Earthquake Readiness of Public Water Agencies in Southern California
A Project
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Masters
In
Public Administration
By
Maroun El-Hage
2017
SIGNATURE PAGE
PROJECT: EARTHQUAKE READINESS OF PUBLIC WATER AGENCIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AUTHOR: Maroun El-Hage
DATE SUBMITTED: Fall 2017
Political Science Department
Dr. Renford Reese ______Project Committee Chair Public Administration
Dr. Jing Wang ______Public Administration
Dr. Mohsen Moayedi ______Public Administration
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I dedicate this research project to my loving family. Without their love and faith in me, I
would not have achieved this important milestone. I am very thankful to Dr. Reese, Dr.
Wang and Dr. Moayedi for their support, encouragement, inspiration, and guidance
throughout my educational journey at Cal Poly Pomona, and through the process of
researching and writing this study. While my heart is filled with gratitude, my mind is filled
with enlightenment and empowerment. I am honored to have worked under their guidance
and leadership.
iii ABSTRACT
The latest scientific research predicts a large earthquake that will probably rock southern
California within the next 30 years. The developed environment, including major lifeline- facilities, such as water, power, telecommunications, railways, highways & bridges, and
gas, are at risk of being severely damaged, possibly causing a chain-reaction of devastation
and hardship, impacting the public’s health, safety and economic welfare. In the face of a larger question of whether southern California will survive the aftermath of this predicted big earthquake, this study focuses on one critical life-line, namely the public water system.
The author aims to increase awareness and understating of how this critical resource is managed, the risks facing it, and to estimate the level of readiness and resiliency this water system is in, prior to the occurrence of, as well as the level of preparedness to respond to, this predicted large earthquake event. This study focuses on two key elements in hazard-
mitigation, namely, Mitigation and Preparation, which are important functions to be
undertaken before an earthquake occurs, to limit the hazardous effects of such an event.
Data collected from 26 public water agencies are presented in a tabulated manner, utilizing
a scoring system that is tailored to estimate the agencies’ individual and collective
readiness index. The study concludes with observations on possible obstacles facing public
water agencies to achieve resiliency, and offers recommendations for future actions and
research to advance the resiliency of the water system in southern California.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIGNATURE PAGE ….………….………………………………….……………………ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS….……………………………………………….…………..iii ABSTRACT .……………………………………………………………………………..iv LIST OF TABLES …………………….…………………………………………….….viii LIST OF FIGURES ..…………………………………………………………………….ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……...……………...... ………………………...………1 Overview ...... …………………………………………………...…...………...... 1 Organizational Structure of the Water Service Area ………………………………3 Anatomy of a Water System …………………………………………………….…..3 1- Water Supply ..………………………………………...…………………….4 2- Conveyance Facilities ……………………………………..………………..5 3- Treatment Facilities …………………………………………..…………….5 4- Distribution Facilities ..…………………………………………..…………5 5- Consumption …………………………………………………………..……6 Risk to Various Components of the Water System ………………………………….6 Predicted Earthquake, The Big One ………………………………………………..7 Problem Statement ...……….…….……………………………………………………..8 Purpose Statement …….…….…….……………………………………………...……10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .……………………………………………...... 11 Emergency Management Approach ………...……………...…….……………...….11 The Framework ...….....………………………..………………………………...... 11 1- Mitigation ....…………....…………………………………..…………...…11 2- Preparation ..………………………………………………………………12 3- Response …………………………………………………………………..12 4- Recovery …………………………………………………………………..12 Case Study …………………………………………………………………………….12 The 1994 Northridge Earthquake ……………………….………………………...12 1- Emergency Management .……………………..………………………....…13 2- Lessons Learned, Mitigation and Preparation Summary ……………..……17
v Regulatory Environment ….……………………………………………………...……20 Notable Laws ..…………………………………………………………….……….21 1- California Water Plan (1959). .…………………………………………….21 2- California Environmental Quality Act (1970)...……………………………21 3- Subdivision Map Act (1979) ..……………………………………………...21 4- Urban Water Management Planning Act (1983) .…………………………21 5- Ground Water Management Act (1992) .………………………………….22 6- Water Supply Planning (1995) .………………………………………..….22 7- Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reductions (2009) .……………..…..22 8- Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (2014) .……………………...22 Contemporary Risks, Challenges and Mitigation .…………………………………….23 Cyclical Droughts .……………………………………………………………...…23 Seismic Activity .………………………………………………………………...…23 Design and Construction Standards .…………………………………….…………….26 Emergency Management and Preparedness Plans .…………………………………....26 Earthquake Prediction ……………………………………………………..…………..27 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ..….……………………….……...... 29 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS …………………………………...…………….……………33 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………..………37 References ……………………………………………………………………………….42 APPENDIX A: Significant Earthquakes in California (between 1700 and 2003) ...... 52 APPENDIX B: Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income……54
APPENDIX C: Agency-Readiness Categories and Criteria Ratings ...……………….…62
APPENDIX D: Main Water Supplies Imported Into Southern California ……………...63
APPENDIX E: Water Conservation Reports Summary ……………………………...…64
APPENDIX F: Regulated (Private) Water Companies in California ………………..…65
APPENDIX G: UCERF13 Earthquake Simulation …………………………………….69
APPENDIX H: Collected Data for Criteria 1, Water Supply ………………………….. 73 APPENDIX I: Collected Data for Criteria 2, Water Shortage …………………………. 74
vi APPENDIX J: Collected Data for Criteria 3, Hazards Assessment ….....………………. 75 APPENDIX K: Collected Data for Criteria 4, Emergency Management (or Response) Plan ……….…………………………………………………………..…...…………..76 APPENDIX L: Criteria Scoring & Calculations, Criteria 1: Water Supply Reliability & Redundancy ..………….……………………………………………..…………77 APPENDIX M: Criteria Scoring & Calculations, Criteria 2: Water Shortage Contingency Plans …….……………………………………………………………………….78 APPENDIX N: Criteria Scoring & Calculations, Criteria 3: Hazard/Risk Assessment & Engineering Standards ….………….……………………………………….…79 APPENDIX O: Criteria Scoring & Calculations, Criteria 4: Criteria: Emergency Management Plan (EMP) ………………….……………………………………………80
vii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Member-Agencies and Population Served .…...……………………………….…2
Table 2 Earthquake Events Prediction ..……..……………...………………………...... 8
Table 3 Poverty Scale in Southern California Communities .……...……………………36
Table 4 Combined Readiness Index (all Agencies) ……………………………………..34
Table 5 Water Conservation Results ………………………………………………….…36
Table 6 Summary of Regulated (Private) Water Companies in California ……………..41
Table 7 Example of Scoring Calculations ………………………………………………32
Table 8 Readiness Index Scale ………………………………………………………….32
viii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Organizational Structure of Water Service Area ....……………………...……...3
Figure 2 Anatomy of a Water System …………...... 4
Figure 3 Agency Readiness Index …....…………………………………………………35
ix CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview
In 1994, the earth shook under the California State University, Northridge campus, causing fear, damage, and tragic loss of life. The tremors from the Northridge earthquake affected the metropolitan communities of the greater Los Angeles area, along with southern
California communities, then inhabited by approximately 17 million people (Seismic
Safety Commission Report, 1995).
Today, almost 24 years after this event, with an estimated population of 21 million people (Table 1, page 2), southern California is susceptible to experience more powerful earthquakes from regional fault lines, such as the Southern San Andreas, Elsinore, and San
Jacinto faults, with predicted devastating effects (USGS UCERF3, 2013). This study sheds light on southern California’s water system to evaluate the state of readiness of public water agencies in the face of such a large seismic event, and identifies opportunities to enhance our communities’ mitigation and preparedness efforts, drawing from lessons learned in the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
In the aftermath of an earthquake, many life-line facilities and services, such as power, transportation, and communication, are critical for the continued functioning and welfare of the affected communities, water facilities being the chief concern. Therefore, to evaluate the state of readiness of southern California, this study examines the public water system in its organizational and operational context, along with the historical and predicted challenges facing it.
