted more than 22 million trees that will capture more than 33 
million tons of carbon in the next century.  These examples and more are opportunities that 
encourage the protection of open space, but at the same time have other significant co‐
benefits. 
 
Funding for Parks 
There is a silver lining.  Outside of the recently passed Proposition 84, there are two new 
innovative funding sources for habitat protection. In 2006, the conservation community began 
negotiating for comprehensive habitat mitigation to transportation projects.  When the 
Measure M ½‐cent sales tax renewal proposed by the Orange County Transportation Authority 
(OCTA) was approved by voters, it included $243.5 million for comprehensive mitigation.  With 
the support of conservation groups, expedited permitting from the resource agencies and 
assurances from OCTA, the freeway project impacts were pooled as were the funds to mitigate 
those impacts.  Since renewed Measure M’s passage, legislation has been drafted at the state 
level, and is being considered at the federal level, to look at transportation and other 
infrastructure projects holistically.  This is a sea change in how mitigation has historically been 
addressed – piecemeal and project‐by‐project instead of programmatically. 
 


                                                                                                  8
Another innovative funding program is in south Orange County. In 2008, residents of San Juan 
Capistrano approved Measure Y – a $30 million open space bond.  This conservation measure 
furthers the City’s activities to protect important open space, recreation areas and water 
quality, and serves to attract matching funds from other state, federal and private grantors.  
Between Proposition 84, and Measures M and Y, these seem to be the only available funding 
mechanisms for acquiring and restoring lands for conservation purposes in the near future. Still 
outstanding, and an integral part of successful local programs, are per capita funds that support 
city‐wide parks and recreation facilities. 
 
Children’s Bill of Rights 
Developed by the California Roundtable on Recreation, Parks and Tourism, the California 
Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007.  This 
proclamation included easy things every child should be able to experience.  These activities 
range from camping under the stars, to catching a fish, following a trail, or playing on a team.   
The concept of a Children’s Bill of Rights is moving in the right direction, but support for this 
program must come from funding and staffing.   
 
The Urban Wildland Interface 
After the devastating fires in Orange County, fire officials, planners, developers, agencies and 
non‐profits began shifting the focus from primarily a reactionary fire plan (fighting fires when 
they occur) to a preventative fire plan (creating buffers between communities and natural 
lands).  This shift is evidenced in two ways.  First, by the activities of Fire Safe Councils in both 
the Santa Ana Mountain foothills and communities of Carbon Canyon in North Orange County – 
both areas impacted by recent fires.  From removal of non‐native flammable plants to the 
installation of high‐tech heat sensitive attic vents, residents are taking proactive measures to 
reduce the impacts of future fires.  Second, it is important to ensure adequate defensible 
spaces between parklands and contiguous residential areas.  This, along with water reliability 
and availability, could have reduced impacts of the Freeway Complex Fire.  The particular issue 
of defensible space, and who is responsible for making sure it exists and is maintained, 
ultimately ties to the larger issue of regional planning.  In addition, organizations like the 
Planning and Conservation League and the Urban Land Institute of Orange County are 
advancing the dialogue as it relates to development along the urban edge and fires.   
 
CONCLUSION 
 
From budget cuts to park closures; lack of adequate open space to wildland fires, the next few 
decades will be important for Orange County and its parks, recreation facilities and park 
programs.  Staffing cuts and department closures will have significant impacts on community 
recreation programs, facilities and parks, especially in a downturned economy.  A stable and 
predictable funding source must be created to fund these programs into the future.  
 
There are many opportunities to protect additional lands through tried and true methods 
(general obligation bonds or local open space measures), or more innovative methods 
(transportation mitigation or carbon sequestration).  No matter what open spaces are added to 


                                                                                                    9
the existing inventory of protected lands, it is very clear that management money needs to be 
included to ensure the land is protected and maintained in perpetuity.  With over 47,000 acres 
currently undeveloped in the County there is clearly more room for nature.  The following 
questions remain:  
    • How will decision makers decide the fate of those lands?   
    • How will children be able to positively experience nature?   
    • And how do you protect these lands from the impacts of climate change (less rainfall, 
        more fires)? 
 
METHODOLOGY 
 
Parks, Recreation & Environment Facilities Evaluated 
PR&E in Orange County is comprised of parks, open space and recreation facilities including: 
         • National Forest 
         • State Parks and Beaches 
         • County Parks and Beaches  
         • Municipal Parks, Beaches and Facilities 
         • Land Reserves and Conservancies 
         • Special District Parks and Facilities 
 
The PR&E Committee created a comprehensive survey with six sections and submitted it to the 
managers of each of the city, county, state, federal and non‐profit conservancy parks and 
facilities.  Over the course of two months surveys were completed and submitted to the 
Committee for inclusion in a master report.  Managers responded with a letter grade for each 
survey question.  The Committee then averaged the grades from all the surveys on a question‐
by‐question basis to arrive at grades per question, per section and then an overall Report Card 
grade.   We outline below the criteria the PR&E Committee used to evaluate the County’s park 
infrastructure. 
 
Evaluation Criteria 
The criteria to be used in the PR&E evaluation include: 
         1.  Condition                                                      30% 
         2.  Capacity                                                       30% 
         3.  Operation & Finance – Stewardship                              10% 
         4.  Operation & Finance – Planning                                 10% 
         5.  Operation & Finance – Resource Protection/Resiliency           10% 
         6.  Operation & Finance – Safety                                   10% 
 
The questions used to determine the grade ratings for each of the criteria are based on: 
    •    Present condition                           •   Balance of recreation with 
    •    Sustainability of resources                     natural/cultural resource needs 
    •    Capability of meeting future needs          •   Adequacy of resource protection 
    •    Levels of staffing                          •   Adequacy of resources 



                                                                                             10
     •    Usage demands                                                              •     Adequacy of current public safety 
     •    Ability to meet operational and                                            •     Public understanding of resource 
          maintenance needs                                                                values and resource protection 
     •    Achievement of government 
          regulations 
      
 Grading 
 Grades  were  determined  using  the recommended  A,  B, C, D,  and  F  ratings.    A  matrix  was 
 developed applying each of six criteria categories to each of the six facility types.  A strong 
 emphasis  was  put  on  the  changes  from  2005  to  present  and  on  financial  considerations, 
 relationship  to  health  issues,  and  resource  protection/resiliency.    Weights  assigned  were:  
 30%  for  Condition;  30%  for  Capacity;  40%  for  Operations  and  Finance,  which  included 
 Stewardship, Planning, Resource Protection/Resiliency, and Safety. 
  
 To determine a letter grade, the Committee input the information from park managers into 
 the matrix to rate each facility through a consistent review of components.   
      
 The main findings in the three evaluation categories were: 
      
     1. Condition:   
         (The physical characteristics and usability of a facility.  Requires level of 
         commitment to maintain facilities.  Budget allocation must support level of 
         service). 
      
     CONDITION QUESTIONS 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Special District Parks and 
          For the questions below please rate each facility on the following scale:                                                State Parks and Beaches 




                                                                                                                                                                                  Beaches and Facilities 
          A = excellent, expectation exceeded, or condition is better than 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                                            Land Reserves and 
          B = good, expectation is above average, or condition is slightly better than 2005; 
                                                                                                                                                              County Parks and 


                                                                                                                                                                                  Municipal Parks, 
                                                                                                                National Forest 




          C = “OK,” expectation met, or condition is the same as 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                                            Conservancies 
          D = poor, expectation below average, condition is slightly worse than 2005; 
          F = unacceptable, expectation not met, or condition is significantly worse than 2005. 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Facilities 
                                                                                                                                                              Beaches 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Average 
          N/A = Not Applicable  
           
          “Man‐made” ‐ any structure, facility, or area built/maintained by man. 
          “Natural” ‐ any wildlife or physical condition indigenous to this area. 
       a.  Rate the facility’s man‐made current condition                                                        B                 C+                            C+                   B‐                       B+                        B                     B 
       b.  Rate the natural environment's current condition                                                      B                 C+                            C‐                   C+                       C                         C                     C+ 
       c.  Rate the current physical condition compared to 2005   
                                                                                                                 C                   C                             C                   B‐                        C                       A                     C+ 
            (A = Improved, C = The Same, D/F =  Deteriorated) 
       d.  Rate the variety of man‐made facilities at this location                                             C                  C                              C‐                  B‐                       C+                      C                       C+ 
       e.  Rate the sustainability of the facility's natural resources                                          A                  C+                             C‐                  D+                       C+                      B                       C+ 
                                                                                                   Subtotal:    B‐                 C                              C                   C+                       C+                      B‐                      C+ 
       
The overall grade for the Condition section is a C+, up from the 2005 Report Card’s average C 
rating.  It seems that all the lands within the Cleveland National Forest and the Silverado‐
Modjeska Park and Recreation District are above the County average with a B‐ average each.  
This improved grade may be due to geography and accessibility.   
 
The Forest lands and the overlapping Silverado‐Modjeska Park and Recreation District are 
sometimes difficult to access and may have remote access points to reach the interiors of the 


                                                                                                                                                                                                            11
parks.  Due to the sheer size of the natural area, forest visitors may have a steady and more 
manageable impact on the man‐made and natural resources.   
The opposite being true for the more urban and municipal park facilities where use is 
constantly increasing and therefore so are the impacts; thus changing the overall condition of 
the parks.  The parks did seem to benefit from the influx of funding from the statewide 
Propositions, and this may have improved or at least maintained the condition of those parks. 
      
     2. Capacity:  
         (Functional equivalency and operating level of natural managed resources to 
         safely accommodate public use.  Ability to maintain existing natural and man‐
         made facilities for normal authorized use by the public.) 
          
     CAPACITY QUESTIONS 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Special District Parks and 
                                                                                                                      State Parks and Beaches 
          For the questions below please rate each facility on the following scale: 




                                                                                                                                                                     Beaches and Facilities 
          A = excellent, expectation exceeded, or condition is better than 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                               Land Reserves and 
          B = good, expectation is above average, or condition is slightly better than 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                 County Parks and 


                                                                                                                                                                     Municipal Parks, 
                                                                                                   National Forest 
          C = “OK,” expectation met, or condition is the same as 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                               Conservancies 
          D = poor, expectation below average, condition is slightly worse than 2005; 
          F = unacceptable, expectation not met, or condition is significantly worse than 2005. 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Facilities 
                                                                                                                                                 Beaches 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Average 
          N/A = Not Applicable  
           
          “Man‐made” ‐ any structure, facility, or area built/maintained by man. 
          “Natural” ‐ any wildlife or physical condition indigenous to this area. 
       a.  Rate the facility’s weekday use vs. capacity                                            C                  B‐                             C                   B‐                       C+                     B                        C+ 
       b.  Rate the facility’s weekend use vs. capacity                                            C                  C                              C‐                  B                        B‐                     C                        C+ 
       c.  Rate the protection of the man‐made facility from overuse                               B                  C+                             C                   C+                       B                      C                        C+ 
       d.  Rate the protection of the natural environment from overuse                             B                  C+                             C                   C                        B                      C                        C+ 
       e.  Rate the capability of the current facility to meet anticipated user needs              C                  C+                             C                   C+                       B‐                     C                        C+ 
                                                                                     Subtotal:     C+                 C+                             C                   C+                       B‐                     C+                       C+ 
 
The overall grade for the Capacity section is a C+.  This grade is again slightly improved from 
the 2005 Report Card’s C grade.  It seems that across the board, all park facilities are better at 
accommodating weekday and weekend use in its relationship with the parks’ capacity.  More 
specifically, municipal parks’ improved rating, to a B‐, may be attributable to the Park Bond 
per capita allocations.   
       
      3.  Operation & Finance 
      Operation & Finance – Stewardship 
       
     OPERATIONS & FINANCE ‐ STEWARDSHIP QUESTIONS 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Special District Parks and 
                                                                                                                      State Parks and Beaches 




          For the questions below please rate each facility on the following scale: 
                                                                                                                                                                     Beaches and Facilities 




          A = excellent, expectation exceeded, or condition is better than 2005; 
                                                                                                                                                                                               Land Reserves and 




          B = good, expectation is above average, or condition is slightly better than 2005; 
                                                                                                                                                 County Parks and 


                                                                                                                                                                     Municipal Parks, 
                                                                                                   National Forest 




          C = “OK,” expectation met, or condition is the same as 2005; 
                                                                                                                                                                                               Conservancies 




          D = poor, expectation below average, condition is slightly worse than 2005; 
          F = unacceptable, expectation not met, or condition is significantly worse than 2005. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Facilities 
                                                                                                                                                 Beaches 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Average 




          N/A = Not Applicable  
           
          “Man‐made” ‐ any structure, facility, or area built/maintained by man. 
          “Natural” ‐ any wildlife or physical condition indigenous to this area. 
       a.  Rate how well the current operational & finance needs are being met                      F                 D                             C+                   C+                        B‐                       C                     D 
       b.  Rate the adequacy of human resources to operate the facility & programs                  D                 D                             C‐                   C+                        B‐                       C                     C 
       c.  Rate the maintenance of the physical facilities                                          B                 C                             C                    B‐                        B                        C                     C+ 
       d.  Rate the maintenance/stewardship of the natural resources                                B                 C+                            C                    C+                        B                        B                     B‐ 
       e.  Rate the ability to comply with governmental regulations                                 A                 C+                            C                    B‐                        B                        B                     B‐ 



                                                                                                                                                                                               12
       f.  Rate the ability to meet future operational/financial needs                                           D                 D+                              C                     C                     C+                     D                        C‐ 
       h.  Rate the adequacy of wildlife corridors that connect to other natural lands                                                                                                                                                N/
                                                                                                                 A                 C‐                            F+                      C                     C+                                              C 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      A 
                                                                                                   Subtotal:    C+                 C‐                             C‐                  C+                        B‐                    C                        C 
       
The overall grade for the Stewardship portion of Operations and Finance section is a C and 
maintained the same grade from the 2005 Report Card.  The National Forest and State Parks 
ranked the lowest among the park facilities’ stewardship opportunities.  Staff cutbacks have 
reduced the ability/adequacy to maintain and operate facilities, especially for the State Parks 
and National Forest areas.  This lower trend can also be seen with the National Forest and 
State Park facilities as it relates to meeting future operational and financial needs, nearly an 
entire grade below the other types of park facilities. Private land conservancies seem to rank 
higher in this category almost across the board.   
             
To more accurately reflect the stewardship needs of the surveyed park facilities, each 
respondent was asked to provide an estimated dollar figure to meet capital needs over the 
next five years.  The capital needs responses are broken down by park type as follows: 
             
              National Forest                                $100 million 
              State Parks and Beaches                        $88 million 
              County Parks and Beaches                       $31.1 million 
              Municipal Parks, Beaches and Facilities        $462.5 million 
              Land Reserves and Conservancies                did not report 
              Special District Parks and Facilities          $0.2 million 
                                              TOTAL:         $681.8 million 
             
The estimated minimum capital needs for the next five years are $681.8 million.  This number 
is a more accurate reflection of the needs than what was reported in 2005, as the question 
about financial needs was included in the survey this time. 
                 
Operation & Finance – Planning 
       
     OPERATIONS & FINANCE ‐ PLANNING QUESTIONS 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Special District Parks and 
                                                                                                                                   State Parks and Beaches 




          For the questions below please rate each facility on the following scale: 
                                                                                                                                                                                  Beaches and Facilities 




          A = excellent, expectation exceeded, or condition is better than 2005; 
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Land Reserves and 




          B = good, expectation is above average, or condition is slightly better than 2005; 
                                                                                                                                                              County Parks and 


                                                                                                                                                                                  Municipal Parks, 
                                                                                                                National Forest 




          C = “OK,” expectation met, or condition is the same as 2005; 
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Conservancies 




          D = poor, expectation below average, condition is slightly worse than 2005; 
          F = unacceptable, expectation not met, or condition is significantly worse than 2005. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Facilities 
                                                                                                                                                              Beaches 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Average 


          N/A = Not Applicable  
           
          “Man‐made” ‐ any structure, facility, or area built/maintained by man. 
          “Natural” ‐ any wildlife or physical condition indigenous to this area. 
       a.  Rate the adequacy of the assessment/strategic process to identify future needs 
                                                                                                                 C                   C                           C+                    B‐                      B+                        D                     C+ 
     in your park’s strategic/general plan 
       b.  Rate the balance between recreational and natural/cultural resource needs                             B                 C+                             C‐                  C+                         B                       B                     B‐ 
       c.  Rate the preparation for adapting to climate change impacts that may affect 
                                                                                                                 D                 C‐                             C‐                     C                       B                       C                     C 
     park resources 
       d.  Rate how successful the natural/cultural values are being conveyed                                   B                  C+                              C                  C                          B                       C                     C+ 
                                                                                  Subtotal:                     C+                 C                               C                  C+                         B                       C                     C+ 
      


                                                                                                                                                                                                            13
The overall grade for the Planning sub‐section of Operation and Finance is a C+, slightly up 
from the 2005 Report Card’s C grade.  Private land conservancies show the strongest mark in 
this section – nearly an entire grade above most other park facilities.  In the case of the Irvine 
Ranch Conservancy, efforts are underway to complete a comprehensive plan for the entire 
Ranch focusing on habitat resiliency and reducing fire frequency and intensity.  It seems 
unlikely with publicly funded park facilities that a lot of time has been spent on planning for 
parks.  This would seem especially true as budget cuts reduce staff and programs, and the 
focus shifts to triage in terms of the park’s operation instead of long‐term planning. 
 