1 Table 1
2015 Population # of Communities Agency # Agency Name Served (1) Served (million)
0 The Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal. 250 20.800
1 Calleguas MWD 14 0.833
2 Central Basin MWD 31 1.555
3 City of Anaheim 1 0.358
4 City of Beverly Hills 1 0.035
5 City of Burbank 1 0.104
6 City of Compton 1 0.098
7 City of Fullerton 1 0.141
8 City of Glendale 1 0.201
9 City of Long Beach 1 0.470
10 City of Los Angeles 1 3.976
11 City of Pasadena 1 0.142
12 City of San Fernando 1 0.025
13 City of San Marino 1 0.013
14 City of Santa Ana 1 0.334
15 City of Santa Monica 1 0.925
16 City of Torrance 1 0.147
17 Eastern MWD 20 0.823
18 Foothill MWD 4 0.105
19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 7 0.808
20 Las Virgenes MWD 9 0.302
21 Municipal Water District of Orange County 38 3.131
22 San Diego County Water Authority 32 2.935
23 Three Valleys MWD 15 0.719
24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 20 0.675
25 West Basin MWD 31 1.078
26 Western MWD 15 0.866
Totals = 250 20.80
(1) Sources: http://www.mwdh2o.com; https://www.california-demographics.com; https://www.point2homes.com; & http://www.city-data.com Member-Agencies, and Population Served - Limitation: This study does not include about 150 retail sub-agencies which are supplied wholesale water by the 26 member-agencies of MET -
2 Organizational Structure of The Water Service Area: Water is brought from source to tap in a layered structure (Figure 1, page 3): Southern California communities, in general, receive their main water supplies primarily from local retail water agencies. In turn, the retail agencies receive their water supplies through regional wholesale water agencies, namely, the 26 member-agencies (Table 1, page 2) of The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (Metropolitan Water District Act, 1928) commonly referred to as MET, which provides regional water governance, and provides the main supply of imported water (Appendix D) to the 26- member agencies, collectively serving about 21 million people in southern California (Table 1, page 2).
n Water District of Southern Califo rnia: Impo11s water and conveys it to member agencies
26-Member Agencies: Treat and convey water to Retail agencies and Distribute water to some Communi ties
Retail Water Agencies: Distribute water to Communities
Water Customers (Approximately 250 Southern California Communities)
Figure 1 Organizational Structure of Water Service Area
Anatomy of a Water System: A typical water system is composed of various interconnected components (Figure 2, page 4). Starting with a certain source, water is either pumped or conveyed by gravity in channels, pipes, and tunnels, sometimes for large
3 distances, traveling hundreds of miles before reaching treatment and distribution facilities.
Once the water is brought into southern California’s communities, it is filtered and treated in special facilities (referred to as Water Treatment Plants) to meet regulatory standards for safe drinking water, and then pumped for delivery to customers.
SUPPLY -
-CONVEANCE FACILITIES-
-TREATMENT FACILITIES-
- DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES -
- CONSUMPTION -
Figure 2 Anatomy of A water System
Often, the required water volume necessary to serve the daily demands of local
communities is pumped and stored in water storage tanks within the communities being
served. Daily demands draw down water from the local storage tanks throughout the day
while the water agency replenishes this water by refilling these tanks, typically once a day.
To illustrate the complexity of a water system, a simplified list of components and key
functions, related to Figure 2, are listed below:
1- Water Supply:
a. Mostly by MET
b. Includes:
1) Imported water from the Colorado River Aqueduct (MET)
2) Imported water from the California State Water Project (MET)
4 3) Imported water from the Owens Valley (Los Angeles DWP)
4) Imported water from the Imperial Valley Irrigation District (San Diego
Water Authority)
5) Ocean Water desalination (San Diego County Water Authority)
6) Local groundwater wells (fresh water and desalination)
7) Man-made lakes (MET)
8) Recycled water (reduces dependence on other sources).
2- Conveyance Facilities:
a. Main role: MET
b. Include:
1) Pump Systems
2) Canals/Channels
3) Tunnels
4) Lakes and hydro-electric generating stations
3- Treatment Facilities:
a. Main role: Member-Agencies
b. Include:
1) Water Filtration, Treatment & Pumping facilities
2) Reverse osmosis filtration systems coupled with Energy Plants
3) Large-diameter pipes
4- Distribution Facilities:
a. Main role: Member-Agencies and Sub-Agencies
b. Include:
5 1) Pumping facilities
2) Storage tanks
3) Smaller-diameter pipe systems, reaching most of the developed
environment
4) Water service meters
5- Consumption:
a. Main role: customers and other uses
b. Include:
1) Homes and other residential facilities
2) Hotels, convention centers, and Recreation facilities (water parks)
3) Commercial, industrial and manufacturing facilities
4) Schools and colleges
5) Hospitals and dialysis centers
6) Firefighting personnel and equipment
7) Groundwater replenishment
8) Conveyance of waste-water to sewer collection and treatment facilities,
for recycling and re-use for irrigation and agriculture
Risk to Various Components of the Water System: The main components of a typical water system can be categorized in a chronological sequence (Figure 2, page 4) as water travels from source to tap, as follows: Source Water, Conveyance Facilities,
Treatment Facilities, Distribution Pipes, Booster Pump Stations, and Storage Tanks. Each of these components are at risk for experiencing a disruption of water service in the
6 aftermath of a large earthquake (Laucelli & Orazio, 2015), potentially impacting the
various customers, as briefly listed before in this study. For example, the Source Water may be disrupted due to damage to an aqueduct, affecting and limiting the proper functioning of all downstream facilities, which may or may not be damaged, ultimately limiting water delivery to customers. Conversely, if an earthquake impacted neither the
Source Water nor the Treatment Facilities, yet local distribution pipes were severely damaged due to seismic shaking, then water delivery will be severely affected in such impacted areas. Therefore, this study explores potential risks and readiness measures affecting key components of the water system, all of which are needed to provide customers with safe drinking water.
Predicted Earthquake, The Big One: The scientific community predicted a major
earthquake will occur in our lifetime in southern California (USGS: UCERF3, 2013), with
potential devastating effects. This threat presents challenges on multiple fronts, given the
unpredictability of such an event, the sudden and short lead time to react in a timely
manner, with limited resources, and a steadily increasing population. Contrary to past
predictions of known individual fault lines, the latest research from USGS identifies the
potential for a change in earthquake probability and magnitude, based on considering the
possibility of known and unknown multi-fault ruptures occurring at the same time (Table
2, page 8).
Table 2 shows a base earthquake event with a magnitude of 6.7, in order to compare
it to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, which had the same 6.7 magnitude. Due to the nature
of the logarithmic scale, a 7.0 magnitude releases 2.8 times more energy than a 6.7
7 magnitude, and a 7.5 magnitude releases 5.6 times more energy than a 7.0 magnitude
(USGS, “How Much Bigger Calculator”, 2017). It is clear from the USGS research and ensuing predictions that a 7.5 magnitude earthquake, with a probability of 36%, is a likely event to occur in our lifetimes, which poses a serious risk to southern California communities in general, and to its water system in particular.
Table 2 Likelihood of Earthquake Events in the Southern California Region
Magnitude 30-year likelihood (Greater than or equal to) of one or more event
6.7 93%
7.0 75%
7.5 36%
8.0 7%
Source: USGS: UCERF3 (2013)
Earthquake Events Prediction
Problem Statement
California is known as “Earthquake Country”. Indeed, there are several recorded earthquakes of significant magnitudes that have struck California over the last three hundred years (Appendix A), some with devastating effects. In recent decades, governmental agencies, academic institutions, and professional communities, endeavored to derive and apply lessons learned from destructive earthquakes, such as occurred in the
8 Northridge, Loma Prieta, Whittier, and Sylmar/San Fernando Earthquakes. In addition, the scientific community is predicting more earthquakes will probably occur in the next 30 years, with the potential of causing widespread damage to the developed environment
(USGS UCERF3, 2013). Considering that the current population of southern California is projected to grow from 21 to 36 million by 2036 (First Tuesday Journal, 2016), the continued need to supply this metropolitan area with a reliable supply and distribution of water, during and after an earthquake, is crucial for the health, safety and welfare of this population.