This year we asked respondents to grade their preparation in adapting to climate change.  As 
the climate changes, species dependent on specific habitat types will transition into higher 
elevations making habitat connections more important for the larger natural parks than the 
smaller urban ones.  For the smaller municipal parks, some impacts seen there may include 
reduced water use and changes in vegetative cover due to lack of water availability.  We may 
see more city parks in the future with synthetic turf as a means to adapt at a local level.  
Overall, responses to the preparation for adapting to climate change question came in at a C.   
       
Operation & Finance – Resource Protection/Resiliency 
       
     OPERATIONS & FINANCE – RESOURCE PROTECTION/RESILIENCY QUESTIONS 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Special District Parks and 
                                                                                                                                  State Parks and Beaches 
         For the questions below please rate each facility on the following scale: 




                                                                                                                                                                                 Beaches and Facilities 
         A = excellent, expectation exceeded, or condition is better than 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                                           Land Reserves and 
         B = good, expectation is above average, or condition is slightly better than 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                             County Parks and 


                                                                                                                                                                                 Municipal Parks, 
                                                                                                               National Forest 
         C = “OK,” expectation met, or condition is the same as 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                                           Conservancies 
         D = poor, expectation below average, condition is slightly worse than 2005; 
         F = unacceptable, expectation not met, or condition is significantly worse than 2005. 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Facilities 
                                                                                                                                                             Beaches 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Average 
         N/A = Not Applicable  
          
         “Man‐made” ‐ any structure, facility, or area built/maintained by man. 
         “Natural” ‐ any wildlife or physical condition indigenous to this area. 
       a.  Rate the adequacy of current resource protection monitoring                                         C                  C+                            C                    C                        B‐                    C                         C+ 
       b.  Rate the public’s understanding & awareness of resource protection                                  D                  C                             C+                   C+                       C+                    D                         C‐ 
       c.  Rate the ability to partner with others to develop park facilities                                  A                  C+                            C+                   C                        A‐                    D                         B‐ 
                                                                                                  Subtotal:    C+                 C                             C                    C                        B                     D+                        C+ 
The overall grade for the Resource Protection/Resiliency sub‐section of Operation and 
Finance is a C+.  Not surprisingly, private land conservancies show the strongest mark in this 
category – nearly an entire grade above most other park facilities.  This trend is likely due to 
flexibility, adaptability and private resources not available to publicly funded park facilities. 
The National Forest and private land conservancies ranked the highest for the ability to 
partner with others likely due to the requirement that grant funds rank applications with 
collaborations higher. 
 
Operation & Finance – Safety 




                                                                                                                                                                                                           14
     OPERATIONS & FINANCE – SAFETY QUESTIONS 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Special District Parks and 
                                                                                                                                       State Parks and Beaches 
            For the questions below please rate each facility on the following scale: 




                                                                                                                                                                                          Beaches and Facilities 
            A = excellent, expectation exceeded, or condition is better than 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Land Reserves and 
            B = good, expectation is above average, or condition is slightly better than 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                     County Parks and 


                                                                                                                                                                                          Municipal Parks, 
                                                                                                                  National Forest 
            C = “OK,” expectation met, or condition is the same as 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Conservancies 
            D = poor, expectation below average, condition is slightly worse than 2005; 
            F = unacceptable, expectation not met, or condition is significantly worse than 2005. 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Facilities 
                                                                                                                                                                     Beaches 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Average 
            N/A = Not Applicable  
             
            “Man‐made” ‐ any structure, facility, or area built/maintained by man. 
            “Natural” ‐ any wildlife or physical condition indigenous to this area. 
       a.  Rate the adequacy of current public safety monitoring                                                  C                    C‐                               C+                    B                         C+                   C                           C+ 
       b.  Rate the public understanding & awareness of safety regulations                                        C                    C                                C+                    C+                        C+                   D                           C 
       c.  Rate the adequacy of enforcement of safety regulations                                                 B                    C                                C+                    C+                        C                   N/A                          C+ 
       d.  Rate vulnerability to natural or man‐made emergencies/disasters                                        C                    C+                               C‐                    C+                        C                    C                           C 
                                                                                                     Subtotal:    C+                   C                                C                     C+                        C                    C‐                          C 
 
The overall grade for the last sub‐section of Operation and Finance – Safety was a C. Cities 
and municipal park facilities seemed to do a slightly better job in terms of safety issues than 
the other types of park facilities.   
 
Due to the wildfire issues facing Orange County, the question about natural or man‐made 
emergencies or disasters was included this year.  Having survived the catastrophic Santiago 
Fire in 2007, the Silverado‐Modjeska Recreation and Park District grade was the lowest at a D.  
This is likely due to lack of emergency infrastructure, distance to emergency services and long 
response times. 
       
     OVERALL COUNTY GRADE 
     OVERALL COUNTY GRADE 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Special District Parks and 
                                                                                                                                          State Parks and Beaches 
            For the questions below please rate each facility on the following scale: 




                                                                                                                                                                                           Beaches and Facilities 
            A = excellent, expectation exceeded, or condition is better than 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Land Reserves and 
            B = good, expectation is above average, or condition is slightly better than 2005; 
                                                                                                                                                                      County Parks and 


                                                                                                                                                                                           Municipal Parks, 
                                                                                                                    National Forest 




            C = “OK,” expectation met, or condition is the same as 2005; 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Conservancies 
            D = poor, expectation below average, condition is slightly worse than 2005; 
            F = unacceptable, expectation not met, or condition is significantly worse than 2005. 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Facilities 
                                                                                                                                                                      Beaches 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Average 
            N/A = Not Applicable  
             
            “Man‐made” ‐ any structure, facility, or area built/maintained by man. 
            “Natural” ‐ any wildlife or physical condition indigenous to this area. 
     I.     Condition                                                                                             B‐                   C                                  C                     C+                        C+                    B‐                       C+ 
     II.    Capacity                                                                                              C+                   C+                                 C                     C+                        B‐                    C+                       C+ 
     III.   Operation & Finance ‐ Stewardship                                                                     C+                   C‐                                 C‐                    C+                        B‐                    C                        C 
     IV.    Operation & Finance – Planning                                                                        C+                   C                                  C                     C+                        B                     C                        C+ 
     V.     Operation & Finance – Resource Protection/Resiliency                                                  C+                   C                                  C                     C                         B                     D+                       C+ 
     VI.    Operation & Finance – Safety                                                                          C+                   C                                  C                     C+                        C                     C‐                       C 
                                                                                                        Total:    C+                   C                                  C                     C+                        B‐                    C                        C+ 
       
The overall 2009 grade for PR&E is a C+, up from the 2005 Report Card grade of C.  The 2009 
grade reflects an improvement over 2005, which can be attributable to elevated per capita 
funding from Propositions 12 and 40 as well as an increase in property tax.  There also 
continues to be a benefit from the commitment shown by park professionals and a growing 
array of non‐profit groups and conservancies. 
 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                     15
Due to the economic downturn, reduced staffing, and lack of bond funding for local parks, 
this C+ may very well shift to a lower score quite quickly.  Focusing on a permanent and 
reliable funding mechanism for local parks and park programs is critical.  Secure funding 
directly ties to the protection of park resources (man‐made and natural), the health and well‐
being of the park users, and understanding and awareness of the importance of parks. 
 
DATA GATHERING AND SOURCES 
 
Up‐to‐date surveys, polls and other reports were gathered by Committee members to 
represent credible and objective information for assessment of PR&E resources and facilities.  
A questionnaire was used to gain appropriate information from the cities, the County, State 
Parks, National Forest, special districts and the Irvine Ranch Conservancy. 
 
Due to the structure of some of the recent land acquisitions, more detail will be paid in future 
report cards to the private land conservancies’ role in Orange County’s parks and park 
program system.  It seems more and more private conservancies and public non‐profits are 
managing natural lands in the County. 
 
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
There is a need to work collaboratively in the Orange County region to enable Parks, 
Recreation & the Environment to have a significant voice in government prioritization and 
funding proportionate to the irrefutable quality of life, health, and positive economic 
contributions they make.  With a broad array of jurisdictions, the collaborative leadership in 
this regard has been limited, but increasing as exhibited by the 2009 flurry of objections to 
closing state parks as a budget control mechanism.  New requirements for application for 
state and federal funds include the need to plan by “Integrated Watershed Management 
Planning,” and this has resulted in a new wave of stakeholder meetings and thus collaborative 
implementation. 
 
The recommendations from the 2005 Report Card were partially fulfilled by the very nature of 
this integrated planning.   
       • Formation of citizens committees to formulate goals and strengthen the planning 
          process was mainly accomplished by creating quarterly meetings with OC Parks 
          personnel and environmental organizations.  Additionally, Friends of Harbors, 
          Beaches and Parks’ Green Vision Project focuses a coalition of 85 community and 
          conservation groups to align with park protection issues and funding for PR&E; 
       • Advocacy at the state level for an adequate and consistent income stream is 
          somewhat at an impasse with needs for the state to balance its budget.  At the same 
          time, there is recognition at all levels that funding for parks needs to be inclusive of 
          future endowments and maintenance funds, and 




                                                                                               16
     •   In restructuring the County’s Departments, OC Parks has become more independent 
         and stable in terms of its funding; and finally, there is an effort to convey the 
         importance of natural resources to the public at large. 
 
Conclusions in 2009 
Data corroborates recent polls, surveys and reports indicating several major concerns and 
needs: 
     1. Consistent Funding ‐ There remains a need for a consistent funding stream from all 
         sectors so that projects can be implemented and maintained effectively and 
         efficiently.   
     2. Expanded Public Awareness ‐ There is a need to broaden and strengthen the 
         public’s understanding of natural/cultural values which will help to protect our 
         resources for the future, and result in a more physically and psychologically healthy 
         populace. 
     3. Expanded Experiences in Nature ‐ There is a need for programs to bring more 
         consistent personal, hands‐on experiences in nature which will instill a lifestyle 
         change for young people, and thus an enhancement to both humans and the natural 
         environment. 
     4. Updated Policy Approaches ‐ There is a need to review/change policies and plans to 
         protect natural areas and the overall environment.  Land use policies and 
         development standards must recognize the changes needed to protect parks and 
         open space from climate changes and fire disasters. 
 
POLICY OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
Policy options and recommendations in the future include: 
      •  Developing adequate and consistent income streams incorporating all funding 
         sectors including: federal, state, county, city, private foundations, individual donors, 
         and mitigation opportunities; 
      •  Ensuring that money for property acquisition includes an adequate and sustained 
         funding source for operations and maintenance of the asset; 
      •  Changing the perspective of decision‐makers and planners to view our natural lands 
         as entire connected, functional ecosystems instead of small, fractured “islands” of 
         habitat; 
      •  Developing “programmatic mitigation” methods for more effective use of funds 
         which originate from transportation and other major infrastructure projects; 
      •  Formulating PR&E Committee as follow‐up to the 2010 OC Report Card to follow‐up 
         with priority recommendations; 
      •  Encouraging and participating in collaborative planning throughout Orange County 
         maximizing the opportunities afforded through Integrated Watershed Management 
         Plans; 
      •  Encouraging park facilities to plan for and adaptively manage lands in light of 
         decreased water availability, increased fire frequency and other potential 
         adjustments necessary due to climate change; 


                                                                                               17
•   Supporting and enhancing educational opportunities including local nature centers, 
    outdoor education programs, and ranger programs such as Orange County Wild; 
•   Broadening the support of our natural lands to include cross‐jurisdictional 
    collaborations; 
•   Ensuring the dialogue continues between park managers and local decision‐makers 
    to protect both our parklands and homes from fire incidents using improved 
    planning techniques; 
•   Ensuring our city and municipal parks and recreation facilities receive per capita 
    allocations in future bonds; and 
•   Developing new and increased methods to convey the importance of natural 
    resources to the public at large. 
 




                                                                                     18
 
REFERENCES  
 
American Society of Civil Engineers. California Infrastructure Report Card, 2006. 
 
American Society of Civil Engineers. State of the Nation’s Infrastructure, 
http://www.enr.com, 02/02/09.  
 
Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Overview of BLS Statistics on Unemployment, 
http://www.bls.gov/bls/unemployment.htm, 06/13/09.   
 
California Parks Department. Proposition 12 State Park System Allocations, 
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?Page_id=24975 and Proposition 40 State Park System 
Allocations http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24976, 06/13/09. 
 
California Park & Recreation Society. Public Opinion Survey CPRS Building the Brand 
Initiative, 2009 Report on Market Research, 03/16/09. 
 
California Roundtable on Recreation, Parks and Tourism.  Children’s Outdoor Bill of 
Rights, http://www.calroundtable.org/cobor.htm, 06/13/09. 
 
California State University, Fullerton. Center for Demographic Research 
http://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/ocff.pdf, 06/13/09. 
 
California State Parks Foundation. Save Our State Parks 
http://ga3.org/calparks/parkclosures_takeaction.html, 06/13/09. 
 
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Obesity Trends – Trends by State 1985‐
2008,  http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html, 06/13/09. 
 
Children and Nature Network. Children and Nature 2008: A Report on the Movement to 
Reconnect Children to the Natural World,  
http://www.childrenandnature.org/downloads/CNMovement.pdf, 06/13/09. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐. Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights Supported by Govenator 
http://www.childrenandnature.org/news/detail/childrens_outdoor_bill_of_rights_supp
orted_by_governator/, 06/13/09. 
 
Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks. Outdoors in Orange County “A Tale of Two 
Cities,” Summer 2008, http://www.fhbp.org/publications/PDFs/summer‐2008.pdf, 
06/13/09. 
 
King, James. The Role of California State Parks in the California Economic System, 
December 2002. 


                                                                                   19
 
League of Women Voters of California. Proposition 12 
http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/03/07/ca/state/prop/12/, 06/13/09.  
 
‐‐‐‐‐. Proposition 40 http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/state/prop/40/, 
06/13/09. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐. Proposition 50 http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/11/05/ca/state/prop/50/, 
06/13/09. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐. Proposition 84 http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/prop/84/, 
06/13/09. 
 
Louv, Richard. Last Child In The Woods, Saving Our Children from Nature‐Deficit 
Disorder, 2006 
 
Municipal Water District of Orange County. Annual Rainfall in Orange County 
http://www.mwdoc.com/documents/FYERainfallinSantaAna.pdf, 06/13/09. 
 
National Park Service. Conservation and Recreation Newsletter, Engaging Youth:  A 
Sustained Commitment, 2009. 
 
National Recreation and Park Association. A Call to Action, “A National Action Agenda 
For Urban Parks & Recreation In America.”  
 
Newport, Frank. Americans: Economy Takes Precedence Over Environment, Gallop Poll, 
www.gallopcom/poll116962, 03/30/09. 
 
Orange County Community Indicators. Environment pp. 60‐64, 
http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Info%20OC/Facts%20&%20Figures/Community%20Indica
tors, 05/15/2009. 
 
Orange County Fire Authority.  After Action Report Santiago Fire, 
http://www.ocfa.org/_uploads/pdf/aar_3‐27‐08.pdf, 06/13/09. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐.  After Action Report Freeway Complex Fire, 
http://www.ocfamedia.org/_uploads/PDF/fcfaar.pdf, 06/13/09. 
 
Pacific Institute.  Hazard Map Downloads,   
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/hazmaps.html, 06/13/09. 
 
Planning and Conservation League. California Today Left in the Dark: California’s 
Neglected Communities, March 2009 Volume 39, Issue 1, 
http://www.pcl.org/newsletters/CalToday‐March2009.pdf. 


                                                                                   20
 
Reuters.  “California Declares Drought Emergency” 
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51Q5XC20090228, 
02/28/09. 
 
San Antonio Business Journal. Survey: Americans would Pay More for Infrastructure,  
www.bizjournals.com, 2/16/09.  
 
State of California. Department of Finance – Information Regarding Bond Funded 
Infrastructure Projects, http://www.dof.ca.gov/infrastructure/bond_funded_projects/, 
06/13/09. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection – High Hazard Severity Zones Maps 
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones.php, 
06/13/09. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐. Department of Water Resources – California’s Drought Year 3,  
http://www.water.ca.gov/drought/, 06/13/09. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐. Employment Development Department. Quick Statistics, 
http://www.edd.ca.gov/About_EDD/Quick_Statistics.htm, 06/13/09. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐. Executive Department ‐ Executive Order S‐3‐05 
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/ExecOrderS‐3‐05.htm, 06/13/09. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐. Strategic Growth Plan – Proposition 84 Overview, 
http://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/p84.aspx, 06/13/09. 
 
United States Fish & Wildlife Service. Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration: Restoring Native 
Wildlife Habitat and Capturing Carbon,  
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/climate/pdfs/CarbonFactSheet100107.pdf, 06/13/09. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



                                                                                       21
SCHOOL FACILITIES
      ORANGE COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT CARD COMMITTEE

                        SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT

Orange County consists of 28 school districts (including the Orange County Department
of Education), serving over 500,000 students in grades kindergarten through twelfth.
Collectively, the districts manage and maintain nearly 600 school facilities.

The 2009 Schools Subcommittee (“Subcommittee”) of the Orange County Infrastructure
Report Card Committee (“Committee”) undertook an extensive effort to evaluate the
results of past School Subcommittee reports prior to developing the methodology for the
2009 assessment. As a result of this evaluation, this 2009 School Infrastructure Report
(the “School Report”), a component of the 2009 Orange County Infrastructure Report
Card, reflects the following goals and objectives:

       1.      To increase the accuracy and thoroughness of the discussion of recent
               school facility financing activities;

       2.      To determine if recent school facility financing activities have impacted
               school infrastructures since the 2005 report;
       3.      To reflect recent changes in school enrollment, including changes in
               overall enrollment as well as the effects of student distribution on capacity
               issues;

       4.      To provide awareness to the public, city officials and representatives alike
               on the status of our school facilities;
In order to accomplish these goals, the Subcommittee utilized the expertise and
involvement of Subcommittee members to garner more detailed information on school
capacity and financing, which was used to supplement the infrastructure surveys sent to
all Orange County K – 12 school districts. Additionally, early promotion of the survey
effort, along with follow-up calls and emails to district superintendents and assistant
superintendents, ensured that a wider sampling of school districts was successfully polled
for infrastructure information.

The following report assesses Orange County’s school infrastructure from five
perspectives: (1) condition; (2) capacity; (3) cost/operation; (4) resiliency and (5)
sustainability. The status of security at Orange County schools was generally assessed;
however, because of the sensitive nature of such security issues, the Subcommittee has
evaluated security on a strictly “pass-fail” basis. District administrators have indicated
that their facilities satisfactorily meet all required security measures, even though isolated
security incidents may have occurred at various schools.

Overall, the Subcommittee has found that Orange County school infrastructure has
remained the same as 2005 categories listed above. Districts have successfully continued
to maintain their facilities in an average to slightly above average condition; capacity has
improved as once-burgeoning enrollments have begun to level out and, in some cases,
shrink, allowing districts to plan for the removal and/or replacement of old relocatable
classrooms; a number of new schools have also been constructed to meet increased
enrollment in areas which have experienced such increases.

While costs have increased, state and local renovation and new construction funding
along with private infrastructure financing through the formation of community facilities
districts, assessment of school mitigation fees, mitigation agreements (in which a builder
agrees to purchase or dedicate property and a school facility), and other school fund
augmentation measures have helped meet cost demands. Funding for maintenance and
operations, however has stayed fairly level, resulting in a reasonably high level of
deferred maintenance as was the case in 2005. School facility bond monies are restricted
in types of expenditures, and cannot be used for routine maintenance and operations
expenses. However, Education Code Section 17070.75 requires all school districts who
receive State funds under the Lease Purchase Program (LPP) or the School Facilities
Program (SFP), to establish a 3% Routine Restricted Maintenance Account (RRMA)
within the school district’s general fund for the exclusive purpose of ongoing and major
maintenance of school buildings. While this requirement to date has benefited school
districts’ Deferred Maintenance Programs, the current state budget reduces for the next
five (5) fiscal years the amount that districts are required to set aside to 1%; the budget
also allows for “categorical flexibility”, which allows districts to move funding from one
categorical program to another according to local priorities. These “categorical
programs” include class size reduction, special education, adult education, Title 1,
transportation, child development and preschool. The Deferred Maintenance Program is
a categorical program, so the funding is subject to this flexibility. It can be anticipated
that the maintenance of school facilities will decline substantially in the next five years as
districts are faced with deepening budget cuts in favor of educational programming
priorities.

In 2005, the School Infrastructure Subcommittee of the 2005 Orange County
Infrastructure Report Card Committee gave Orange County schools an overall grade of
“C+”.

In this year’s report, the Subcommittee again gives Orange County schools an overall
grade of “ C+”, based on the grades set forth below for each evaluation category.

The remainder of this report provides more detail regarding the Subcommittee’s
evaluation of Orange County schools and how it arrived at the individual grades as well
as the overall grade set forth above.

I.         CONDITION

           The vast majority of school infrastructure was ranked in fair or better condition by
           the school districts responding to the Subcommittee’s survey1 (the “School
           Districts”). In particular, fire alarm systems were rated as being in better than

1
    11 out of 28 County School Districts responded to the survey.


                                                       2
          average condition by over 90% of the School Districts. Districts that utilize state
          funds are required by the Division of the State Architect to have adequate fire
          alarm systems, which provides and incentive for proactive maintenance and repair
          in this area. Structural, HVAC, Interior Lighting, and Roofing systems were all
          ranked in better than average condition by over two-thirds of the School Districts.
          And a majority of the School Districts ranked utility facilities, including
          plumbing, as being in fair or better condition, along with ingress and egress,
          interior finishes, and exterior finishes. ADA, parking, and play areas, including
          both turf and hard surface play areas, were ranked in fair or worse condition by a
          majority of the School Districts.

          Grade:            C+

II.       CAPACITY

          The Subcommittee’s evaluation of capacity issues considered the amount of space
          available to house total student enrollment within each district. Capacity is
          closely tied to overall infrastructure conditions because overcrowded schools have
          a reduced useful life and require substantial maintenance at an earlier time than
          facilities in which enrollment matches design capacity.

          Most school districts have faced growing enrollment for the last two decades. In
          1996 and 1997 many school districts serving elementary students adopted class-
          size reduction programs for some or all of grades K – 3. The smaller number of
          students in each classroom yields a smaller student-teacher ratio, providing better
          opportunities for teachers to address individual student needs and provide an
          increased quality of teaching. However, when school districts are concurrently
          experiencing student population growth, as was the case in 2001-02, this growth,
          coupled with a decrease in class sizes results in a greater demand for classrooms.

          The demand for classroom space has been satisfied in various ways, primarily
          through construction of new school facilities if funding permitted; leasing and/or
          purchasing modular classrooms if time and/or funding for new schools have not
          been available; and changing to year-round school attendance. School districts
          have found that modular classrooms are an expedient means for rapidly creating
          more classroom capacity. Consequently, many school campuses have temporary,
          modular classrooms as a major facility component to supplement permanent
          classrooms and support facilities. Schools on year-round programs increase
          student seat capacity by at least 15 %, and currently eight (8) of twenty-seven (27)
          Orange County school districts have at least some of their schools on a year-round
          program.

Beginning 2003, student enrollment increases began to taper off in a number of school
districts, and school districts that serve K – 6 students have begun to experience
enrollment declines at those grade levels, primarily in North Orange County.2 School

2
    See 2008-09 Annual Report of Average Daily Attendance (ADA).

                                                   3
districts serving high school students are anticipated to see enrollment declines beginning
in the next two to four years as the ‘bubble’ of students from the elementary schools
leave the high schools. Indeed, the majority of the School Districts surveyed indicated
they would have adequate capacity to house anticipated enrollment over the next ten to
twenty year planning horizon, based on current enrollment trends. Recent declining
enrollments are thought to stem from several causes. One reason is the continually
escalating cost of residential (both rental and owner-occupied) housing in Orange
County. Another reason often cited is a greater emphasis by the Federal Government on
border security, resulting in less immigration and thus a lower overall population of
school aged children demanding educational services.

With this wave of enrollment decline, the pressure to continually add permanent and
modular classrooms may ease, and the opportunity may be available for school districts
to reduce the number of modular classrooms that have taken up playground space in the
last decade. However, other factors may weigh into the decision on removing modular
classrooms as well. First, some schools have not yet experienced a material decrease in
enrollment. Moreover, while the cost of removing a standard relocatable classroom is not
necessarily material (and where leased, may be the responsibility of the owner), costs to
demolish older relocatables, as well as costs to restore a site to hardscape or playfields,
can be significant. Additionally, some districts are integrating the repurposing and/or
removal of relocatables into district master planning for recreational and other uses,
resulting in a more gradual phasing-out of these units.

Grade: B-

III.       COST

           Statistics indicate that California has historically given low priority to public
           schools over the last thirty (30) years. According to one source, in 2006-07,
           California ranked 24th in expenditures per pupil.3 While investment in K-12
           public education at the end of the 1990s moved California closer to the national
           average on school spending and boosted teachers’ salaries, class sizes remained
           quite large compared to other states. California’s state-dominated funding system
           has contributed to the funding deficit for new construction and repairs. Many
           other states rely primarily on local property taxes to pay for public schools,
           whereas in California, the state has been the primary funding source ever since
           voters approved the tax reform initiative Proposition 13 in 1978. Coupled with
           these restrictions on local property tax funding of schools, the decision in Serrano
           v. Priest some 30 years ago to equalize state funding of schools and place a cap or
           revenue limit on districts’ general purpose income, has also left schools
           underfunded.

           Additionally, the settlement of the Williams v. State of California case (the
           “Williams Settlement”), which establishes California’s duty to provide every

3
    California Rankings 2006-07 EdSource, January 2009.


                                                    4
public school student with instructional materials, safe and decent school
facilities, and qualified teachers, is having an impact on school district facility
expenditures. During the 2004-2005 school year, initial site visits were conducted
for some schools that had low test results, known as the “Decile 1-3” schools.
Facility inspections were followed up with lists of items to be repaired, and the
subject schools were required to repair or schedule repairs and report back to the
inspection group. This has created new, additional pressure to upgrade facilities
in infrastructure areas, particularly restrooms and other “common area” type
facilities. Finally, the annual School Accountability Report Card required by
Education Code Section 33126 must now include a component regarding the
safety, cleanliness, and adequacy of school facilities, and any maintenance needed
to ensure that facilities remain in a state of good repair.

In response to escalating construction costs, increasing restrictions on state
funding for schools, and additional pressure to upgrade and proactively maintain
school facilities, Orange County school districts have aggressively sought to pass
local general obligation facility bonds, and have worked closely with residential
developers to finance schools through developer fees and establishment of
Community Facilities Districts. Seventeen general obligation bond issues were
passed by school districts in the county from 1998-2005, raising a total of $1.818
billion to be used for renovation and new construction. The majority of districts
that passed bonds prior to 2005 have indicated that they are 85-100% complete
with their bond program. In 2008 a total of six general obligation bond issues
were passed raising a total of $630 million to be used for renovation and new
construction. All of the School Districts who indicated they had successfully
passed a local bond applied for and obtained state matching funds from the State.

In a number of cases over the past several years, Community Facilities Districts
(CFD’s) established within new residential developments suffered from the
decline in property values in the county. In some cases, the CFD was approved
by landowners within the area covered by the CFD, but bonds were not issued for
months or years because of statistically rising default rates in existing CFDs, the
decrease in absorption rates in residential projects (which resulted in an increase
in developers’ carry costs for the CFD property) and tax rates in excess of
homebuyer disclosure documents, and in some cases because the issuance would
require higher tax rates than allowed under state and local laws and regulatory
documents.



In addition to local bond issues, Proposition 47, passed in November 2002,
Proposition 55, passed in March 2004, and Proposition 1D, passed in November
2006 made available to Orange County school districts another source of revenue
to be used for modernization and new construction. Orange County school
districts were apportioned the following funds from these successful bond
propositions:


                                     5
      Proposition 47 – Modernization Projects:              $297,000,000

      Proposition 47 – New Construction Projects:           $508,000,000

      Proposition 55 – Modernization Projects:              $230,000,000

      Proposition 55 – New Construction Projects:           $280,000,000

      Proposition 1D – Modernization Projects:              $103,000,000 (thru 3/25/09)

      Proposition 1D – New Construction Projects:           $120,000,000 (thru 3/25/09)

      However, in December 2008, California’s fiscal crisis prompted the halt of
      disbursing cash from the State’s Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA) for
      capital projects, including public school construction. Cash from the PMIA is
      utilized by the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to fund school
      district’s new construction and modernization projects that have received
      approval for bond apportionments from the State Allocation Board (SAB).
      Funding applications received by OPSC after December 2008, will continue to be
      processed, however, they will receive an “un-funded” approval. It is unknown at
      this time when the funding freeze will end. This uncertainty of when state funds
      will become available is making it difficult for districts to plan and to begin their
      construction projects.

      Grade: B

IV.   MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

      In addition to constructing and reconstructing school infrastructure, Orange
      County school districts have an obligation to keep existing facilities in a state of
      good repair. Due to restrictions on the expenditure of certain state and local bond
      funds on maintenance activities, and the need to spend General Fund monies on
      instructional programs and with the state’s poor economy negatively impacting
      schools, many districts have postponed maintenance and repairs, which has left
      some elements of infrastructure in an impaired state.

      The School Districts estimate the value of deferred facilities maintenance at
      approximately $175 million. Given that only about a third of the county’s school
      districts responded to the survey, the actual dollar value of deferred facilities
      maintenance within County school districts is probably closer to $525 million.
      This is true in spite of the fact that the School Districts expend on average over
      $50 million annually on facilities maintenance. School Districts have accessed
      redevelopment monies (both directly and as leverage to issue certificates of
      participation and debt financing) as well as developer fees and federal grants to
      supplement local dollars available for maintenance and repairs.

      The state is required to fund deferred maintenance on a matching dollar-for-dollar
      basis. Over the last couple of decades, however, while school districts have been

                                           6
          required to provide their 50% share of funds, the state has not always provided its
          50% match. Thus deferred maintenance funds which could be used for
          infrastructure such as roofing and plumbing has not been given a high priority.
          School districts are now required to hold a public hearing before submitting a 5-
          year plan for participation in the State Deferred Maintenance Program. Districts
          that do not participate in the State Deferred Maintenance Program must provide
          appropriate explanation to the State for non-participation, as well as how they
          intend to fund repairs to their facilities. This review procedure along with the
          state’s current budget crisis, may lower the level of deferred maintenance in
          County schools over the next several years.

           Grade:C



V.        SECURITY

          All of the School Districts reported their facilities met required security
          requirements.

          Total Grade:       C+



VI. SUSTAINABILITY

Districts were surveyed to determine if they are implementing sustainable (“green”)
design criteria into their new construction and modernization projects. Green building
practices aim to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and
the environment through design, construction, operation and maintenance that focuses on
increasing the efficiency of resources – energy, water and materials. There are two
organizations that provide rating criteria to guide districts in the implementation of
sustainable design:

Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS): CHPS is a non-profit organization
dedicated to making schools better places to learn. The program provides resources to
schools, school districts and professionals about all aspects of high performance school
design, construction and operation that assist in making schools energy, water and
material efficient, well-lit, thermally comfortable, acoustically sound, safe, healthy and
easy to operate.4 School Districts that meet CHPS criteria for their new construction and
modernization projects are eligible for additional funding through the State’s School
Facility Program.


4
    Collaborative for High Performance Schools www.chps.net




                                                   7
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED): LEED is an internationally
recognized green building certification system, developed by the U.S. Green Building
Council. It is a voluntary certification program that can be applied to any building type.
LEED provides buildings owners a concise framework for identifying and implementing
practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance
solutions.5

60% of the districts that responded to the survey have begun to incorporate sustainable
design criteria into their new construction and modernization projects. The Districts that
have not begun to incorporate sustainable design sited that it was either too expensive or
they do not have any current projects.

Grade: C

VII.      Future Research

          The 2002 Report and the 2005 report, both focused on infrastructure for school
          districts’ grades K-12. Education in California extends beyond K-12, and the next
          report should also include information regarding Higher Education facilities.



Resources:

California Department of Education (CDE): www.cde.ca.gov

Orange County Department of Education (OCDE): www.ocde.us

Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH): www.cashnet.org

Office of Public School Construction (OPSC): www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov

U.S. Green Building Council: www.usgbc.org

Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS): www.chps.net




5
    U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) www.usgbc.org


                                                8
SOLID WASTE
            2009 ASCE Orange County Infrastructure Report Card
                         Issue Brief: Solid Waste
INTRODUCTION
The solid waste management system infrastructure provides an essential public service to Orange
County residents and businesses. There are three basic components of the solid waste
management system: collection of solid waste, processing the solid waste to recover recyclable
materials, and disposal of solid waste that cannot be recycled (residual waste). These three
components work together to ensure that the integrity of the solid waste management system is
maintained for Orange County citizens, now and into the future.