The availability of water is critical after an earthquake event to allow emergency personnel to fight fires, to permit medical facilities to continue to function without interruption in such a time of need, and to allow the continued functioning of the rest of the developed environment such as businesses, schools/colleges, and manufacturing enterprises. An interruption of water deliveries, and if for a long period of time, will likely disrupt the supply-chain of various processes and services, potentially causing a ripple effect by impacting and limiting several functions that rely on potable water consumption on a daily basis. Furthermore, if the water supply and the associated infrastructure are so damaged that it might take at least six months to repair and restore normal service, the ensuing shortages could lead to perturbations in the trade network of various life-line
infrastructure, causing several societal problems such as migrations of the affected
population, outbreak of diseases, and the likely slowdown of trade and economic output.
Such outcomes bring to mind declining ancient civilizations in large part due the
deterioration and eventual collapse of its lifeline water infrastructure and aqueducts, such
as ancient Rome (Dermody, 2014).
9 Purpose Statement
The occurrence of a large earthquake brings with it a major factor of un- predictability of the crisis and ensuing demands, the sudden and short lead-time to respond, and the need for timely delivery of services, likely with limited resources, for all involved public agencies and private entities. For these reasons, and because the water system is such an important life-line, this study explores the state of readiness of southern California public water agencies in the face of a large earthquake predicted over the next 30 years, and to identify a readiness index by evaluating some key factors in their preparations.
Therefore, the purpose of this study and evaluation is to understand how resilient is the water system in southern California communities, what are the historical and predicted challenges facing it, and what measures can be taken to strengthen this system to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of a steadily growing population. To that end, this study focuses on two key elements in hazard-mitigation, namely, Mitigation and Preparation, which are important functions to be undertaken before an earthquake occurs, to limit the hazardous effects of such an event, and to allow the expeditious response and recovery from such an event, with as little damage as possible.
10 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
To undertake this study, and prior to selecting the research criteria, a review and
understanding of some key factors is offered in this chapter, namely: The frame work of
the emergency management approach, a review of the 1994 Northridge earthquake as a
case-study (including examples of Caltrans bridge & hospitals seismic retrofit programs), the regulatory environment of public water agencies, the historical and future risks to the water system (i.e. earthquakes and drought), the role of MET (supply import, risk
mitigation, and emergency water shortage plans), examples of leading agencies in
mitigation measures (Diamond Valley Lake by MET, pipe retrofit by City of Los Angeles,
and risk assessment and mitigation by San Diego County Water Authority), available
solutions for pipeline risk mitigation by Kubota, the role of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES), National
Incident Management System (NIMS), and Standardized Emergency Management System
(SEMS).
Emergency Management Approach
The Framework: While the best-managed crisis is one that never occurred, the next best thing is to adopt an effective emergency management approach, which consists of four major cyclical phases, namely (Fink, 1986):
1- Mitigation: Also known as the Crisis Resolution Stage, consists of applying
lessons learned from prior events, to prepare for the next crisis. This includes the
11 preparation of action plans and delegating the requisite authority to key players in
order to manage a specific or multitude of crisis. In addition, this phase includes
mitigation measures taken to prevent or lessen the impact from a known crisis, such
as constructing earthquake-resistant structures to resist predicted earthquake
magnitudes.
2- Preparation: Also known as the Prodromal Crisis Stage, consists of learning
what to do, if and when a crisis occurs, to minimize the damage and ensure the
existential sustainability of the impacted organization or community.
3- Response: Also known as the Acute Crisis Stage, consists of timely decision-
making and actions taken to prevent further damage from occurring, and to protect
the impacted organization and the public.
4- Recovery: Also known as the Chronic Crisis Stage, consists of actions taken
following a crisis, which permits those affected to return to a normal life.
Case Study
The 1994 Northridge Earthquake: On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the 17th of
January 1994, a never known before blind-thrust fault 11 miles under Reseda, ruptured and
caused the earthquake about 4:31 AM, releasing its energy for about nine seconds, with a
magnitude of 6.7 on the Modified-Mercali scale, causing large devastation mainly in the
San Fernando Valley (Seismic Safety Commission Report, 1995).
The Northridge earthquake was the most destructive since the 1906 San Francisco
earthquake: 57 people died as a result of the earthquake, however, most deaths resulted from heart attacks. Nearly 11,000 were injured. Seven freeway bridges collapsed, while
12 250 other bridges were damaged. Building damage included 6,000 commercial and
industrial buildings, and 4,000 municipal, schools, and medical facilities. The greatest
damage occurred in wood-framed structures, causing damage to about 450,000 residential
units, and the collapse or severe damage to 49,000 residential units. The most dramatic failures occurred in older structures, such as unreinforced masonry buildings, and a Kaiser
Hospital building. In addition, several apartment buildings with soft-stories collapsed, while in modern high-rise buildings, welded steel connections failed un-expectedly.
Damage was estimated at $40 billion, with $25.7 billion in direct losses and $14.3 billion
in secondary economic impacts. Government aid was estimated at $11 billion (PPIC
“Northridge Earthquake”, 2006).
1- Emergency Management: The following paragraphs examine key events related
to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, either before or after the earthquake occurred, in the
context of each of the emergency management phases noted above.
a- Mitigation: While today’s southern California’s population is estimated at 21
million, it is projected to grow to 26 million by the year 2036 (First Tuesday
Journal, 2016). This represents a significantly higher risk in the event of a large
and predicted earthquake, potentially impacting more people over time. Therefore,
adequate and sustained mitigation measures are a must to be undertaken by public
and private organizations. To that end, in the aftermath of the Northridge
earthquake, some of the mitigation measures in place today stem from lessons
learned about the failure of welded connections in steel high-rise buildings, at the
time believed to be state-of-the-art in earthquake construction, which was a surprise
13 to the building community (EERI, 2004). Studies determined why failures occurred in connections between beams and columns and improvements were added to state building codes (EERI, 2004). Fires were not a major problem in this event, and therefore no significant lessons were derived. Concrete bridges built before the mid-1970s (not yet addressed by Caltrans’ retrofitting program) suffered major damage and collapse, with a few exceptions, bridges built or retrofitted since then performed well (Seismic Safety Commission Report, 1995). Since 1995, the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has embarked on a publicly funded program (largely through Bond measures approved by the voters) to retrofit vulnerable bridges across the state, while the Office of the Statewide Health
Planning and Development (OSHPD) developed new requirements to seismically retrofit existing hospital structures with known deficiencies, and to construct new ones with increased measures to mitigate the effects of earthquakes. b- Preparation: Lessons learned from prior incidents and crises resulted in creating preparedness measures and plans by various state agencies. One major such plan is the creation of the SEMS by the State of California Office of
Emergency Management, following the 1993 Oakland fires, where several responding agencies failed to communicate and respond effectively, due to incompatible equipment and inadequate communications and coordination (SEMS,
1993). SEMS was put into effect just in time before the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
In addition, the science, engineering, and building industries have learned lessons from past events, notably: The 1906 San Francisco earthquake, 1933 Long
14 Beach earthquake, the 1971 Sylmar/San Fernando earthquake, the 1983 Coalinga
earthquake, the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, and the 1992 Landers and Ferndale earthquake (Seismic Safety
Commission, 2012). In 1986, such lessons prompted the State of California,
through the Seismic Safety Commission, to create a five-year plan known as the
California Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Seismic Safety Commission,
Government Code, 1986). In addition, research in the performance of the developed
environment helped improve the understanding of cause and effect in earthquakes,
such as the research conducted by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
(EERI), whose mission is noted as follows: “…to reduce earthquake risk by (1)
advancing the science and practice of earthquake engineering, (2) improving
understanding of the impact of earthquakes on the physical, social, economic,
political, and cultural environment, and (3) advocating comprehensive and
realistic measures for reducing the harmful effects of earthquakes” (EERI, 2004).