Timely and adequate collection of solid waste ensures the protection of public health and safety.
Processing waste involves the systematic separation and removal of recyclable materials,
illegally disposed hazardous waste, and other unauthorized waste from the solid waste stream
prior to landfill disposal. Recovering recyclable materials conserves scarce natural resources and
assists Orange County jurisdictions in complying with State waste diversion mandates. Removal
of hazardous waste and other unauthorized wastes protects precious groundwater resources, as
well as reduces the jurisdictions’ environmental liability. Disposal of solid waste in engineered
sound landfills protects public health, safety, and the environment.


OVERALL ORANGE COUNTY GRADE
The grade of B+ demonstrates that Orange County has a good solid waste management system.
Orange County has achieved its good solid waste system through the vision of its leaders who
planned for future growth, built infrastructure, formed strategic partnerships with cities and
waste management companies, promoted prudent financial planning, and secured community
support.


POLICY OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Notwithstanding the present state of Orange County’s solid waste management system, there are
challenges that need to be addressed to ensure that the system continues to provide the high level
of service expected by Orange County residents and businesses.


The management of municipal solid waste is highly regulated under State and Federal laws. The
statutory driving force behind Orange County’s solid waste management system is California’s


U:\heatha\CEE Affiliates\OCInfrastructureReportCard\OC Report Card 2009\Issues Briefs\2009 Solid Waste Issue Brief.doc
landmark legislation AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which requires
each city, county, and regional agency to divert 50 percent, of its solid waste from disposal
through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities by January 1, 2000. In 2008,
Orange County disposed approximately 3.1. million tons of waste. Working together to reduce
the amount of residual and prohibited waste buried at the landfills, Orange County has a per
capita disposal rate of approximately 5.48 pounds per day. With an overall diversion rate of
more than 50 percent, the County has successfully diverted over 3.1 million tons of waste.


Since the implementation of AB 939, local government has been given the responsibility to
manage the generation of waste in its community. Proposed State legislation could increase the
diversion rate to 75 percent. During the 2009-2010 legislative session, SB 25 and AB 479 were
introduced proposing to increase the jurisdictional diversion mandate to 60 percent by 2015 and
statewide diversion mandate of 75 percent by 2020. If these bills pass, local government will be
required to develop additional programs to aggressively recover valuable recyclables and reduce
the quantity of waste sent to landfills. Recognizing that in order to manage the remaining
portion of waste that is now disposed to reach an ultimate goal of “Zero Waste,” legislation was
introduced to expand the role of environmental stewardship to manufacturers, requiring them to
minimize the production of solid waste during the manufacturing process and to implement “take
back” recycling programs once the product has reached the end of its useful life. These bills
included AB 283, the “California Product Stewardship Act of 2009” and AB 1343, the
“Architectural Paint Recovery Program.”


Managing society’s generation of solid waste also involves managing many types of waste that
cannot be disposed in the waste stream. These types of waste are referred to in regulations as
universal waste. These wastes include household hazardous waste, e-waste, and household
medical waste, which are all prohibited from landfill disposal. To remove these items from the
waste stream, local government has gone to great lengths to educate consumers on alternative
disposal options. To assist consumers on properly disposing of universal waste, four Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Centers are strategically located throughout the County that are
easily accessible and free of charge. Furthermore, load check programs are implemented at
various points of collection, processing, and disposal to remove universal and hazardous waste
from the waste stream.




U:\heatha\CEE Affiliates\OCInfrastructureReportCard\OC Report Card 2009\Issues Briefs\2009 Solid Waste Issue Brief.doc
In Orange County the residual solid waste is disposed at three Orange County landfills. Buried
waste produces methane gas that can be harnessed for beneficial use. The County’s landfill gas
collection systems generate enough electricity to power approximately 14,000 homes. Plans are
underway to construct another electrical generation plant that will power an additional 24,000
homes using methane gas. In addition, at one of the landfills, methane gas is converted to
liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is used to fuel public transportation buses.


Based on the challenges faced by the solid waste infrastructure, the following policy options and
recommendations were developed:


          Continue monitoring emerging technologies for potential implementation as an
          alternative to landfills and to extract energy from waste that cannot be easily recycled.
          Once fully developed, conversion technologies could be a key component in how Orange
          County manages its waste.


          Continue to encourage retailers and manufacturers to implement extended producer
          responsibility. In order to move toward “Zero Waste,” retailers and manufacturers must
          be an integral participant in the waste management cycle, developing products that are
          less toxic and generate less waste during production and when used by the consumer.
          Collection programs and “Take Back” programs need to be developed to provide
          consumers more options to safely dispose of the product once it has reached the end of its
          useful life. Without retailers and manufacturers participating as part of the solution, local
          government cannot reasonably be tasked to achieve “Zero Waste.”


          Support development of additional recycling facilities to divert reusable material from
          landfill disposal. Additional facilities need to be sited in South Orange County as
          communities continue to expand.


          Continue educating the public on the value of recycling and the proper disposal of
          household hazardous waste, e-waste, and household medical waste. Regulations continue
          to be promulgated prohibiting the disposal of certain waste into landfills. Public outreach
          needs to continue to inform residents and businesses of alternative methods of disposal.




U:\heatha\CEE Affiliates\OCInfrastructureReportCard\OC Report Card 2009\Issues Briefs\2009 Solid Waste Issue Brief.doc
          Energy recovery from landfill gas must be fully implemented to reduce dependency on
          fossil fuels. As waste is disposed in the landfills, additional methane will be generated,
          creating opportunities to capture and convert the gas into electricity and transportation
          fuels.


          Continue taking steps to become combat global warming by reducing the carbon
          footprint, being more energy efficient, and incorporating “Green Building” practices. The
          adoption of AB 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” will influence how
          waste is managed and will require the waste management industry to reduce its carbon
          emissions.


          Ensure revenue sources are adequate to maintain the existing level of service and that
          liabilities are fully funded. Additional revenue will be needed in order meet any new
          diversion mandates while preventing certain wastes from entering the waste stream. In
          addition, new financial assurance requirements for landfills will require new sources of
          funding to cover any new obligations mandated by the State.


INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Solid waste management is comprised of waste collection, processing for removal of recyclables
and prohibited waste, and disposal of residual waste. Refuse haulers collect the solid waste
where it is transported to material recovery facilities (MRFs) to recover recyclable materials
using a semi-automated process. Residential and commercial loads that contain very little
recyclable content are directly hauled to the landfills.


Within the County, the majority of the collection services are provided by ten private waste
management companies and sanitary districts that have franchise agreements with cities. Many
of these haulers also own and operate the MRFs to consolidate the waste and to help cities
comply with the diversion mandates. Greenwaste facilities also play a role in helping manage
the waste by converting organics into mulch and compost. There are seven MRFs and fourteen
greenwaste facilities located throughout Orange County, processing approximately 15,000 tons
of waste per day.




U:\heatha\CEE Affiliates\OCInfrastructureReportCard\OC Report Card 2009\Issues Briefs\2009 Solid Waste Issue Brief.doc
Once the recyclables are removed from the waste stream, the residual waste is transported to the
Orange County landfills for disposal. There are three publicly owned and operated landfills in
Orange County, located in the north, central, and south regions of the County. Landfills
typically are constructed with a composite liner system, groundwater and landfill gas monitoring
systems, and landfill gas collection systems, as specified by regional, state, and federal
regulations. The collected landfill gas is either combusted or converted into electricity and
transportation fuels for beneficial purposes.


To determine a letter grade, the Solid Waste Infrastructure Working Group evaluated the solid
waste collection, processing, and disposal systems. For each of these systems, the infrastructure
was evaluated in the categories of condition, capacity, operations, sustainability, and resilience
using a weighted average approach to account for different fleet sizes and the amount of waste
handled by each set of operations. This approach allowed the Working Group to focus on the
“major players” in Orange County and eliminated the need to evaluate non-franchise haulers and
processors.


Condition: The collection system was evaluated for the age of the collection fleet, mandatory
collection coverage, and availability of residential and commercial recycling. Processing
facilities were evaluated for the age of the equipment and aesthetics. Disposal facilities were
evaluated for the age of the heavy earth-moving equipment, aesthetics, and satisfaction of
meeting financial assurance requirements. Condition was valued at 22.5 percent of the total
grade.


Capacity: Capacity constitutes one of the key components of the infrastructure. The collection
system was evaluated for the number of collection vehicles in operation, their spare ratio, and
holiday service capabilities. MRFs and greenwaste facilities were evaluated for their actual
waste throughput versus permitted capacity and design capacity. Disposal facilities were
evaluated for their long term disposal capacity, actual waste throughput versus permitted
capacity, waiting times at the fee booths and unloading areas, and wet weather capacities. All
three systems were also evaluated on the development of business plans to meet future growth.
Capacity was valued at 22.5 percent of the total grade.




U:\heatha\CEE Affiliates\OCInfrastructureReportCard\OC Report Card 2009\Issues Briefs\2009 Solid Waste Issue Brief.doc
Operation: Several factors were analyzed in this category, including security, which was its
own category in previous report cards. The collection system was evaluated for its safety
training program and security measures. MRFs and greenwaste facilities were evaluated for
compliance with regulatory standards, adequacy of nuisance control (i.e., odors, vectors, litter
control, etc.), hazardous waste load check programs, safety training program, and security
measures. Disposal facilities were evaluated for compliance with regulatory standards, adequacy
of nuisance control, rate of soil usage to cover refuse, hazardous waste load check programs, and
safety training program. Operation was valued at 22.5 percent of the total grade.


Sustainability: This year’s analysis also included the new category of sustainability. All three
systems were evaluated on the extent of providing public outreach on the various programs as it
pertains to source reduction, recycling, and management of universal waste. In addition, systems
were evaluated on their greenhouse gas emission (i.e., carbon footprint) determinations and the
steps taken for reduction. Collection systems were additionally evaluated on the frequency of
route optimization and availability of greenwaste collection. MRFs and greenwaste facilities
were evaluated for their status of implementing advanced technologies, processing efficiencies,
and green building certification. Landfills were evaluated for their status of implementing
advanced technologies, landfill gas to energy conversion, and green building certification.
Sustainability was valued at 22.5 percent of the total grade.


Resilience: This year’s analysis also included the new category of resilience. All three systems
were evaluated on the ability to continue providing waste services in the event the system was
upset due to a potential labor strike, bankruptcy, or natural disaster. This evaluation was based
on the vehicle spare ratio for collection, the actual throughput versus permitted capacities, and
the ability to obtain emergency waivers for MRFs, greenwaste facilities, and landfills. The
category also considered the unique public-private partnership to manage adversity and
availability of resources on the local and national level to resume services to those areas
impacted. Due to the infrequent nature of when these occurrences will happen, Resilience was
valued at 10 percent of the total grade.


DATA GATHERING AND SOURCES
To develop the grade for the solid waste management system, data was gathered from a variety
of sources. The primary data gathering method involved surveying the major refuse haulers, as



U:\heatha\CEE Affiliates\OCInfrastructureReportCard\OC Report Card 2009\Issues Briefs\2009 Solid Waste Issue Brief.doc
well as MRF, greenwaste, and landfill operators. Construction and demolition processing
facilities, metal recyclers, and buy back/take back centers were not included in the survey
because of the limited range of materials handled. Survey questions were developed based on
key factors important to the infrastructure of the collection, processing, and disposal
components. Environmental compliance data was obtained from various regulatory agencies.
Follow-up calls were made to clarify any ambiguous answers. Survey results were compiled so
that the Infrastructure Working Group would have a basis from which to develop the report card
grade.


The following resources were used to conduct the evaluation:


          OC Waste & Recycling disposal system records
          Survey Questionnaire responses from OC Waste & Recycling personnel
          Questionnaire responses from collection haulers, MRF, and greenwaste operators
          Regulatory Agencies:
                     Orange County Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency
                     California Integrated Waste Management Board
                     Regional Water Quality Control Boards
                     South Coast Air Quality Management District
          Discussions with OC Waste & Recycling staff
                     Christine Knapp


RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The final grade of B+ represents a strong and sound solid waste management system in Orange
County. The system gets good grades for having the capacity, ability to meet the demands of
present and future population growth, sound operations and security, and the ability to remain
resilience. While the solid waste system is strong, the one category that needs continuous
development and attention is sustainability, which was the basis for developing the Policy
Options and Recommendations.




U:\heatha\CEE Affiliates\OCInfrastructureReportCard\OC Report Card 2009\Issues Briefs\2009 Solid Waste Issue Brief.doc
SURFACE WATER
   QUALITY
ISSUE BRIEF
Surface Water Quality
 
I.          INTRODUCTION

Pacific Ocean views, sand and surf are iconic images of Orange County. The
area's warm Mediterranean climate, miles of beaches, streams and creeks offer
year round water recreational opportunities. Those benefits, along with the more
than 60,000 acres of wilderness parks and open space lands, attract more than
25 million tourists annually.

Beach’s are a hot spot for sunbathing and surfing, while inland tourist
destinations include hiking and biking trails as well as numerous theme and
water parks. Revenues generated by visitors make a substantial impact on the
regions economy. Its pristine beach properties are some of the most desirable
and have the highest real estate values in the country.

The combination of increased beach attendance, tourism, population growth, and
urbanization has put a strain on the Orange County waterways and coastline,
affecting surface water quality.

Orange County streams and beaches are the outlet for urban runoff carrying
pollutants. Urban runoff is surface water runoff from stormwater (wet weather
flows) and non stormwater sources (dry weather flows) that washes pollutants
from streets, parking lots, and paved areas to channels, streams, and storm
drains that ultimately flow into the coastal waters. Road drainage systems and
flood control channels were designed to quickly convey untreated stormwater to
prevent flooding and reduce potential property damage. During dry weather
periods, urban runoff from excess irrigation, car washes, drained swimming
pools, and illicit discharges are routed through the storm drain system to coastal
waters and waterways. Combined in previous report cards, Urban Runoff (now
‘Surface Water Quality’) and Flood Control are separated into different categories
in this Report Card to correctly evaluate their respective goals and purposes.

With urbanization, increased impervious surfaces in the form of roofs, parking
lots, driveways, roads and highways decrease the amount of open space
available for the infiltration and percolation of rainfall into the ground. Flow
volumes and velocities in the channels increase. Runoff carries pollutants,
sediments, and litter accumulated from the urban areas and non-point sources
directly to the ocean. Following storm events, areas adjacent to storm drain
outlets are often full of trash and have elevated contaminant levels. Pollutants
found in runoff include: fertilizers, pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons,
sediments, metals, hydrocarbon, animal waste, trash, gasoline oil, and
construction waste. These contaminants are harmful to the environment, fish,
birds, and wildlife. Poor water quality can threaten public health and may have
severe economic consequences for businesses dependent on the beaches.

In 1999, a 4.2 mile stretch of Huntington Beach was closed to beach goers when
high levels of bacteria were found in the coastal water. This event generated
bad publicity, poor public impression, and skepticism about water safety. Public
pressure led to several entities working together to find answers and formulate a
strategy to avoid this type of event happening again. Today an enormous
amount of time and funding is invested in water quality monitoring, reporting, and
project implementation to protect our coastal waters.

Monitoring data from Orange County is compiled each year by Heal the Bay for
its Annual Report Card on the health of California beaches. Grading is based on
the presence of indicator bacteria obtained from routine monitoring of beaches by
local health care agencies. Dry weather period water samples at the coastal
waters were analyzed for fecal coliform, total coliform, and enterococcus. For the
2008-2009 Annual Report Card, Heal the Bay cited that 97 percent of the 105
Orange County beaches tested earned an A or B grade based on Assembly Bill
(AB) 411 standards. AB 411 requires weekly testing from April 1 to October 31
for microbiological contaminants for waters adjacent to all public beaches with
more than 50,000 visitors annually and sets uniform health standards. When
pollution levels are above standards, health officials must close the beach, as
well as set up a hotline for beach closure information. The worst beaches for
high indicator bacteria levels were reported on the 2009 Heal the Bay’s Top 10
Beach Bummer list in California. Two Orange County beaches received an
overall grade of “F”. Doheny Beach at San Juan Creek was listed as No.10 and
Poche Beach was ranked No.7. Poor beach report card grades can be traced to
urban runoff.

Another report by Heal the Bay is the End of Summer Beach Report Card which
provides beachgoers with essential water quality information by grading nearly
460 monitoring locations from Humboldt County through San Diego County. The
grades are based on dry weather water quality data provided by over 20 different
entities throughout California. The data presented in this report was collected
from Memorial Day through Labor Day, 2009. Continuing a trend of dramatic
improvement over the last two summers, 99 out of a total of 103 monitored
Orange County beaches scored an A on Heal the Bay’s 2009 California End of
Summer Beach Report Card. Three other beaches received a B grade, making
Orange County a standout performer in the State this past summer.

II.         METHODOLOGY OF THE GRADING PROCESS

The 2009 Orange County Infrastructure Report Card evaluates six categories.
A weighting was assigned for each category. Higher rankings were given to
condition, capacity, and operation. The percentages for each category are:
Condition:            25%
Capacity:             20%
Operation:            20%
Funding:              15%
Sustainability:       15%
Resiliency:            5%

Important topics for each category were selected and evaluated based on
available data. The committee formulated criteria for each category which were
used as a basis for evaluation. Categories and their topics were included in the
report card. Each criterion was given possible points to meet, ranging from two
to five points. Metric descriptions for each topic were developed in order to
better assess each criteria for grading. An evaluation chart of each metric and
reference were put in a fact sheet and assigned points. Points were summed
and converted to percentile to determine the grade.

Grades were determined using the recommended A, B, C, D, & F ratings based
on a total percentile of 100 possible points.

A=     90-100%
B=     80-89%
C=     70-79%
D=     41-69%
F=     40% or lower

III.           SURFACE WATER QUALITY COUNTY GRADE
Twenty four important and measurable surface water quality topics were
identified for evaluating Surface Water Quality Criteria. The final grade was
obtained by calculating the results of the following metrics:

Condition:

   1. What is the beneficial use impairment? What percentage of the coastline
      or water body is impaired? Indicators to impairment of beneficial uses:
      bacteria, dissolved copper (toxicity), nitrate, 303(d) listing.
   2. What is the water quality of the beach measured in the number of postings
      in beach mile days? How often do we exceed the regulatory standards?
      Exceedances of regulatory standards (California Toxics Rule, REC-1, AB
      411, 303(d) listing).
   3. What is the effect on creek/stream habitat based on creek/channel types?
   4. How much do engineered channels impact hydromodification?
Capacity:

   5. What is the number of Best Management Practices (BMP) planned or
      implemented? Existing or planned dry weather treatment devices, urban
      runoff diversions into wastewater treatment plants? BMPs planned or
      implemented by various National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
      (NPDES) permit holders (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4),
      Industrial and Caltrans permits)? How are the infrastructure systems
      performing?
   6. How many catch basins have been identified and how many have BMP
      retrofits?
   7. What construction site BMPs require inspections and enforcement
      actions?
   8. What BMPs are needed to implement Low Impact Development
      principles?

Operations:

   9. Are Watershed Master Plans in development?
   10. Number of fully adopted TMDLs?
   11. How many WQMPs were processed?
   12. How effective is the public education program?
   13. Is there public involvement? Are citizen based groups conducting
      monitoring?
   14. What is the municipal maintenance plan?
   15. How much water quality monitoring data is available? How many dry
      weather flow monitoring stations are there?
   16. Compliance with NPDES permit requirements? Compliance with basin
      plan objectives, REC-1, 2 standards, AB411 standards and enforcement?
   17. What are the results of the public awareness survey?

Funding:

   18. How much is spent on public project BMPs? What amount of grants are
      awarded?
   19. How much is spent on annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M)?
      What dedicated funding sources are in place for O&M activities?
   20. How many cities have dedicated funding sources for BMPs?

Sustainability:

   21. How much runoff reduction is expected with BMPs and water efficient
      landscaping practices? How many cities are covered by cooperative
      agreements?
   22. How effectively do we integrate across water resource disciplines?
   23. How effective are community conservation practices?
Resiliency:

     24. How effective are emergency spill responses and incident enforcement
        actions?

For 2009, the Orange County Section of American Society of Civil Engineers was
assigned a Surface Water Quality grade of “D”. While the County of Orange
Section is making strides in pollution prevention programs, spill responses,
monitoring programs, public awareness, identifying best management practices,
and overall improved beach quality, further funding is needed to expand these
programs and implement those BMP solutions.

IV.           DATA GATHERING AND SOURCES

A variety of references were used to gather the data used to evaluate the
Surface Water Quality Report Card. The County of Orange was the primary
resource. Data for the watersheds program and water quality testing were
obtained from www.ocwatersheds.com website. The Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP), Appendix C-2007-2008 Unified Program
Effectiveness (PEA) Reports were reviewed to obtain relevant data. The OC
Flood Control Division provided the database for flood control channels and
storm drains. Information on beach postings and beach surf zone water quality
were obtained from the Orange County Health Care Agency. The OC Public
Works Business Plan was used as a source for regulatory compliance. The
Orange County Fire Authority and PEA was the source of information on
emergency and pollution incidents.

Data regarding impaired water bodies were found in the Basin Plans for the
Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Information
regarding catch basins was gathered from Measure M Catch Basin Funding
Program. The Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and Municipal
Water District of Orange County were the sources for Collaborative Efforts and
Stakeholder Forums.

V.            RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The objective of improving surface water quality in Orange County is to
safeguard public health, the environment and the economy. Population growth,
especially along the coast, has contributed to an increase in urban runoff that
flows into the creeks and rivers. Urban runoff is believed to be the prime cause
of beach pollution. Untreated, urban runoff carries bacteria and viruses directly
to the beaches and ocean.

Pre-emptive warnings issued after significant rainfall have become a standard
expectation. Rain Advisories for rainfall greater than 0.2“ are issued as urban
runoff empties into local beaches and creates poor water quality. Routine for the
beach lifestyle, swimmers and surfers must heed warnings to avoid water contact
for 3 days after storms and swimming within 100 yards away from storm drain
outlets or rivermouths to avert serious illness.

With the goal of protecting and restoring the health of California beaches, the
State Water Resources Control Board has provided funds through the Clean
Beach Initiative (CBI) to improve water quality of California’s most polluted
beaches. Orange County has eight CBI projects including urban runoff
diversions and innovative treatment plants intended to reduce bacteria levels.
CBI was the major funding source for constructing the Poche Beach Clean Water
Project, an ultraviolet/filtration treatment facility near San Clemente. Poche
Beach is consistently posted due to high bacteria levels from dry weather flows
conveyed by the Prima Deshecha Cañada Channel. Urban runoff is processed
through a filtration media and UV light disinfection treatment system. When
completed, the treatment system will eliminate or reduce bacteriological
contamination to AB411 standards before discharging into the ocean. Seeking
support for additional water quality projects and BMPs continues to be a
challenge. In 2008, bond funding for CBI projects was frozen due to state budget
cuts.

Community planning can make an impact in reducing runoff and pollutants
discharged into our coastal waters. Integrating Low Impact Development (LID)
practices designed to restore predevelopment runoff patterns to new and existing
development designs can generate less surface runoff and less pollutants
transported to the downstream waters. These landscape features, located in
open spaces, rooftops, streets, parking lots, and medians, are intended to
infiltrate, store, and detain runoff close to its source with LID “green
infrastructure” such as bioretention, green roof, vegetated swales designs, rain
harvesting, and promote impervious surface reduction systems.

Community response to water conservation efforts will also help alleviate urban
runoff issues. Water saving irrigation practices and landscape techniques can
reduce dry weather runoff. Local water districts have developed programs to
encourage and provide incentives to implement residential landscaping water
conservation practices, such as use of drought tolerant plants, permeable paving,
rain barrels, and cisterns. Individual actions and lifestyle habits, such as
sweeping rather than hosing down driveways, avoiding lawn overwatering and
washing cars on lawns or at car wash facilities can decrease runoff volume and
make a positive water quality impact. Simple day to day practices can reduce
pollutants in urban runoff. Activities such as maintaining vehicles to eliminate
fluid and oil spills, avoiding the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, and ensuring
the proper disposal of paint, motor oil and chemicals will significantly decrease
the amount of pollutants contained in urban runoff flowing to the beach outlets to
improve the County’s overall surface water quality.
POCKET GUIDE
Surface Water Quality
While Orange County is making strides in pollution prevention, spill responses,
monitoring, public awareness, identifying best management practices, further
funding is needed to expand these programs and to implement BMP solutions.
WASTEWATER
Issues Brief for Wastewater Infrastructure

1.       Introduction and Background


Well managed and fully funded wastewater collection and treatment systems are
essential to sustaining our quality of life and ensuring the long-term economic vitality of
our communities. Protecting public health and the environment, and extending the useful
life of our wastewater infrastructure must remain a top priority at a time of limited
resources.
Since the 2005 Infrastructure Report Card, sewage spills have continued to decline and
our beaches remain among the cleanest in California. Orange County beaches are also
national treasures used by millions of tourists and local residents, and must be protected
from all forms of pollution. Wastewater collection and treatment agencies continue to
make good progress in achieving these goals.
Wastewater flows continue to drop in spite of a growing county-wide population. The
effects of water conservation, a three-year drought, and the recent economic recession
have all contributed to the lowest average wastewater flows in more than 20 years.

However, the current uncertain state of the economy remains the single-most critical
issue facing our county. In spite of lower flows and a lack of wet-weather related
problems we have seen in the past, the condition of the collection system continues to be
a concern. Significant collection system construction took place during the post World
War II building boom in southern California. Many sanitary sewers built in the late 1940s
and early 1950s are near the end of their useful life. As their condition deteriorates, these
older sewers are more prone to root intrusion, offset joints, debris and grease build-up,
and site-specific failures that can cause sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Many old
sewage pumping systems do not meet current design standards, and can have
performance problems due to a lack of replacement parts or redundant facilities. Other
problems include corrosion, mechanical wear, clogging due to rags and sanitary wipes,
and equipment obsolescence. This means increased replacement and rehabilitation
costs, and increased maintenance needs for these critical assets to extend their useful
lives and meet performance criteria.

On a positive note, nearly all of the cities and agencies in Orange County now have
enterprise funds dedicated to the single purpose of managing the operations,
maintenance and replacement of their sewer collection systems.

Wastewater treatment facilities and reclamation plants as a whole are still faring better
than sewage collection systems. Two primary reasons account for this:

        Treatment and water reclamation facilities have historically received greater
         attention than collection systems, as they have been operated under the EPA
         Clean Water Act’s - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
         permits for many years. Since 1971, these federal regulations have required


                                             1
         treatment plants to meet stringent effluent discharge levels, provide adequate
         staffing levels including operator training and certification, and specific operations
         and maintenance-management program criteria. This yields 24-hour attention to
         maintaining system performance to meeting or exceeding permitted receiving
         water quality standards as well as long-range planning for the future. OCSD’s
         regional facilities serving the north and central Orange County cities have
         committed to full secondary treatment and OCSD is now constructing the needed
         facilities to provide this advanced level of treatment.

        Wastewater collection systems, on the other hand (including pump stations) have
         only recently been required to meet Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR). In
         2002, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region,
         issued Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for the wastewater collection
         agencies draining to the OCSD treatment facilities. Santa Ana Regional Board’s
         WDR were very effective in significantly reducing the volume of SSOs within the
         service areas of these agencies. In 2006, the State Water Resources Control
         Board issued the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements to all
         wastewater collection agencies with a minimum collection system length of 1 mile
         (Order No. 2006-0003). The Order requires these wastewater collection
         agencies to prepare Sewer System Management Plans (SSMPs). The purpose
         of the SSMPs is to develop better local programs to reduce sewage spills,
         mitigate SSO impacts, and extend the useful life of the collection system
         infrastructure. SSMPs require collection system owners to evaluate the capacity
         of their systems and provide adequate capacity where needed. Collection
         system owners must also manage, investigate and rehabilitate aging sewers as
         necessary, establish legal authority for new ordinances to minimize impacts from
         private property problems, and ensure long-range planning, staff development,
         and funding mechanisms tied directly to O&M and capital improvement
         programs. System condition assessments are required to guide short and long-
         range rehabilitation plans and related financial needs. As a result of these
         programs, many Orange County wastewater collection agencies have been
         implemented rate increases and have been making significant investments in
         condition and capacity improvements.

2.       Public Policy Considerations:

The data provided by almost all cities and agencies helping with this survey of the
wastewater collection, reclamation and treatment infrastructure in Orange County have
generated several public policy issues that should be considered in order to sustain and
improve our quality of life and ensure the long-term economic vitality of our
communities:

        Infrastructure Funding: The statewide WDR requires sufficient and dedicated
         revenues for maintaining sewage collection systems. Ongoing inspection and
         rehabilitation efforts have begun in many areas and must continue to ensure that
         collection system owners keep up with needed repairs and replacement


                                               2
    programs. Funding for the treatment facilities has to keep up with the needs. It
    is estimated that over 3 billion dollars is needed over the next 10 years to fund
    various site-specific local and regional replacement and rehabilitation projects
    just to bring systems from current levels up to a good, but not an excellent
    condition.

   Statewide Developments: All city and agency wastewater collection systems
    throughout the state are now under the new statewide WDR that applies equally
    to all wastewater collection systems over one mile in length. SSMPs document
    each city or agency’s program to properly operate and maintain its sanitary
    sewer system. Details of the statewide WDR order can be found at:
    http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/. The state has also
    implemented a new sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) monitoring and reporting
    system that gives the public greater access to detailed information about SSOs
    statewide. Orange County wastewater treatment and collection agencies should
    continue to evaluate their SSMPs, and propose refinements to the WDR to
    improve its effectiveness.

   Public Involvement: Cities and agencies are using web-based systems more
    frequently than in the past to communicate with their constituencies about the
    critical importance of our wastewater infrastructure and their sewer maintenance
    programs. Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) control programs now emphasize
    community as well as business partnerships. Ratepayers have seen increases in
    water costs, sewage user fees and utility costs in recent years, and are more
    concerned than ever about about the condition of their local infrastructure, and
    how their service fees are being spent. Private property SSOs are under greater
    scrutiny than in the past as a cause of beach closures due to sewage spills. The
    public communication effort should be expanded to not only continue the existing
    programs related to FOG and private laterals, but also make the public an active
    stakeholder in improving the wastewater collection service in the county.

   Regional Cooperation: Innovative regional approaches among staff for
    wastewater collection and treatment systems management, operations and
    maintenance are recognized, especially as a result of the new statewide WDR.
    These include an increased emphasis from the Regional WDR stakeholder group
    to provide educational workshops and certified training programs for staff. These
    new alliances continue to benefit our residents and ratepayers as financing and
    funding become more challenging. Benefits may include improved economies of
    scale, sharing the most advanced technologies, and leveraging city and agency
    expertise to solve current and future issues. We have also seen a trend that
    there is an increasing turnover from an aging workforce that could impact future
    succession planning for all staffing levels.




                                         3
3.       Overall County Grade for Wastewater


Overall grade for the wastewater system is B-.

The condition and operation and maintenance of the collection system is fair (C-), and
the capacity is good (B-). Funding and resiliency of the collection systems is good (B).
The overall grade for the collection systems is C.

The condition and operation and maintenance of the treatment facilities are rated fair
(C). Capacity and funding are rated excellent (A), reliability and redundancy is rated
very good (A-), and reliability and redundancy is rated very good (A-). The overall grade
for the treatment facilities is good (B).

Orange County’s wastewater infrastructure continues to improve, but many aging
collection systems and pump stations will soon need replacement and treatment plants
require ongoing rehabilitation and replacement of critical assets. To avoid backsliding
and continue needed improvements in conditions, capacity, and operations and
maintenance, the wastewater system county-wide will require over $3 billion dollars in
investments over the next 10 years based on current estimates, and agencies must
address workforce development.


4.       Infrastructure Assessment Methodology
The evaluation of the wastewater system was divided into two technically logical components:

        Collection Systems
        Treatment Facilities

The methodology is very similar to the one developed in 2005. The major modification for 2009
is related to funding and resiliency to damage to critical system elements that may result from a
natural disaster. Funding needed to move the final rating up to a “B” grade by 2019 was again
deemed to be a very significant issue. Sustainability is covered under condition, operation and
maintenance, and funding. The collection systems were evaluated for Condition, Capacity,
Operations and Maintenance, and Funding. Resiliency is covered under funding and the
existence of a plan for responding to critical system failures. Treatment Plants were evaluated
for Condition, Capacity, Reliability and Redundancy, Environmental and Regulatory
Compliance, Operation and Maintenance, and Funding. The two category grades are then
combined for a final grade. Surveys were sent to all 35 cities and sewering agencies and seven
(7) wastewater treatment and reclamation agencies (12 treatment plants) in Orange County
specific to each category component. To achieve data consistency, the survey year for both
components is July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 (FY 2007/2008).

Based on the success achieved in 2002 and 2005 with obtaining participation and responses,
surveys are opinion based. A series of statements, mostly unchanged except for resiliency,
were used for each element so that a competent respondent with average to good awareness of
their systems and issues could respond easily. Our target respondent is again the system or
plant manager.