Some of the notable lessons learned from the Loma Prieta earthquake include the understanding that seismic shaking is amplified in soil-fill areas, which become saturated with water, causing liquefaction and damage to (and disruption of) underground-utilities, with the ensuing effect of not being able to fight fires.
Also, concrete column failures in double-deck bridges caused the collapse of some of these types of bridges (USGS Circular 1045, 1989). In the case of the Sylmar/San
Fernando earthquake, key lessons learned include the need to upgrade seismic provisions in the design and construction of the developed environment, the
15 availability of emergency power, and rapid response of emergency services personnel (Sylmar/San Fernando Earthquake, Lessons Learned, 1971).
Based on this and other similar research, seismic safety provisions were periodically introduced in the California Building Codes (CBC), effectively
creating legal requirements for design and construction of the developed
environment, in order to limit the damage sustained from prescribed minimum
seismic loads.
c- Response: In general, local, state, and federal emergency responses were swift
and effective, bringing timely relief to those affected by this incident. However, in
the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake, communication and telephone systems
were affected due to a combination of reasons such as system overload, equipment
damage, and lack of emergency power. Various emergency response units (such as
firefighters, police, and para-medical) had difficulty communicating. Other utilities
also suffered failures. Electricity was out for up to three days in some areas, while
power was restored to most customers within 24 hours. Most of the natural-gas and
water distribution lines that broke were old pipes, which were being replaced at the
time under a replacement program, however in some hard-hit areas, water had to
be trucked for several weeks (Seismic Safety Commission Report, 1995).
d- Recovery: During the recovery phase, State and Federal agencies received
681,000 applications from victims, and $11 billion in federal assistance was
provided. While charitable organizations were a key element in funding and
supporting the recovery efforts, the City of Los Angeles provided $321 million in
disaster relief aid, and coordinated the management and distribution of $4.7 billion
16 in aid by local government agencies. City of LA coordination included the offices
of Small Business Administration (SBA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
& FEMA (Seismic Safety Commission Report, 1995).
2- Lessons Learned, Mitigation and Preparation Summary: The Northridge
earthquake demonstrated that, although California’s current building codes and practices
are generally adequate to protect lives, they are not intended to protect Californians from
the economic disaster that a major earthquake would cause. While the loss of life in the
Northridge earthquake was low compared to similar earthquakes, the unprecedented
economic (direct and secondary) losses represent a warning sign to Californians to make
and sustain major efforts to reduce the earthquake damage vulnerability of the developed
environment, on private as well as on public property. While the CBC have evolved since
the 1971 Sylmar/San Fernando earthquake, there are many opportunities for improvement
that should be made to ensure that the welfare of California’s citizens and economy are
protected in the aftermath of a predicted large earthquake event in an urban environment
(Seismic Safety Commission Report, 1995).
In anticipation of the Big One, earthquake standards have been tightened, and many
buildings have been retrofitted (including hospitals, high rise steel structures, un-reinforced masonry structures, and freeway bridges). This effort was started by Governor Pete Wilson in 1994, which culminated in the creation of legal mandates to reduce earthquake risk in
California, effectively making seismic safety a priority for the State of California and for
local governments. Some notable efforts are listed below:
a- Recommendations by the California Seismic Safety Commission 1995 report:
17 1) Making seismic safety a priority (progress by every department, board and
commission)
2) Improving the quality of construction (engineering licensing, design, plan
check, construction, and inspection)
3) Reducing the risk from seismically vulnerable structures (retrofit the
California State University and University of California facilities;
mandatory mitigation programs; evaluate public schools built before 1976;
1996 bond to fund the retrofit of seismically vulnerable state-owned
buildings and local government essential services buildings)
4) Improving the performance of lifelines (i.e. Caltrans retrofit priorities;
research and instrumentation of bridges; PUC role in risk-reduction in
railroads, electric & gas utilities; water districts to identify and address
seismic vulnerabilities and adopt risk-mitigation programs for piping
systems, tanks, and other components, and adopt long-term seismic risk-
mitigation efforts; Seismic re-evaluation of existing dams; provide back-up
power in essential services buildings)
5) Defining acceptable risk (i.e. estimate the economic impact of likely
earthquake events; recommend acceptable levels of risk and performance
objectives; California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) to
implement these performance objectives)
6) Providing incentives for risk reduction (ad hoc task force of agencies and
people who can provide incentives)
18 7) Improving the use of earth science knowledge to reduce risk (California
Geological Survey to map areas with active buried faults; describe the
associated level of hazards; Uniform Building Code (UBC) to enforce, as a
minimum, grading provisions and engineered fills; require continuing
education for geologists, geophysicists, engineering geologists, and
geotechnical engineers, as part of the license renewal process)
8) Improving the use of land use planning to reduce seismic risk (i.e. address
acutely hazardous materials and their relation to seismic hazards; California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process to include review of seismic
hazards and risk-mitigation measures; amend general plan laws to address
seismic vulnerabilities; amend the dam inundation mapping)
9) Improving the building code development process (ensure that building
codes meet the state’s acceptable levels of seismic risk and ensure the
adequacy of seismic safety requirements)
10) Supporting focused research (create and fund state-level Center for
Earthquake Risk Reduction to implement seismic safety research program)
11) Improving state seismic programs (each state agency to report to the
governor on how seismic safety will be afforded priority attention and
incorporate independent peer review on all seismic matters). b- City of Los Angeles Resiliency By Design initiative: In 2015, the City of Los
Angeles adopted a comprehensive new document, titled “Resilience by Design”, and intended to set new guidelines to bolster the city’s mitigation measures and preparedness to curb the negative societal and economic effects in the aftermath of
19 a large and predicted earthquake in southern California. The following are the key-
elements:
1) Focus on retrofitting old buildings
2) Create back-to-business programs
3) Provide alternative water delivery systems and fortify the existing ones
4) Resilient water piping system (state-wide Bond measures)
5) Enhance reliable communications and power
6) Continued research and predictive modeling
c- Federal and State Collaboration: Last but not least, California can now benefit
from a more developed federal assistance program through the Homeland Security
Department and FEMA’s NEMS program. NEMS was adopted in the aftermath of
September 2001 terrorist attacks on our nation. NEMS and SEMS are now both
developed to facilitate an effective multi-agency coordination in crisis-response
and recovery efforts.
d- MET Mitigation Measures: MET identified 71 improvement projects, mainly
focused on communication and coordination procedures and a business resumption
plan, while drawing lessons learned from the 1994 Northridge earthquake (MET
web archives).
Regulatory Environment
Public agencies, such as cities, counties and special districts, are granted special authorities and policing powers by the State of California to manage the governance of
20 local communities. As such, water agencies derive their authority from the State of
California’s Municipal Water District Law of 1911 (Water Code).
Notable Laws: In addition, the state of California’s legislature has adopted several laws over the years to help manage and conserve the state’s water and other resources
(Firmacion & Raskin, 2015). Some of the notable laws are listed below which apply to both land and water agencies:
1- California Water Plan (1959), Water Code 10004-10013: Updated every five
years, its emphasis is on developing strategies relating to developing and using
water resources and facilities considering current and future land use.
2- CEQA, (1970): Helps to identify environmental impacts from proposed
projects, along with mitigation factors or alternatives to minimize or eliminate
the impact, to ensure environmental sustainability, including the use and
conservation of water.