                                                4
Other data to be taken into consideration in the overall evaluation in both component categories
(as appropriate) are:

              total length of gravity sewer pipes and force mains
              gravity sewer pipe and force main sizes
              total number of manholes
              number of pump stations
              total number of private laterals
              current and projected population
              total number of staff
              total number of certified staff
              ongoing staff training
              total number of hot spots (sewer segments that require cleaning more than once
               per year)
              total number of sewage spills (private and public)
              gravity sewer, manhole, and pump station inspection and assessment history
              communication plans
              treatment facility design capacity
              available treatment related plant processes
              number of treatment plants
              age of the systems and facilities
              number and type of support staff
              date of most recent significant expansion
              average flow rate through the treatment facility during fiscal year 2007-2008.

For each sewer system or treatment/reclamation category, a description of key sub-categories
was identified and a basis for grading and evaluation developed. The following is a summary of
most of these subcategories.


Wastewater Collection Systems

Condition: This considers known structural conditions of the gravity sewer pipes and pumping
station force mains based on closed circuit television (CCTV) observations; condition of pump
station force mains based on maintenance history and age; how grease and roots affect the
pipes; manhole conditions including structural problems and rehabilitation needs; and pump
station structures, equipment and rehabilitation needs.

Capacity: This looks at the ability of the gravity sewers, and pump stations and force mains (if
any) to convey the peak wet weather flows; and presence and capacity of auxiliary facilities,
such as emergency generators and critical pump station parts and components

Operations: This considers staff or contractor resources and their knowledge and certifications,
and whether a documented preventative maintenance program is in place. We also are asking
questions about mobile equipment, tools and spare parts. Access to facilities to adequately
perform services is also a part of the methodology. Data sources such as sewer maps, O&M
manuals, standard operating procedures (including whether GIS was being used) are surveyed.




                                                5
Questions about cleaning and inspection frequencies include number of hot spots and system-
wide routine cleaning, CCTV pipe inspection and a visual manhole inspection program.

Funding: This covers whether agencies have an approved plan and a rate structure, with
necessary increases for inflation, for funding the operation and maintenance and regulatory
compliance, and for the capital improvement program for up to 10 years. It also covers the
availability of reserve funds to respond to the failure of the most critical component of the
collection system due to a natural disaster.

Resiliency is incorporated into operation and maintenance, and funding. It focuses on having a
plan and access to funds to bring the most critical system elements back into operation
following damage caused by a natural disaster.

Wastewater Treatment Facility Systems:

Condition: This includes structural issues, facility operating equipment, electrical, and occupied
buildings for water and solids treatment and handling, power and utilities, chemical systems,
odor control systems, water reclamation, and outfalls (land and ocean, including valves and air
vacuums).

Capacity of Regional and Local Facilities: This concerns local and regional facility design
capacity (for peak dry and wet-weather flows as well as recycled water production); land outfall
capacity (for peak dry and wet-weather flows); ocean outfall capacity (for peak dry and wet-
weather flows); and solids handling facilities.

Reliability and Redundancy: This deals with on-site power availability, wastewater flow
management, equipment redundancy, and alarms and communications.

Environmental and Regulatory Compliance: This includes the ability to meet permitted
effluent discharge requirements and other regulated activities; as well as issues related to
safety, air quality, solid waste, storm and nuisance water flows, and industrial discharges.

Operations and Maintenance: Maintenance element evaluates annual facility maintenance
goals (repairs and replacements, and staff training), facility maintenance issues, maintenance
staffing levels, and maintenance and equipment replacement plan and reserve fund.
Operations element evaluates annual facility operational goals (cost of treatment, staff training,
and quality control), facility operational issues, operations and laboratory support staffing levels.

Funding: This covers whether the agency has an approved plan and a rate structure, with
necessary increases for inflation, for funding the operation and maintenance and regulatory
compliance, and for the capital improvement program for up to 10 years. It also covers the
availability of reserve funds to respond to the failure of the most critical component of the
treatment facility due to a natural disaster.

Resiliency is incorporated into operation and maintenance, and funding. It focuses on having a
plan and access to funds to bring the most critical system elements back into operation
following damage caused by a natural disaster.




                                                  6
Data Gathering and Resources:

The survey forms used during the 2005 Report Card effort were updated and edited to gather
the survey information for the 2009 Orange County report card effort. After meeting and
conferring with the committee members, the Wastewater Infrastructure Working Committee
made some reasonable assumptions about the data collection process and updated the
questionnaire explanations.

This process resulted in the development of updated opinion-based survey forms for obtaining
detailed response statements about the general conditions, capacity, operations, funding needs,
and resiliency of Orange County’s wastewater collection systems and treatment facilities.

These draft forms were discussed, reviewed and finalized by the committee representing
treatment plant and collection system operators, analysts and managers, as well as
knowledgeable consultants. The goal was to produce survey forms that were easy to
understand, easy to fill out, with the hope of maximizing the participation of the identified
agencies.

Rating categories for the collection systems were “Excellent; Good; Fair; Poor; or Don’t Know”.
Variations of these categories were used for the treatment facilities survey. The final surveys
were e-mailed to the respective agencies for completion. The responses to each question were
entered in a computer-based spreadsheet developed by one of the Infrastructure Working
Committee members for compilation and evaluation. A “Don’t Know” response was counted as
“poor.” These opinion-based ratings were assigned numeric scores for compilation. A 100 point
scale was used, broken down as follows:

Collection Systems:

       Condition                                              28
       Capacity                                               26
       Operation                                              31
       Funding & Resiliency                                   15

Overall- Collection Systems                                   100

Treatment Plants

       Condition                                              20
       Capacity                                               10
       Reliability & Redundancy                               10
       Environmental/Regulatory Compliance                    20
       Operation and Maintenance                              20
       Funding                                                20

       Overall-Treatment Plants                               100

Data was catalogued by agency name. A quality control check was done to ensure that all data
was input into the database correctly.



                                                 7
Military establishments, private systems owned by homeowner associations, State of California-
owned systems and private business complexes were not included, nor were the following small
systems in the infrastructure survey or analysis.

              Boat septage pumping facilities operated by the Harbor Patrol at county-owned
               harbors,
              Other pump-out facilities that are privately operated on county-leased land;
              The collection systems, portable toilets, sewage dumping stations and septic
               tanks at county parks;
              The collection systems and pumping facilities at county beaches;
              The collection systems at John Wayne Airport and other county-owned facilities.
              The Irvine Park system maintained by the Irvine Ranch Water District, and the
               O’Neil Park system maintained by the Trabuco Canyon Water District.

Review Council:

The recommended report card grades were developed and reviewed by a Working Committee
comprising expert private sector consultants, and public agency facility managers and
operators. This process ensured that the methodology, review process, analysis and final
grading including points allocation have been scrutinized by independent experts for accuracy,
fairness, reliability and is defendable. The summary grades for collection systems and
separately treatment facilities were recommended to the Wastewater Review Council made up
of the regulatory sector, environmental interest sector, and private consultants.




                                               8
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS REPORT CARD WORKING COMMITTEE

Co-chair:   Nick Arhontes     Orange County Sanitation District
                              Director Operations, Maintenance, and Regional Services Dept.

Co-Chair    Zeki Kayiran      AKM Consulting Engineers
                              Principal

Members:    Patrick McNelly   Orange County Sanitation District
                              Principal Staff Analyst

            Brent Hayes       Garden Grove Sanitary District
                              Sanitation Supervisor

            Jay Elston        City of San Clemente
                              Operations Supervisor

            Brennon Flahive   South Orange County Wastewater Authority
                              Environmental Compliance Administrator




                                         9
WATER SUPPLY
Orange County Report Card

Infrastructure Brief – WATER SUPPLY
I.   Introduction:

Supplies imported into Orange County provide about 50% of Orange County’s water needs. Imported
water is delivered from the Colorado River through the Colorado River Aqueduct and from Northern
California through the State Water Project. The dependability of these supplies directly influences the
reliability of water service to consumers in Orange County. Orange County is continually improving its
programs for developing, storing, treating and delivering water to consumers. However, Orange County’s
supply reliability has been impacted by challenges to imported water sources from outside of our
boundaries.

The Colorado River system has suffered through nine years of drought and reservoir storage has declined to
about 50% of capacity. The Colorado River system is oversubscribed and California faces continuing
competition from neighboring states for the system’s resources. Metropolitan has been successful in
developing additional supplies through cooperative transfers and exchange agreements to the extent that in
2009, the Colorado River Aqueduct will carry about 92% of its capacity into Southern California. Into the
future, Metropolitan will have to remain especially vigilant as environmental issues, climate change and
competition threaten long-term reliability.

Supplies from the State Water Project face more uncertainty than the Colorado River supplies, primarily
due to challenges in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) system - insufficient upstream
storage, inadequate conveyance, wastewater discharges into the system, vulnerable Delta levees,
endangered species, invasive species, institutional complexity, regulatory and legal decision and others.
The Delta’s ecosystem is not sustainable in its current form. A time horizon of 15 to 20 years will be
needed to implement a “Delta fix” once one is agreed upon.

Recent legal decisions and federal regulations, known as biological opinions, put in place to protect
threatened fish species in the Delta have allocated more and more water to fish and other environmental
needs and have restricted the times of the year when water can be pumped to supply agricultural and urban
needs. The availability of imported water from the State Water Project has been reduced by about 40%
(about 800,000 acre-feet per year). This has reduced Orange County’s overall water supply by about 10%
or about 70,000 acre-feet per year.

Another new and not fully understood challenge is climate change. Our growing awareness of natural and
human causes of climate change has improved our understanding of the potential impacts on water supply –
but large uncertainty remains. Australia’s “drying” over the past three decades has brought this issue home
to its populace.

Water remains the life-blood of Orange County's remarkable economy and lifestyle. The combination of a
large groundwater basin supplied via the Santa Ana River, and two major sources of imported water
provided a solid foundation for the County's steady growth over the last five decades.

The County has two major water use areas. Those who live over the large groundwater basin in north and
central Orange County depend on a combination of pumped groundwater and imported water from the
Colorado River and northern California. Those in the southern portion of Orange County depend almost
entirely on imported water for potable supplies, although significant additional investments in local
supplies are taking place. Our evaluation included a combination of 11 local city and water districts, the
groundwater basin management agency Orange County Water District, and the regional water importers
Municipal Water District of Orange County and Metropolitan Water District.

Orange County is in the midst of significant investments for water supply and infrastructure. There are
nearly 7,900 miles of water main and 300 potable water storage tanks and about 300 domestic pumping
wells in Orange County. The population of 2.9 million uses about 700,000 acre-feet or 228 billion gallons


                                                                                                             1
of water annually. Infrastructure projects include replacement or rehabilitation of older distribution pipes;
seismic upgrade, refurbishment or outright replacement of storage tanks; replacement of older shallow
wells; installation of backup power at key facilities; improvements to computerized control systems (known
as SCADA – Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition).

New water supplies are needed but won't come from a single source or a new aqueduct to a remote
location, but rather a portfolio of different sources including groundwater banking and conjunctive use,
water transfers, ocean desalting, water recycling, and increased water efficiency. Successful
implementation of all of these efforts can create a sustainable future for Orange County.

Water quality continues to be a top concern and priority. Both imported and local groundwater sources are
subject to risk from chemicals and residues from past or present agricultural and industrial activities. The
Colorado River is threatened by perchlorate contamination in Nevada. Since the 2005 report card, progress
has been made in interception and cleanup of the perchlorate plume in Henderson Nevada. The State
Water Project has higher levels of organic precursors that can react with disinfectants to form harmful
byproducts. Improvements to the quality of water drawn from the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta involve
complex political, financial, legal and regulatory issues administered through the CalFed program. Locally,
portions of the groundwater basin have experienced contamination from such chemicals as MTBE, 1-4
Dioxane, Perchlorate, and VOC's. Despite these challenges, water agencies have continued to serve water
that is in full compliance with State and Federal water quality regulations. However, there is a climate of
increased risk as new contaminants are identified and regulated.

II. Overall County Grade for Water Supply: B-

Our overall water supply received a grade of B-. While the local infrastructure is in good or
excellent condition, it will require continuing investments for repair or replacements to keep it in top shape.
Local water supplies are generally reliable, however, the lack of reliability for our imported supplies, as
discussed above, has currently emerged as an over whelming issue and has caused a down-grading from the
2005 report until it is resolved. This grade reflects well on past investments to develop and maintain our
water infrastructure. Several areas of risk will have to be dealt with in the coming few years in order to
maintain this grade. These risk areas are highlighted later in this report.

III. Public Policy Considerations:

Based on our evaluation, the following policy options and recommendations apply within Orange County.
Orange County needs to focus on several risk areas to prevent any slippage (and associated deterioration of
quality and water service reliability) which include:

•   Aging infrastructure. While some small areas of the County have sections of pipe in the ground that
    are 80 or even 100 years old, much of the water infrastructure in the County was built within the last
    40 years. Over the next 10 to 20 years it will begin to fail at an increasing rate. Water retailers will
    need to replace, reline or repair older steel and iron pipe as it corrodes over time. As a policy, water
    agencies should formally address proactive maintenance and repairs both in their annual budgeting,
    and through a well developed and comprehensive maintenance management program. Water tanks will
    need more frequent inspection and monitoring for corrosion damage. Most retail agencies lack a
    Refurbish and Replacement funding mechanism to proactively meet the infrastructure aging issue.

        Water agencies should continue to address proactive maintenance and repairs, including
    corrosion prevention.

•   Water Supply Reliability. As discussed above, this is a major risk area and a major area of concern.
    Due to this situation, mandatory conservation measures were imposed by nearly all water retailers on
    July 1, 2009. New local supplies are needed to offset potential losses of imported water and to
    accommodate expected growth in California over the next 20 years.




                                                                                                             2
        Water recycling, ocean water desalination and water use efficiency are ways to solve this
    problem. Fortunately, many such supplies have been identified in planning efforts, and some are even
    under construction today.

    Water Quality. We enjoy some of the safest drinking water on the globe. Our grade reflects a high
    standard of service among the water retailers in the County. However, nearly everyone interviewed
    expressed concern over the potential for contamination of our imported or local water sources. As new
    contaminants are studied; measured and regulated, the cost to provide safe water will continue to
    increase. Regulations should be set in a manner that derives the most public health benefit for the
    costs involved.

         The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) needs to continue to seek water quality improvements in
    the delivery of water through the Delta and to pursue a rapid cleanup of the perchlorate spill
    impacting the Colorado River in Nevada. As new contaminants are identified, the cost to provide safe
    water will increase.
         The OCWD needs to pursue vigilant monitoring programs to prevent or quickly detect
    contamination in the groundwater basin.

    System Reliability. Portions of South Orange County depend heavily on imported water that is
    delivered through two major pipelines and one regional filtration plant. Major projects are under
    construction or design to improve system reliability to portions of Orange County include stabilization
    and seismic strengthening at the Diemer Filtration Plant by MWD, construction of the Irvine
    Interconnections to send water from North Orange County to South Orange County during emergency
    situations, construction of the 750 acre-foot Upper Chiquita Reservoir and design of the New Baker
    Filtration Plant to treat and deliver water into South Orange County. All of these projects will become
    operational in 2010 or 2011. The South Orange Coastal Ocean Desalination Project, if constructed,
    would not be operational until about 2016. This project would improve local reliability and provide a
    new source of drinking water.

        County Water Agencies should continue to invest in projects that improve system reliability.

    Seismic Retrofit. Water supply is critical in the aftermath of a major earthquake. The integrity of water
    infrastructure systems must be protected from failure in seismic events. While most facilities complied
    with seismic codes when they were constructed, few agencies have conducted comprehensive seismic
    surveys to determine if these facilities meet today’s standards. Many facilities have not been updated
    to current code requirements.

        Retail water purveyors should complete their seismic assessments and construct the necessary
    upgrades.

    Security. In light of the September 11, 2001 attack in the U.S., security of many public facilities,
    including water systems, has received increased attention. Water agencies were required under Federal
    statute to complete a confidential vulnerability assessment in 2002 or 2003. Agencies surveyed had
    identified improvements (ranging from minimal to moderate) and have either implemented or begun
    implementing the suggested improvements. Most agencies have implemented between 50% and 100%
    of the suggested improvements. Security measures range from changes in procedures, enhanced
    facility monitoring methods, site security improvements, and training of human resources and
    operations staff.

        Retail water purveyors should complete the vulnerability assessments and implement
    recommended security measures.


IV. Infrastructure Assessment Methodology:

Our Water Supply Committee agreed with the 2005 methodology that it was important to focus on the three
primary aspects of water management – local retail service providers, imported water service, and the large

                                                                                                           3
groundwater basin that serves much of north and central Orange County. Thus we adopted the 2005
methodology that addressed the general categories of Condition, Capacity, and Operations. The
methodology included 10 subcategories with each subcategory weighted with 10 points for a total of 100
points. The criteria are shown in the reference section.