3- Subdivision Map Act (1979, amended 2008), Government Code 65867.5:
Ensures new development is implemented consistent with adopted General
Plans, and requires large projects (with over 500 residential units each) to verify
that a sufficient water supply is available prior to project entitlement.
4- Urban Water Management Planning Act (1983), Water Code 10610-10645:
Requires water agencies to submit an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
to the Department of Water Resources (DWR), and updated it every five years.
The UWMP addresses long term water resources planning and management,
21 which is a key component in the CEQA review. The UWMP identifies water
supplies and includes provisions for emergency water shortage plans.
5- Ground Water Management Act (1992), Water Code 10750-10755: Provides
local water agencies with increased authority to manage groundwater resources.
6- Water Supply Planning to Support Existing and Planned Future Uses (1995-
1996), Water Code 10910-10915: Requires sponsors of new development
projects to identify water sources and the associated infrastructure subject to the
CEQA review. Typically, this requirement results in the production of a Water
Supply Assessment by the governing water agency.
7- Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reductions (2009) Water Code 10608-
10608.64, 10631.5, 10800-10853: Establishes a mandatory reduction of water
use for urban per capita consumption, to achieve a 20% reduction by year 2020,
otherwise known as “20x2020”. This requires water agencies to adopt resource
conservation measures, for current and future customers.
8- Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (2014), Water Code 10720-
10736.6: A first of its kind, it provides local water agencies the authority to
manage local ground water basins in a coordinated and integrated manner
among various agencies sharing a common water shed, in order to promote
groundwater sustainability and reverse the over-draft of existing aquifers
following 15 years of sustained cycles of drought.
22 Contemporary Risks, Challenges and Mitigation
Cyclical Droughts: Most southern California communities exist in a semi-arid climate, almost desert-like, with limited local water resources to support population growth and increased urbanization. Therefore, while water supplies are mainly imported, this supply is subject to the effects of cyclical droughts caused by limited precipitation and snow in the areas where water is imported from, namely the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Colorado River Aqueduct system. Consequently, and in response to some of the state legislation noted in this study, water agencies have progressively invested in various approaches and strategies to minimize the effects of droughts by diversifying their water supply portfolio (Urban Water Management Planning Act, 1983), and by adopting conservation measures through education programs, legislation, and water re-use technologies (Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reductions, 2009).
Seismic Activity: While historically earthquakes of various magnitudes have caused severe damage to the developed environment in California (Appendix A), more are forecasted to occur in the next 30 years (Table 2, page 8), with predicted large scale damage to Southern California communities. Mitigating this risk is undertaken by governmental institutions, most notably as follows:
1- The Seismic Safety Commission issued The California Earthquake Loss
Reduction Plan in 2012, a policy and master plan document with the stated
goals of: promoting advancement in learning about earthquakes through
science, advancing policies that result in constructing earthquake resistant new
buildings and retrofitting the most vulnerable, and, achieve a heightened
23 preparedness and improvement in responding to earthquake events, to
accomplish economic recovery from such events.
2- MET is meeting this challenge through its on-going risk and vulnerability
assessment of its facilities, and by adopting various initiatives to mitigate
seismic risk to the water supply system. For example, MET commissioned
studies and projects to mitigate the potential impacts to source water in Bay-
Delta levees area and the Colorado Aqueduct and tunnel systems. In addition,
MET supported Senate Bill 135 which requires the state’s Office of Emergency
Management (OES) to develop a statewide earthquake early warning system,
with an up to 60 seconds of notice (MET web archives). While MET’s web
archives is replete with examples of projects mitigating seismic risk, the most
notable is the construction and the commissioning in 1999 of a regional
reservoir in Riverside County, that serves as an emergency supply for all 26
member agencies during an emergency water shortage such as one would occur
after a natural disaster. Diamond Valley Lake is designed to hold enough water,
and when full, is capable of serving 75% of retail water demands for southern
California for a period of six months under emergency conditions.
3- In 2015, the city of LA adopted a comprehensive new document, titled
“Resilience by Design”, and intended to set new guidelines to bolster the city’s
mitigation measures and preparedness to curb the negative societal and
economic effects in the aftermath of a large and predicted earthquake in
southern California. The “Resilience by Design” key-elements include: focus
on retrofitting old buildings, create back-to-business programs, provide
24 alternative water delivery systems and fortify the existing ones, resilient water
piping system (state-wide bond measures), enhance reliable communications
and power, and continued research and predictive modeling.
4- Mitigation examples by large water agencies include the San Diego County
Water Authority (SDCWA) which embraced facility design and construction
standards with considerations given to risk and vulnerability assessment
(SDCWA, 2007): Chapter 5 (design guide) and Appendix A (supplemental
seismic design criteria for water facilities) of this document address seismic
design criteria relating to pre-defined performance goals, based on various
levels of assessed risk and vulnerability of key existing and new facilities. These
standards provide more stringent requirements for key water facilities in order
to maintain operability during and after an earthquake event. Another example
includes Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) which updated its Hazard
Mitigation Plan in June of 2017. While considered a living document, this plan
provides a comprehensive approach to identifying and mitigating the effects of
all types of hazards, in the short and long-term. This plan was prepared to fulfill
the requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000),
which allows this agency to receive various types of aid, including financial,
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard
Mitigation Assistance (HMI) Program (EMWD, 2017). These plans are
reviewed and approved by both FEMA and the California Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services (Cal OES), while financial aid from FEMA is distributed
by the Cal OES to qualified agencies.
25
Design and Construction Standards
Professional engineers who engage in the design, construction, and operation of the
water system, are governed by the Professional Engineers Act. The purpose of the law is
to ensure the proper licensure and registration of qualified engineers in the delivery of their
consultant services, in order to “safeguard life, health, property, and the public welfare”
(Business and Professions Code, 2017). As such, in the water industry, professional
engineers utilize national and regional standards published by reputable organizations,
which are periodically updated through continued research and learning from past events
affecting the developed environment. As an example of such a standard, EMWD
engineering design guidelines for water storage tanks address the requirement to identify
and mitigate seismic risk on a project-by-project basis by referencing national standards to be followed by the design engineer, namely the American Water Works Association standard AWWA D100-11 (EMWD, 2010).
Emergency Management and Preparedness Plans
Cal OES develops emergency plans at the state level, while engaging community members in identifying an all-hazards plan. The Cal OES manages the Standardized
Emergency Management System (SEMS) maintenance system, coordinates the state’s emergency response activities within the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and provides assistance as needed to the Homeland Security Department. Cal OES staff assist local water agencies in preparing their own emergency preparedness and response plans in accordance with published standards under SEMS and NIMS. To that end, and as
26 an example, EMWD updated its Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in 2016, to identify specific duties and authorities when activated in the aftermath of an emergency, such as a natural disaster (EMWD, 2016). Considered to be an extension of the State of California
Emergency Plan (California Government Code, 2015), EMWD’s EOP sets forth a standardized approach to managing emergencies using the NIMS and the SEMS systems, in order to achieve an effective, well integrated, and coordinated response between all local, state, and federal agencies. The EOP identifies procedures to provide direction and guidance in the various aspects of emergency response, such as: assessing damage; response and rescue operations; recovery and repairs operations; communication with the news media, the public, and other stakeholders; financial management; and incident stabilization and recovery (Cal-EMA SEMS Guidelines, 2009).
Earthquake Prediction
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) predicted a major earthquake will occur in our lifetime in southern California through a report known as the Uniform
California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (USGS: UCERF3, 2013), with potential devastating effects. This threat presents challenges on multiple fronts, given the unpredictability of such an event, the sudden and short lead time to react in a timely manner, with limited resources, and a steadily increasing population and urbanization.