For the Condition category, the criteria encompassed local, imported, and groundwater facilities. The
Capacity category considers availability of adequate supply, reliability of delivery systems, capacity of
local facilities, and capacity of regional facilities. The Operations category includes the ability of local and
regional agencies to meet applicable water quality regulations; maintenance, repair and replacement
funding levels; and implementation levels for security infrastructure and procedures.

We developed a grade for the County as a whole as did the 2005 report, since responsibility for water
infrastructure is shared at the local, basin and import level. We deviated from the 2005 procedure since
that assessment was found to be very thorough and in considerable detail and would not benefit from a
similar interview process. Further, the Committee members were generally aware of the changes that have
occurred in the water retail industry in Orange County. Thus, the Committee believed it would be
sufficient to interview the respondents to the 2005 report and to inquire about system changes since 2005
and their state of the concerns in 2009. From these responses and the committee’s knowledge, we assessed
each subcategory and developed a countywide grade.


V. Data Gathering and Sources:

We gathered data for this report card using a survey/interview format. We developed a set of questions
relating to the major concerns expressed in 2005 and asked if they still viewed these as major concerns.
We then asked for their input regarding any other concerns that they may have. We arranged individual
telephone interviews with the manager or operator of 11 water systems in the County. We sent copies of
the survey/interview questions ahead of our interview to allow the respondent time to research answers.

VI. Results and Conclusions:

The overall results are presented in tabular form below. Highlights of each subcategory are discussed as
well.

Report Card Grade by Subcategory                                        Grade
Category 1 - Condition/Local                                            B
Category 2 - Condition/Import                                           B
Category 3 - Condition/Basin                                            B+
Category 4 - Capacity/Supply                                            D
Category 5 - Capacity/Reliability Local                                 A-
Category 6 - Capacity/Local                                             B+
Category 7 - Capacity/Regional                                          A-
Category 8 - Operations/Water Quality                                   B+
Category 9 - Operations/Maintenance, R&R                                B
Category 10 - Operations/Security                                       B-
                                                   Over All Grade       B-

Category 1 - Condition/Local Grade B

Local water facilities are generally in good to excellent condition. Some agencies reported concerns over
the condition of older piping and/or water storage tanks. Many of these were either recently addressed, or
planned for repair or replacement within the next 3 to 5 years. Corrosion protection and seismic integrity
were questions for some systems.


                                                                                                              4
Category 2 – Condition/Import Grade B

In recent years, Metropolitan has done an excellent job of inspecting, repairing and maintaining its
infrastructure. Significant investments in upgrading of treatment facilities and improvements to their
storage and distribution system (Diamond Valley Reservoir, Inland Feeder Project) have been made or are
nearing completion. Of major significance to Orange County is the seismic stabilization work going on at
the Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda. While not completed as yet, it is well on its way through
design and will greatly strengthen the plant to failure from seismic shaking.

Category 3 – Condition/Basin Grade B+

In the 2002 report card, many survey respondents expressed concerns about the condition of the
groundwater basin. It was generally acknowledged that the Orange County Water District would need to
make significant investments in the seawater barrier, and groundwater recharge facilities. OCWD has
made significant progress towards addressing these concerns with completion of the first phase of the
Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System project and the recent award of design of the Phase 2
expansion. OCWD also acted to reduce pumping from the basin in recent years to manage the available
supplies, especially with the elimination since 2005 of imported replenishment supplies. Most retail
agencies plan to replace older wells over time.

Category 4 - Capacity/Reliability Imported Supply Grade D

Every agency interviewed expresses concerns about the adequacy of imported supplies for the next 20
years. Respondents expressed concern over the loss of Colorado River supplies, the loss of State Water
Project supplies due to court mandated and drought conditions in the Sierras. State water supply deficiency
is causing mandatory conservation by MWD that must be implemented by local agencies by 7/1/09, or is
subject to financial penalties – this situation could worsen. This issue is of such importance that a detailed
description of the problem is included with this Brief as Appendix A.

Category 5 - Capacity/Reliability Local Supply Grade A-

Local water systems scored well in their reliability. One area of concern is the ability to withstand an
outage of imported water for seven days. Most agencies indicated they could provide service for at least
seven days during an unplanned outage. Others would have difficulty after three or four days, unless
demands were curtailed dramatically. A number of projects in South Orange County are nearing
completion that will provide a much improved ability to withstand 7-day outage of the import system.
Nearly all agencies have sufficient backup power or are purchasing additional generators to operate key
facilities in a power outage.

Projects that have implemented to enhance the local water supply situation include completion of the GWR
System by OCWD. This project provides a 72,000 acre-foot per year new water supply for the
groundwater basin as well as seawater barrier enhancements.

Local water supply reliability is being improved with the initiation of a mandatory water conservation
ordinance recently adopted by near all water purveyors in the County. A detailed description of the water
conservation efforts is included in Appendix C.

Category 6 - Capacity/Local Grade B+

Overall agencies were confident in the ability of their systems to meet peak day demand. Most expressed
concerns in meeting demands to battle wild-land fires such as recently occurred in Yorba Linda.

Category 7 - Capacity/Regional Grade A-

While ‘surplus’ imported waters for groundwater replenishment have historically been available in nearly
every year, cut backs on the imported delivery systems have virtually eliminated ‘surplus’ water


                                                                                                            5
availability. Recently, OCWD purchased expensive non-interruptible water for ground water recharge. A
detailed description of the condition of the basin is included in Appendix B.

 A number of the projects to improve system reliability in South Orange County are regional in nature,
including Upper Chiquita Reservoir, the Irvine Interconnections Project and the Baker Treatment Plant –
these projects improve the regional capacity of the system.

Category 8 - Operations/Water Quality Grade B+

All agencies reported serving water in compliance with state and federal drinking water regulations. Some
agencies have had to remove a well or other source from service due to contamination or quality problems.
In some cases treatment has been added to solve the problem, in other cases a new deeper well that is less
vulnerable to contaminated shallow groundwater has been developed. Most agencies are concerned about
potential groundwater contaminants and their potential impact on our water supplies.

It is important to note that MWD is making a significant investment in ozonation treatment at their water
treatment plants, including an ozonation retrofit at the Diemer facility which is currently under
construction. MWD remains concerned about the contaminated discharges into the Colorado River and
State Water Project and the need to remediate groundwater contaminant plumes that affect local production
and thus stress the imported system.

Category 9 - Operations/Maintenance, R&R Grade B

Most agencies have a formal or informal maintenance plan. Some budget for system replacements on an
annual or multi-year capital improvement program... Some agencies are using state of the art programmed
maintenance software as a Replacement/Refurbishment program, which tracks all aspects of programmed
maintenance. Collectively, the water industry must resist not making the investments in local facilities to
keep them in top working order during these difficult economic times.

Category 10 - Security Grade B

Agencies surveyed had identified improvements (ranging from minimal to moderate) and have either
implemented or begun implementing the suggested improvements. Security measures range from changes
in procedures, enhanced facility monitoring methods, site security improvements, and training of human
resources and operations staff.




                                                                                                          6
VII. References

            •     Water Supply Committee Members
            •     Review Committee Members
            •     Report Card Evaluation Criteria
            •     List of Agencies Interviewed
            •     Reference Materials Description
            •     Copy of Survey/Interview Format
            •     Appendix A - Imported Water Supplies into Southern California Directly Influences
                  Water Supply Reliability in Orange County
            •     Appendix B - Condition of the Orange County Groundwater Basin
            •     Appendix C - Summary of Status of WUE Efforts in Orange County 2009 




                                                                                                      7
ORANGE COUNTY REPORT CARD – WATER SUPPLY COMMITTEE

Co-chair:   William Mills   William Mills & Associates
                            wrmills@sbcglobal.net
                            Tel & Fax: (714) 961-8041

Co-chair:   Greg Heiertz    Director of Engineering & Planning
                            Irvine Ranch Water District
                            HEIERTZ@irwd.com
                            Tel: (949) 453-5560
                            Fax: (949) 453-0228

Members:    Karl Seckel     Associate General Manger
                            Municipal Water District of Orange County
                            kseckel@mwdoc.com
                            Tel: (714) 963 3085
                            Fax: (714) 964-9389

            Matt Collings   Assistant Director of Engineering
                            Moulton Niguel Water
                            mcollings@mnwd.com
                            Ph: (949) 425-3552
                            Fax: (949) 643-2489

            Jeff Dunn       Senior Project Manager
                            Stantec Consulting
                            Jeff.dunn@stantec.com
                            Tel: (949) 923-6974
                            Fax: (949) 923- 6077

            Cindy Miller    RBF Consulting
                            clmiller@rbf.com


            Steven Esmond   KBR Consulting
                            Steve.Esmond@kbr.com




                                                                        8
                                Review Committee Members



Review Committee Member                          Affiliation

Thom Coughran, PE         Water Resources Manager, City of Santa Ana



Kevin P. Hunt, PE         General Manager, Municipal Water District of Orange County


Michael Markus, PE        General Manager, Orange County Water District


Mike Rudenica, P.E.       Senior Consultant, RBF Consulting




                                                                                       9
                            Report Card Criteria - Water Infrastructure

      Major            Category Description                     Basis for Evaluation/              Scoring
     Grouping                                                   Criteria for Grading
                Condition of local distribution      Age of facilities. Condition of facilities.
                system facilities                    Known materials issues.                         10 pts
Condition




                Condition of imported water          Age of facilities. Condition of facilities.
                delivery and treatment facilities    Known materials issues.                         10 pts


                Condition of groundwater basin and   Age and condition of production wells,
                production facilities                seawater barrier, and spreading facilities.     10 pts


                Availability of Adequate Supply      Sufficient supply for next 20 year period
                                                     (from SB 221/610). Risks to supply.             10 pts
                                                     Strategy/contingency plan for various
                                                     components of local/imported supply.
                Reliability of delivery systems      Storage, flexibility and redundancy to deal
                                                     with planned or unplanned outages.              10 pts
Capacity




                Capacity of Local Facilities         Capacity to meet peak day and fire flow
                                                     demands. Bottlenecks or needed upgrades.        10 pts


                Capacity of Regional Facilities      Capacity of imported water facilities to
                                                     meet peak day demand. Capacity of basin         10 pts
                                                     wells to sustain pumping levels.

                Water quality                        Compliance w/ State/Federal drinking water
                                                     quality regulations. Consumer confidence        10 pts
                                                     reports, etc.
Operations




                Maintenance/ Repair and              Annual Maintenance and R&R funding / or
                Replacement Funding Levels           deferral as compared to some benchmark.         10 pts
                                                     Reserve levels for R&R.


                Security                             Level of physical and operational security
                                                     measures in place consistent with agency        10 pts
                                                     vulnerability assessment recommendations.

                                                                                                   100 points
TOTALS




                                                                                                   10
                                      Water Agencies Interviewed


                                                Agency

Brea, City of

El Toro Water District

Fullerton, City of

Irvine Ranch Water District

Laguna Beach CWD

Mesa Consolidated Water District

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan)

Moulton Niguel Water District

Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)

Orange County Water District (OCWD)

San Clemente, City of

Santa Ana, City of

Santa Margarita Water District

Westminster, City of




                                                                    11
                                           Reference Materials


Information developed for this infrastructure report card section on water systems was provided through a
survey/interview format with 11 water agencies. Interviewees were asked to site reference material and in
many cases this was noted. In general, the reference materials most frequently used were the annual
budget, capital improvement program, water master plan, and urban water management plan for the
agencies. In some cases an agency referenced a specific evaluation or study (such as for corrosion, seismic,
or instrumentation/control).Copy of Survey/Interview Form Used for Agency Interviews




                                                                                                        12
                         Agency Concerns – 2009 Survey
Agency Interviewed _______________________________________________________________

Individual Interviewed/Position:______________________________________________________

Date of Interview:___________________________

Interviewer: _______________________________

The following were the main concerns expressed in the 2005 survey. Are these still a top concern?

1.  Aging Facilities
    The 2005 survey found that most retail agencies lack a comprehensive Refurbish and Replacement
funding mechanism to proactively meet the infrastructure ageing issue. Do you have a budget for R&R?
            _____________________________________________________________________
            _____________________________________________________________________

2.  Water Quality
    Nearly everyone interviewed in 2005 expressed concern about possible contaminants in both
imported and local water sources. Still a concern?
             ______________________________________________________________________
             _____________________________________________________________________

3.  Seismic Retrofit
    Although a recommendation to do so was offered in 2002, few agencies had yet to conduct comprehensive
seismic surveys in 2005 to determine if their facilities meet today's seismic standards. Has your agency
completed the survey?
             _____________________________________________________________________
             _____________________________________________________________________

4.   Security
     Water agencies were required under Federal statute to complete a confidential vulnerability
assessment in 2002 or 2003. Agencies surveyed in 2005 had identified improvements and have either
implemented or begun implementing the suggested improvements. A number of agencies in Orange County
were seeking funds from Federal and State sources to help pay for additional security improvements. What
is the status of this issue with your agency?
               _____________________________________________________________________
               _____________________________________________________________________

5.   What are your top concerns at the present time?
             ______________________________________________________________________
             _____________________________________________________________________
             _____________________________________________________________________
             _____________________________________________________________________
             _____________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                       13
                                              Appendix A
                             Imported Water Supplies into Southern California
                      Directly Influences Water Supply Reliability in Orange County

Achieving an adequate, safe and affordable water supply is becoming increasingly challenging as we face
greater and greater uncertainties in meeting the water needs of the residents and businesses which also
helps to sustain our economy. Orange County historically has relied on a diverse portfolio of water
supplies—local ground and surface water, imported water, water use efficiency and recycling. Some of our
historical supplies have been reduced or face increasing challenges. Consequently, new and creative
sources are needed, such as ocean desalination

Orange County’s Water Supply Challenges

Supplies imported into southern California by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) and into Orange County by Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) provide
about 50% of Orange County’s water needs. Imported water is delivered from the Colorado River through
the Colorado River Aqueduct and from Northern California through the State Water Project. The
dependability of these supplies directly influences the reliability of water service to consumers in Orange
County. Orange County is continually improving its programs for developing, storing, treating and
delivering water to consumers. However, Orange County’s supply reliability is facing many challenges,
beyond our span of control, to imported water supplies.

The Colorado River system has suffered through nine years of drought and reservoir storage has declined to
about 50% of capacity. The Colorado River system is oversubscribed and California faces continuing
competition from neighboring states for the system’s resources. Metropolitan has been successful in
developing additional supplies through cooperative transfers and exchange agreements to the extent that in
2009, the Colorado River Aqueduct will carry about 92% of its capacity into Southern California. Into the
future, Metropolitan will have to remain especially vigilant as environmental issues, climate change and
competition threaten long-term reliability.

Supplies from the State Water Project face more uncertainty than the Colorado River supplies, primarily
due to challenges in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) system - insufficient upstream
storage, inadequate conveyance, wastewater discharges into the system, vulnerable Delta levees,
endangered species, invasive species, institutional complexity, regulatory and legal decision and others.
The Delta’s ecosystem is not sustainable in its current form. A time horizon of 15 to 20 years will be
needed to implement a “Delta fix” once one is agreed upon.

Recent legal decisions and federal regulations, known as biological opinions, put in place to protect
threatened fish species in the Delta have allocated more and more water to fish and other environmental
needs and have restricted the times of the year when water can be pumped to supply agricultural and urban
needs. The availability of imported water from the State Water Project has been reduced by about 40%
(about 800,000 acre-feet per year). This has reduced Orange County’s overall water supply by about 10%
or about 70,000 acre-feet per year.

Another new and not fully understood challenge is climate change. Our growing awareness of natural and
human causes of climate change has improved our understanding of the potential impacts on water supply –
but large uncertainty remains. Australia’s “drying” over the past three decades has brought this issue home
to its populace.

Metropolitan’s imported water supplies have never been so challenged. With increasing uncertainties in
the Delta and on the Colorado River, Metropolitan needs a diverse and adaptable water supply strategy.

Metropolitan is currently developing an Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) for 2009. The new IRP will
outline a strategy for water reliability through the year 2030. Metropolitan is working collaboratively with
water districts, local governments and other stakeholder groups to develop a strategy for reducing demand,
and increase local supplies in its service area. Metropolitan will look at diversifying its water resource
portfolio through enhanced conservation and local supplies such as groundwater, recycling and ocean water

                                                                                                            14
desalination. The IRP will address the need for endangered species protection and infrastructure
improvements in the Delta, as well as a wide range of considerations including climate change, energy use
and greenhouse gas emissions.

Orange County’s ability to maintaining a reliable source of high quality water for its residents will continue
to depend in part on the Metropolitan’s ability to receive imported supplies from outside of the region.
However, the Cities and Water Districts in Orange County are working closely with Metropolitan to
manage these uncertainties and develop a strategy to meet future demands.




                                                                                                          15
                                            Appendix B
                       Condition of the Orange County Groundwater Basin

In the 2005 report card, many survey respondents expressed concerns about the condition of the
groundwater basin. It was generally acknowledged that the Orange County Water District would need
to make significant investments in the seawater barrier, and groundwater recharge facilities. Concerns
were raised over lower water levels in the basin in recent years. OCWD has made significant progress
towards addressing these concerns with the completion of the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR)
System project, which included expanding and doubling the injection capacity of the seawater barrier.
Design of a GWR System expansion is already underway. OCWD also acted to reduce pumping from
the basin in recent years. More work will be needed in the basin over time. OCWD is now working
on a Long Term Facilities Plan to identify projects that will further improve basin yield. Most retail
agencies plan to replace older wells over time. Progress on this condition will be evaluated.

Additionally, the OCWD has implemented the following since the 2005 report:
• Eight new production wells have been constructed under a conjunctive use program with MWD
   that allows 66,000 acre-feet of imported water to be stored and recovered from the basin.

•   The new La Jolla recharge basin was constructed on brought on line in Anaheim which adds
    another 15 cfs of capacity to OCWD’s surface water recharge facilities.

•   The Irvine Desalter Project was completed and became operational to pump, treat, and beneficially
    use 8,000 afy of groundwater that was impacted by VOCs, salts, and nitrates.

•   The GWR System was completed and went on-line in January 2008, providing an additional
    supply of 72,000 acre-feet per year to the groundwater basin.




                                                                                                   16
                                          Appendix C
          Summary of Status of Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Efforts in Orange County 2009


1.   How good a job are we doing in OC regarding implementation of WUE?

     Orange County is a recognized leader in developing, implementing and evaluating Best Management
     Practices (BMP) based water use efficiency programs. Looking at OC as a whole, annual water
     savings from implementation of incentive programs has grown to more than 24,000 acre feet per year
     in 2009. Cumulatively since 1991, more than 153,000 acre feet have been saved.

     Of the 30 retail water agencies serving the residents and businesses of Orange County nineteen (63%)
     are signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding regarding 14 Best Management Practices
     (BMPs) for urban water use efficiency in California. By signing the MOU agencies voluntarily
     commit to a good faith effort to implement all cost-effective BMPs. Due to the regional
     implementation approach fostered by MWDOC ALL agencies are actively implementing ALL BMPs.
     The attached table provides a summary of BMP implementation by retail water agency. Despite
     compliance with the BMPs not being 100% across the entire county, the availability of MWDOC and
     Metropolitan programs to all residents has helped to give a unified message to the public and helps to
     makes up for less action by some retailers.

     The prevailing opinion is that OC is doing well and although the easiest areas of conservation have
     already been pursued, even more can be done. It was noted that some agencies are definitely very
     committed to water conservation while others have fewer resources and less political will than their
     neighboring agencies.

2.   Where are we lacking? How could we be doing a better job?

     If the water industry is not more proactive, where we are heading is towards roving dry-outs…….the
     water equivalent to brown-outs. Because the water industry has historically provided all the water that
     is needed, customers have never been placed in the position of being part of the solution – they have
     not had to worry about a tap not pouring water - water is out-of-sight-out-of-mind and under-valued. If
     customers do not perceive the scarcity of water, then the resource becomes under valued. The
     upcoming rationing will result in consumer’s better understanding that water is not an unlimited
     resource and we are going to have to pay more for it. We need to do a better job of communicating to
     consumers that water is a limited resource and that it is also the underpinning of our economy and our
     state and is of supreme value. People pay $2 for a bottle of water at a convenient store and think
     nothing of it. But if they had to rely on that source of water to water their lawns, they would be more
     careful about managing the irrigation to their yards, including being better able to understand their
     irrigation system and how it works.

     Agency staffing levels need to be increased. Agencies who have been active since the last drought
     have achieved most of the easy conservation. The area of focus for the next 10 years or more is that of
     conservation in the landscape. This requires more labor-intensive effort, and carries a heavy load of
     education with it. Staff time is required on many fronts including management, education, technical
     expertise, trouble shooting and time to work with customers. It is possible that Regional Landscape
     Auditors could be shared by several retailers with common programs. The California Landscape
     Contractors Association and the IA have caught on and are teaching water management – their efforts
     need to be supported and expanded. Formal education of landscape architects, horticulturists,
     irrigation specialists, and maintenance and water entity personnel are needed. In recent years,
     Metropolitan cut back funding in their landscape education programs. This stifled a trend that was
     gaining momentum. The landscape maintenance profession can be promoted to water managers
     through the use of performance-based contracts with water management included.

     Another area that is lacking is Home Water Surveys. This requires targeting the highest water users
     and conducting indoor and outdoor water use evaluations on 1.5% of the single- and multi-family
     customers per year. This is a tall order for most agencies with limited funding and staffing resources.

                                                                                                            17
     All agencies respond to high bill complaints however this does not meet the goals of the BMP. An
     alternate approach is for agencies to seek other implementation approaches that are at least as effective
     as to meet the goals of this BMP. This could include mail-out; phone or internet based home water
     surveys. These approaches could greatly reduce the cost and increase the implementation rate of
     Home Water Surveys.


     Local agencies can work better together to stretch limited resources (staffing, funding, and ideas).
     One good example is South Orange County where water conservation AND watershed/runoff staff
     from the Cities of Dana Point, San Clemente and San Juan, along with South Coast Water District
     meet monthly. This has resulted in better communication between the Cities/Agencies and
     disciplines/departments. There is a tremendous nexus between conservation and runoff
     reduction/watershed quality and we update each other on the numerous programs and planning
     regional events such as the H20 for HOAs Water Forum.

3.   What trends are on the horizon? Where are we headed with respect to WUE?
       o Rates - Trends include a move toward budget-based rates, all over southern California and
            increasing penalties for wasted water. The era of cheap water is ending – this is good. Tim
            Brick, Chairman of Metropolitan and several others commented at a recent workshop that
            “low water rates are nothing to be proud of, if you can’t manage your supply”. A good rate
            structure is one of the best tools in the conservation toolbox.

              Ultimately, water purveyors will establish water budget-based tiered rates which will make
              people prioritize how they use water. First, this will optimize how and where water is used on
              an account basis and secondly, this will get purveyors out of the draconian business of setting
              up increasingly severe restrictions (to say nothing of trying to enforce them) such as odd
              numbered houses allowed to water on Mondays, Wed., Fridays, etc. It’s better to set an
              appropriate allocation and have customers prioritize where and when to use the water they
              pay for. The rate system also needs to be monthly so customers can respond to information
              quickly and the bills must convey information that customers can act upon (e.g. pricing/use
              per tier, water use history, etc.).


         o    Ordinances – More year-round waste prevention ordinances, not just drought stages. These
              new ordinances carry more effective enforcement, and penalties.

         o    Runoff - The cooperation and conversation between conservation and runoff prevention
              programs has been growing stronger in recent years and this will increase. The Regional
              Boards are now considering irrigation runoff as a violation of the water quality regulations.

         o    Growth - Planning and development, whether locally or statewide, will include stronger
              linkages between water purveyors and water supplies. There are two bills currently being
              developed in the State Assembly to address offsets for new development. Future Urban
              Water Management Plans at all levels may have to be more realistic. Offsets seem like a
              wonderful solution to managing our resources – and much of the savings would be achieved
              through increased water use efficiency programs.

         o    Landscape – Trends may result in transforming California to look like California. Design,
              plants, hardware and maintenance practices are all “fertile ground” for WUE growth.

         o    Social marketing – Just like the era when we marketed “Don’t be a Litterbug” and changed
              the social consciousness about what is acceptable, water use is part of the environmental
              movement again. Peer pressure to be efficient, scorn for wasters, are growing trends. Many
              consumers remain entrenched in that they are entitled to as much water as they want,
              irrespective of whether they are being efficient.




                                                                                                            18
              Despite compliance with the BMPs not being 100% across the entire county, the availability
              of MWDOC and Metropolitan programs to all residents gives a unified message to the public
              here, and makes up for some retailers’ inaction. Despite compliance with the BMPs not being
              100% across the entire county, the availability of MWDOC and Metropolitan programs to all
              residents gives a unified message to the public here, and makes up for some retailers’
              inaction.

         o    Regional programs – Metropolitan & MWDOC are leaders with regional rebate programs
              and scientific studies underpinning the programs in Orange County. Local networks and
              alliances are also forming. Upcoming there may be an opportunity to write a regional version
              of AB 1881 and review plans for the region. These partnerships and alliances leverage the
              strengths of each agency to create programs and approaches that have not existed before.

         o    Statewide programs - On a larger scale, DWR is developing statewide resources including
              infrared aerial photos for determining vegetation types for water budgets, weather information
              by zip code via CIMIS interpolation, and broadcast weather information for smart irrigation
              controllers.

         o    CUWCC BMPs - are becoming a cornerstone and industry standard. They are included in
              UWMPs and for AB 1420 compliance. Conservation “certification” will likely broaden into
              other areas.

         o    Transformation of Programs - Since 1993, Orange County has focused its efforts on indoor
              residential plumbing fixture incentive programs including low-flow showerheads, ultra-low-
              flush toilets and high efficiency clothes washers. This focus has resulted in very high levels
              of saturation of water efficient plumbing fixtures. Over that past few years we are re-focusing
              our efforts on landscape irrigation and Commercial, Industrial and Institutional efficiency
              programs.

         o    Automation - Going further, Automatic Meter Reads will become more prevalent so
              customers and water managers know and can control when water is used and in what
              quantities.


4.   How will agencies be able to comply with the Governor’s request for 20% by 2020? What are
     the obstacles?

     This is an arbitrary number chosen for its catchy phrase, not studied and selected with any other basis.
     Overall, it is probably quite achievable in many service areas, however, there are difficulties similar to
     those of rationing. It depends on how you measure the compliance - the plan may reward previous
     wasters and punish efficient users. A water budget approach would be more scientific and account for
     variability in climate and land use. Water budgets would make it easier to engage the support of the
     public as it’s more likely to be perceived as fair.

     The legislation to facilitate implementation of the Governor’s call for a 20 percent reduction in urban
     water demand is currently being developed. As a result, the methodology to calculate the goal for each
     agency has not been established. It is anticipated that the legislation containing the methodology will
     be established this legislative cycle. In preparing for this eventuality, MWDOC has modeled past per
     capita water use establishing a baseline water use from 1997 through 2006. From that baseline, we
     established a 20 percent goal in 2020. We then added a trend line to see where agencies would be in
     2020. In most cases agencies are on track to achieve the 2020 goal so long as they at least maintain
     their current levels of implementation of efficiency programs. One uncertainty is that we are currently
     shifting our emphasis from indoor plumbing fixture based programs to outdoor landscape and
     Commercial-Industrial-Institutional based programs. We need to make sure that as the indoor
     programs ramp down that the landscape and commercial-industrial-institutional programs ramp up to
     achieve the same or greater water savings.


                                                                                                            19
     We truly believe this is very easily attainable and historic data suggests we’re either on track or nearly
     so of meeting this requirement should the trend continue. One caveat is that the easily-picked fruit of
     conservation (e.g. showerheads, aerators) has well been picked, cleaned, and juiced so we MUST make
     in-roads into the items listed above to continue on our 20% savings trend. One large obstacle is that
     there needs to be better coordination and communication between departments/agencies responsible
     for land-use planning and water purveyors. The planning department that is isolated from the water
     agency and that approves a turf median does nobody a favor. The Water Conservation in Landscaping
     Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies, not later January 1, 2010, to adopt an updated model
     ordinance or equivalent. Hopefully this will force agencies/departments to interface and consult with
     one another more often.

     Agencies also must appropriately and accurately cost their water such that it communicates a high
     value to the customer. The Costco method of water pricing, where the average cost of a unit of water
     decreases as the volume consumed increases, cannot be tolerated or continued if we are to realize 20%
     by 2020. Some form of steep tiered rate pricing is the answer, with budget-based rates for different
     customer classifications the best answer. Additionally, while we know water districts would never
     want to give away their stable property tax revenues, having these deflate the perceived cost/value of
     water to the consumer as they really only act on their monthly water bill.

5.   What could MWD do better?

     In recent years, the Metropolitan programs have greatly assisted the regional and local entities in
     implementing water use efficiency measures. Several comments were collected on this question:
        The call for more funding was the number one comment. Metropolitan has increased the funding to
        considerable levels in recent times and this has had a major impact on the success of programs. One
        area where they have cut back is in the CA Friendly Landscape training classes – this should be
        restored.
        Keep programs running and don’t flip flop in the administration of the programs. Recently, major
        changes in the programs were made without any notice.
        With two region-wide programs now being implemented, the Save Water Save a Buck and So Cal
        Water Smart Programs, the draw on Metropolitan funding has exceeded the available budget. For
        FY 08-09 Metropolitan’s $40 million budget was spent by the end of March leaving the final three
        months to be funded out of next years budget. Balancing the impacts of the current economy with
        the anticipated reduction in revenue due to the current water supply situation Metropolitan set next
        years budget at $19.1 million. It is anticipated that this budget will be exhausted early in the fiscal
        year. Metropolitan should develop a more realistic conservation credits program budget to avoid
        any lapses in program implementation and a steadier funding stream to agency implemented
        programs.

       Significant in-roads have been made in terms of capturing the market, retailer awareness, vendor
       partnerships, professional contractor endorsement and adoption, etc. with regards to MET’s rebates
       programs. Many landscape contractors had begun to make business model switches to incorporate
       the smartimer and rotating nozzle rebates in with their bids to their clients (both commercial and
       residential). When rebate programs change (and do so quickly) contractor’s reputations with their
       clients suffer when rebate checks never materialize, arrive very late, or are cut at an unexpectedly
       lower level. Now with this reservation system, their business model is severely compromised.
       Such a system favors Do-it-Yourself irrigation/landscape retrofits versus contractor retrofits.
       MET should also look to bring in professionals in the field before making big programmatic
       adjustments or changes. Yes, they consult with us (their member agencies and other water retailers)
       who are closer to the field than MET staff is, however, the contractors/vendors/engineers in the field
       know a great deal that we’re currently not capturing. Bring in the contractors and retailers who want
       to make water savings a cornerstone of their business model for focus group surveys and Q&A’s.
       They’ll provide crucial insight into how to optimize spending public dollars to bring about water
       savings.
       MET also needs to cost out its water better such that a negative reinforcement of rate increases
       occur when conservation affects MET water sales. It is understood that there are a host of factors
       affecting MET rates but it does us and MET no long-term good when the response of MET policy-

                                                                                                           20
       makers after looking at 5-year supply/demand/revenue forecasts is to cut the MET conservation and
       outreach budget.
       MWD appears to be getting away from co-funding, and heading toward ordinances and legislative
       approaches, as well as lowering rebate amounts. Those approaches will not necessarily further
       behavioral shifts and will slow down conservation - customers will only upgrade when required to
       do so. Met's regional rebate programs are very effective mechanisms, but are very rigid with
       specific devices. More flexibility for agencies to develop programs and access Met funding would
       be helpful. Improved information and notification to agencies - Met makes program changes
       without enough notice to retail agencies - creating customer service problems.
       MWD could help with technical support for the Industrial Process Improvement and Landscape
       Improvement Program - consultants could be on retainer so that agencies have resources for
       technical assistance. One idea would be to have regional technical account reps - kind of like the
       energy utilities that have industry specific expertise. Local agencies could possibly co-fund.
       Improved partnerships with energy and other agencies to leverage resources and provided integrated
       efficiency packages would also be helpful.

6.   What are you lacking to do your jobs?

     The biggest challenges are staffing and stable sources of funding. Metropolitan has pumped out
     enormous amounts of funding and so have BUREC and DWR. However, it is only a small portion of
     what is needed. More resources are needed for a combination of conservation and outreach budgets to
     keep the focus on the importance of using water wisely. Water entities must continue to look for
     partnerships and synergies with similar agencies, such as OC Watersheds, the NRCS, and local non-
     profit groups such as Master Gardeners and environmental groups. A holistic strategy of sustainability
     will serve us all better than having each resource sector fight for the focus and attention of
     city/county/state governments and customer consciousness.

     Another challenge is “focus” to get the attention of consumers on water management. The upcoming
     water shortage allocations should increase the focus on resource development and conservation.
     Budget based tiered rates can also promote conservation in a way where water entity staff is not tasked
     with being “water cops”, but instead are presented with incentives (and hopefully resources) to better
     manage their water use.


7.   Additional Thoughts.

     If it were not for Metropolitan’s and MWDOC’s regional programs and staff, the local agencies would
     have even more challenges in being successful at achieving savings and promoting programs. A big
     shift in conservation is coming and collectively, all involved will need to be smarter and more
     technical and resource savvy. Periodic drought response is not going to address the long-term
     pressures on the water system and water supplies. Long term planning, and not short term responses is
     what is needed.




                                                                                                         21

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:97
posted:11/7/2011
language:English
pages:170