Contrary to past predictions of known individual fault lines, UCERF13 identifies the potential for a change in earthquake probability and magnitude, based on considering the possibility of known and unknown multi-fault ruptures occurring at the same time (Table
2, page 8). Table 2 shows a base earthquake event with a magnitude of 6.7, in order to
27 compare it to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, which had the same 6.7 magnitude. Due to the nature of the logarithmic scale, a 7.0 magnitude releases 2.8 times more energy than a
6.7 magnitude, and a 7.5 magnitude releases 5.6 times more energy than a 7.0 magnitude
(USGS, “How Much Bigger Calculator”, 2017). Appendix G shows time-lapse photo captures of a video simulation published by UCERF13, with an epicenter at the Salton Sea, travelling through sections of the San Andreas Fault, and reaching various areas along the west coast between 60 and 120 seconds after it started. It is clear from this simulation that the USGS prediction of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake, with a probability of 36%, is a big threat that may occur in our lifetimes, which poses a serious risk to southern California communities in general, and to its water system in particular.
28 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The study’s goal is to evaluate the level of readiness of public water agencies before a major earthquake occurs, as well as the level of preparedness to respond to such an event, in southern California. To that end, the research approach consists of a quantitative analysis of data obtained publicly, accessible through the internet, from all 26 MET member agencies which provide water to southern California’s population of about 21 million people. The research method revolves around the identification of various measures taken by the public water companies in support of the Mitigation and Preparation phases of the emergency management approach, which were described in the literature review chapter in this study (Fink, 1986). The collected data are then organized in tables where, for each company, each criteria is scored according to a pre-determined scale (Appendix C), which is tailored specifically for this study. This analysis method is intended to produce an individual Readiness score or Index, for each company, as well as a weighted score to represent the collective Readiness of all 26 public water agencies.
The first and second research criteria are associated with the Mitigation Phase. The first criteria is Water Supply Reliability and Redundancy (Urban Water Management
Planning Act, 1983). This criteria is intended to identify the water agencies resiliency to water shortages during emergencies. A multitude of sources of water supply is a strong indication of resiliency during emergencies. The second criteria is Water Shortage
Contingency Plans (Water Code, Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reductions, 2009).
29 This criteria is intended to identify the water agencies water-conservation efforts. A high level of water-conservation effort is a strong indication of resiliency during emergencies.
The third and fourth criteria are associated with the Preparation Phase. The third criteria is Hazard/Risk Assessment & Engineering Standards (Federal Disaster Mitigation
Act, 2000). This criteria is intended to identify the water agencies efforts in identifying hazards and associated mitigation measures to protect key facilities. Comprehensive records of such efforts is a strong indication of resiliency during emergencies. The fourth criteria is the Emergency Management Plan (California Emergency Services Act, 2015).
This criteria is intended to identify the water agencies emergency plans to respond and recover from emergencies. Thorough records of such plans is a strong indication of resiliency during emergencies.
To obtain data pertaining to the selected criteria, the author accessed each of the water agencies web pages, or other related web pages, searching for the specific data corresponding to each criteria. For the first criteria, the author searched the 2015 Urban
Water Management Plan to identify the number of water supplies each agency has. For the second criteria, the author searched for mandatory and monthly water conservation reports by each water agency, as compiled and published by the California State Water Resources
Control Board. For the third and fourth criteria, the author searched the web pages of each water agency, utilizing a uniform search word approach to ensure consistency.
To score the results corresponding to each criteria, the author tailored a point-scale ranging from 0 to 5 (Appendix C) indicating low to high resiliency results, respectively. In addition, each criteria is individually assigned an importance weight which the author assigned the highest weight to the Water Supply Reliability & Redundancy criteria
30 receiving a 40% score-weight because water is the most important resource among the four criteria (Urban Water Management Planning Act, 1983). To illustrate the importance of the first criteria, it is of no use if a critical facility is properly constructed to safely remain in operation during an earthquake only to find out that there is no water supplying it as result of severe damage. In this case, ensuring a redundant supply will increase the resiliency of the distribution system. The remaining three criteria each received a 20% weight, for a total of 100%, representing the comprehensive score for each agency.
The collected data are then translated into a corresponding score for each criteria pursuant to Appendix C, sorted by agency. Then, it is presented in Appendices L, M, N and O, which show the scoring of each criteria independently, one page per criteria. Table
4, page 34, shows all four criteria scores added up to provide a total score for each agency.
Figure 3, page 36, shows the median Readiness Index of all agencies, based on the results in Table 4, page 34.
For example, to score agency “A” and pairing the data with Appendix C, under the first criteria we use a score of 4 if the agency has three water supply sources. Under the second criteria, we use a score of 5 if the agency exceeded the water conservation goal.
Using the third criteria we apply a score of 4 for outdated documentation. Finally, using the fourth criteria, we apply a score of 2 for plans under development. The preceding example is summarized below (Table 7, page 32) to illustrate individual calculations and total score determination:
31 Table 7
Score Weight Weighted Score #1 4 X 0.4 = 1.6 #2 5 X 0.2 = 1.0 #3 4 X 0.2 = 0.8 #4 2 X 0.2 0.4 Total Weighted Score for agency "A" = 3.8 or 76.0% of Maximum Score of 5.0 Example of Scoring Calculations
Once the data is tabulated and the scoring is calculated, the final, collective and individual, Index is then compared to a Readiness scale developed by the author, where the degree of Readiness is translated, as shown in Table 8 below:
Table 8
Calculated Readiness Index Author's Interpretation of the calculated Index results Level (%) Mitigation and Preparartion efforts are inadequate; 0-25% Not Ready: reactive Perceived as reactive and severely un-prepared to manage emergency situations; Mitigation and Preparation efforts should be prioritized and acted upon immediately. Mitigation and Preparartion efforts are minimal; 25-50% Somewhat Ready: reactive Perceived as reactive to emergency situations; Additional efforts is a must. Mitigation and Preparartion efforts are optimal; Perceived as proactive and prepared to manage emergency situations; 50-75% Somehwat Ready: proactive Well positioned to manage emergency situations; Additional efforts should be explored. Mitigation and Preparartion efforts are outstanding; 75-100% Ready: proactive Perceived as proactive and well prepared to manage emergency situations.
Readiness Index Scale
32 CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The overall results of this study were generally positive and encouraging: The
combined Readiness Index of all 26 member agencies was calculated to be 81.7%, with a
median Index for all agencies of 78% (Table 4 on page 34, and Figure 3 on page 35). Of
interest, about 14.6 million people (70%) live in areas served by water agencies having a
Readiness Index of 75 or higher. These results demonstrate that water agencies have made
significant investments to secure a diversified water supply portfolio, to reduce the
consumption of this precious resource through sustained conservation efforts, and by
undertaking visionary mitigation plans to secure emergency water supplies in the event of
a natural disaster.
The conducted research and ensuing analysis of the data clearly show that the
collective response to the cyclical drought, by the state of California and the water agencies,
indirectly provided a golden opportunity to prepare southern California for potential
chronic shortages in the aftermath of a natural disaster as well as drought conditions. These efforts have resulted in not only decreasing the per capita water use (Table 5, page 36), which is critical during an emergency, but also introduced supply portfolio diversification and improved water resources management by all stakeholders. In addition, the southern
California population and the water agencies that serve them have succeeded in meeting and exceeding the conservation goal of 20% consumption reduction by 2020, nearly three years ahead of the 10-year deadline set forth by the 2009 legislation.
33 Table 4
# of Communities Total Score By Combined # Agt1u,·y Nam(' PopuJatio11 Weight Served Agency .We ighted Score 0 The Mclro1>0litan Water Oistrict of So. Cal. 250 0.0 5.0 1.000 0.000
I Callt-guas MWO 14 J.2 5.0 0.040 1.0 0.1 28
2 Central Basin MWO 31 2.8 5.0 0.075 1.0 0.209
3 Clcy or Anahtlm I 4.2 5.0 0.017 1.0 0.072
4 Cily or Q('\'Crl)' Hills I 3.8 5.0 0.002 1.0 0.006
5 City or Burbank I 4.2 5.0 0.005 1.0 0.02 1
6 City of Compton I J.8 5.0 0.005 1.0 0.018
7 City or Fullerton I 3.8 5.0 0.007 1.0 0.026
s City or Clc•11dale I 3.8 5.0 0.010 1.0 0.037
9 City or Long 8e:u:h I 4.2 5.0 0.023 1.0 0.095
10 City of l.A>s Angele5 I 5.0 5.0 0.191 1.0 0.956
II City of Pasadena I 4.8 5.0 0.007 1.0 0.033
12 City or San F('rnnndo I 3.4 5.0 0.001 1.0 0.004
13 City or San )tarino I 4.0 5.0 0.001 1.0 0.003
14 City of Santa Ana I .).6 5.0 0.016 1.0 0.058
15 City of Santa Monica 1 4.2 5.0 0.044 1.0 0.187
16 Cicy or Torrance I 4.8 5.0 0.007 1.0 0.034
17 Eastern MWO 20 4.6 5.0 0.040 1.0 0.1 82
18 .~OOlhill MWO 4 2.0 5.0 0.005 1.0 0.010
19 Inland Em1>ire Utilities Agency 7 4.2 5.0 0.039 1.0 0.163
20 Las Virgenes MWO 9 4.0 5.0 0.015 1.0 0.058
21 Municipal Water District ofOrangt County 38 4.8 5.0 0.151 1.0 0.723
22 San Die-go Count'y Water Authority 32 4,8 5.0 0.141 1.0 0.677
2.3 Three Vallcr1 MWD 15 2.0 5.0 0.035 1.0 0.069
24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWO 20 2.0 5.0 0.032 1.0 0.065
25 West Basin MWD 31 2.0 5.0 0.052 1.0 0.104
26 WesternMWD 15 3.6 5.0 0.042 1.0 0.1 50
Totals • 250 135.0 A = 4.087
Potential Maximum Score = 8 = 5.0
RcadinC'Ss lndtx for Combined Crietria. All Agencies • .i-VB • 81.7o/.
Combined Readiness Index
The study identified a vulnerable segment of the population, with a high rate of poverty rate, as shown and detailed in Table 3, page 35. In 53% of the population, one in five live in poverty, which encompasses 17 (or 65%) of the water agencies. In 31% of the population, one in four live in poverty. If the high cost of living is considered, the observed poverty rates could climb about 7% and therefore exceed the 15% national average,
34 arguably making southern California home to the highest poverty rate in the nation. It is
noted that this study identified a correlation between poverty rate and median household
income, as shown in Table 3, page 35, which indicates that household income of up to
$73,000 per year exist in communities with about 15% poverty rate, which is an indication of the high cost of living in southern California. This segment of the population is clearly
more vulnerable in the aftermath of a natural disaster.
Agency Readiness Index 100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Median Readiness Index: 78.0%
Population Served Under Agencies with 50% or Higher Readiness Index: 18.22 Million (87.6% of total population) Population Served Under Agencies with 75% or Higher Readiness Index: 14.61 Million (70.2% of total population) Figure 3 Agency Readiness Index - Limitations: The Readiness Index does not consider waste water systems, does not consider the vulnerability of existing facilities, does not consider mitigation implementation, and, is not defined in the absolute meaning of the term as there are too many variables to consider, including compliance. -
The author considers the data collected from public sources for this study provided
a far better opportunity than utilizing a survey method. In contrast, a survey method may
be utilized in the future to complement this study to help fill some unknown gaps or add
context to the formulated results.
35 Table 3
(1) Poverty Within Strong Correlation With Population Where Population Where Rate (PR) A Population Of… Median Household Income Poverty Rate >=15% Poverty Rate >20% (MHI) Of... (%) (million) (% of Total) (million) (% of Total) (million) (% of Total) ($) No data 0.4 1.9% No Data <15% 9.21 44.3% >73,000 15-20% 4.73 22.7% <73,000 >20-25% 5.65 27.2% <69,000 11.19 53.8% 6.46 31.1% >25% 0.81 3.9% <52,000 Totals: 20.8 100.0% Footnote (1): Encompasses 17, or 65% of, Water Agencies having communities with 15% or higher Poverty Rate
Poverty Rates in Southern California Communities / Correlation with Median Housing Income
Table 5
Base Line Met Base Line Summer 2017: to Latest Actual: Population Agency Target of Agency Name R-GPCD (1) (2) ACTUAL Reported & Savings Served # 20 by 2020? (Gal/Day) Estimated R-GPCD (1) (2) or Reduction (million) (Yes/No) (%) 0 The Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal. NA (3) 1 Calleguas Municipal Water District NA 2 Central Basin Municipal Water District NA 3 City of Anaheim 203 94 54% Yes 0.358 4 City of Beverly Hills 292 139 52% Yes 0.035 5 City of Burbank 197 118 40% Yes 0.104 6 City of Compton 89 70 21% Yes 0.082 7 City of Fullerton 223 91 59% Yes 0.138 8 City of Glendale 144 97 32% Yes 0.199 9 City of Long Beach 134 66 51% Yes 0.470 10 City of Los Angeles 154 82 47% Yes 3.976 11 City of Pasadena 211 123 41% Yes 0.142 12 City of San Fernando 141 100 29% Yes 0.025 13 City of San Marino NA 14 City of Santa Ana 130 68 48% Yes 0.332 15 City of Santa Monica 154 79 49% Yes 0.094 16 City of Torrance 157 84 47% Yes 0.106 17 Eastern Municipal Water District 197 106 46% Yes 0.567 18 Foothill Municipal Water District NA 19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency NA 20 Las Virgenes MWD 311 200 36% Yes 0.075 21 MWD of Orange County NA 22 San Diego County Water Authority NA 23 Three Valleys MWD NA 24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD NA 25 West Basin Municipal Water District NA 26 Western Municipal Water District 430 198 54% Yes 0.096 Footnotes: Total = 6.80 (1) R-GPCD means Residential Gallon Per Day Per Capita Population %: 33% Sources: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/conservation_reporting.shtml; and (2) https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/uwmp_export.asp (3) NA means wholesale agency, with no retail customers, exempt from R-GPCD reporting
Water Conservation Results
36 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In 1957, president Dwight D. Eisenhower stated the following: “Plans are
worthless, but planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you
are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of
‘emergency’ is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are
planning.”
Indeed, this statement can be considered as a call for non-stop action when it comes to emergency preparedness. While we might be lulled into a false sense of confidence when we predict certain events and effects, the real event or crisis may bring about a totally new set of variables and consequences with little time to react. Therefore, the act of planning should be pursued not just to produce preparedness plans that sit on shelves. We must develop a critical thinking approach that is conducive to developing achievable and sustainable solutions, to allow our communities to be resilient, continue to function, and ultimately thrive, in the aftermath of a large earthquake. At this junction, we must weigh the risk of being reactive versus the cost of preparedness. With this in mind, while we hope for the best, but plan for the worst, the author of this study offers the following conclusions and recommendations:
1- The theme of the study findings revolves around proper management of public resources by elected officials, appointed managers, and public employees. Clearly,
37 visionary leadership has led, and continues to lead, significant work in establishing,
expanding, and managing the water systems in southern California.
2- While the collected data were obtained from public sources, without any
interviews with public officials, it might be helpful to conduct some spot checks on the
results of this study by conducting interviews to help validate or clarify the contextual
setting of these results.
3- While the estimated collective Readiness Index derived by this study is positive
and encouraging, a heightened awareness should be raised among local/state officials and
the public, to ensure continued and coordinated efforts are being exerted to mitigate the
effects of the predicted earthquake. We should not rest on our laurels, we can do better.
Earthquake mitigation and preparation should be given an equal priority as the cyclical
drought.
4- Instead of asking the research question: Are the water agencies ready, we should
consider the question: Are “we” ready. We should apply lessons learned from the Ground
Water Management program, by utilizing an integrated approach (provide increased collaboration with neighboring agencies, organizations, and the private sector), and by raising seismic mitigation efforts to a higher priority. This integrated approach should focus
on reducing risk to vulnerable populations, improve the performance of lifelines facilities
(such as bridges, power system, water system, and communication system), and allow for the continuity of governance by maintaining law and order while recovering from a natural disaster.
5- Introduce a state law requiring the prioritization of hazard assessment and
mitigation, by quantifying this effort in dollars-spent per year, as a percent of total cost
38 required for a complete mitigation, per agency. Also, require annual and transparent
reporting to state OES office, available for public access, just like the conservation
Residential-Gallon Per Capita Per Day (R-GPCD) results are currently being reported.
Water agencies can benefit from state assistance in funding and prioritizing earthquake
mitigation projects because they are subject to the public’s scrutiny when asking how
much will it cost and who will pay for it?. Therefore, state funding and support would be
very helpful to offset these costs.
6- Vulnerable communities should be identified (in a GIS-based mapping system) by all public agencies as part of their proposed integrated approach to mitigation and preparation. Firefighting capability, hospitals, schools, colleges, medical facilities, dialysis centers, elder care facilities, and other vulnerable institutions can greatly benefit from an accelerated response to help keep them in operation or recover fairly quickly. Periodic integrated exercises will help fine tune emergency response plans.
7- In light of the predicted magnitude of the earthquake, and complexity of our urban environment, it would be wise to help the local and state authorities by helping ourselves first, by stockpiling enough emergency supplies for our families and neighbors to sustain us for at least a month. If earthquake damage is so large, emergency personnel from local, state and federal agencies will not be able to reach those in need in time. Instead, they will have their hands full with more pressing priorities.
8- The deployment of an early warning system is a necessity, to help local agencies respond quicker, especially if the timely shut-down of some critical facilities is feasible
within the few seconds of advance warning that can be afforded. For example: shut-down
39 production wells to avoid damage due to earth shaking that could render a well inoperable
after an earthquake.
9- Water agencies can benefit from the increased use of multi mutual-aid agreements with vendors/contractors in neighboring states to be triggered by an emergency or crisis. This will help ensure preparedness and resiliency by controlling costs.
Research Limitations
A- Given the limited scope of this study, data collected for Criteria 3 and 4 could
not be confirmed if complete or correct. Unless a complementary research is
conducted to confirm the results of this study, the uncertainty of the obtained
data for Criteria 3 and 4 could possibly produce false-positive or false-negative
results. For example, although seismic hazard mitigation plans have been
identified for many agencies, the scope of this study did not reveal the extent of
implementation of such plans. Therefore, it is not known if all critical
and vulnerable facilities were retrofitted to mitigate the effects of the
predicted earthquake. To clarify this data, additional contextual and
qualitative research of Criteria 3 and 4 should be explored, building upon this
study, to identify the true level of r eadin ess in this area.
B- The study is limited to Southern California public water agencies. It does not
represent the Readiness of water agencies elsewhere in California or in the
nation.
C- This research revealed the availability of a large amount of data that could not
be fully explored due to the limited and resources available to the author.
40 Certainly, there is an opportunity to pursue additional research and build upon
the data and findings that has been presented in this research, such as
conducting surveys to explore the contextual setting of Criteria 3 and 4.
D- While the collected data for the Readiness Index are more reliable than the
traditional method of an opinion survey, some data for Criteria 3 and 4 were
reasonably assumed based on the limited availability of documentation.
E- This study did not include private water companies, quantified and listed in
Appendix F, and Table 6, page 41. Nearly 116 private water companies operate
in the State of California, including about 20 companies that operate within
southern California, serving an estimated population of half a million people.
F- The study did not evaluate the adequacy of near-term and long-term emergency
response by FEMA and other state/local agencies.
Table 6
Estimated Number of Companies Class Population Served in Southern California 8 5 Class A >10,000 customers 360,000 5 1 Class B 2,000 to 10,000 customers 40,000 24 3 Class C 500 to 2,000 customers 32,000 79 11 Class D <500 customers 22,000 116 20 454,000 Companies In Companies Southern In California California Source: http://www.calwaterassn.com/about-cwa/regulated-water-utilities-in-california/
Summary of Regulated (Private) Water Companies in California
(Estimated by the author: See company listings and population calculations in Appendix F)
41 REFERENCES
Bolin, Robert, and Lois, Stanford. “The Northridge Earthquake: Community-Based
Approaches To Unmet Recovery Needs.” Disasters 22.1 (1998): 21.
Business and Professions Code 6700-6799, State of California, Professional Engineers
Act, (2017, January). Retrieved from: http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pe_act.pdf
California Demographics, retrieved from: https://www.california-demographics.com
California Emergency Management Agency (Cal-EMA), “Standardized Emergency
Management System (SEMS) Guidelines” (2009)
California Emergency Management Agency (Cal-EMA) & Department of Homeland
Security. “Southern California Catastrophic Earthquake Response Plan” (2010).
California Government Code, Title 2, Division 1, Chapter7, Section 8607.2. California
Emergency Services Act (2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.caloes.ca.gov/LegalAffairsSite/Documents/Cal%20OES%20Yellow%
20Book.pdf
and, https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2015/code-gov/title-2/division-
1/chapter-7/article-9.5/section-8607.2/
42 California Water Code, retrieved from:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/Water_Code.html
Canton, L. “Can Supply Chain Management Improve Disaster Response?” Journal of
Emergency Management (2014). Retrieved from:
http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/managing-crisis/Can-supply-
chain-management-improve-disaster-response.html?flipboard=yes
Carr, Susan James, et al. “The Public Health Response to Los Angeles’ 1994
Earthquake.” American Journal of Public Health 86.4 (1996): 589-590.
Comerio, Mary C. “Housing Issues after Disasters.” Journal of Contingencies & Crisis
Management 5.3 (1997).
Comfort, Louise K. “Risk And Resilience: Inter-Organizational Learning Following The
Northridge Earthquake Of 17 January 1994.” Journal of Contingencies & Crisis
Management 2.3 (1994): 157.
Crisan, Brian. “Disaster Case Study: The Northridge Earthquake of 1994.” The
University of Acron (2010).
43 Department of Conservation, State of California, Significant California Earthquakes,
retrieved from:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/Pages/eq_chron.aspx
Dermody, B. J. et al. “A Virtual Water Network of the Roman World” European
Geosciences Union (EGU). (2014, December 11), and, Water’s role in the rise
and fall of the Roman Empire. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141211090608.htm
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Learning From Earthquakes Program: A
Brief Synopsis of Major Contributions, EERI (2004)
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Emergency Operations Center, Operations
Plan, 2016.
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2017. Retrieved
from: https://www.emwd.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=16007
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Reservoir and Reservoir Site Design and
Submittal Guidelines, 2010. Retrieved from:
https://www.emwd.org/construction/developer-project-help-desk/engineering-
standards-specifications-and-drawings
44 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Southern California Catastrophic
Earthquake Response Plan”, 2010.
Field, E.H. et al. “Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)
The Time-Dependent Model.” U.S. Geological Survey (2013).
Fink, Steven. Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable (1986).
Firmacion, Michelle, and Raskin, Ellis. “California Law at the Intersection of Water Use
and Land Planning: A Report for the California Office of Planning and Research”.
University of California, Hastings College of the Law (2015).
First Tuesday Journal, Golden State Population Trends, Posted on-line on Feb 12, 2016.
Retrieved from: http://journal.firsttuesday.us/golden-state-population-tends/9007/
Garcetti, Eric (Mayor). “Resilience by Design.” The Mayoral Seismic Safety Task Force,
City of Los Angeles (2015).
Jones, Lucile. “Resilience by Design: Bringing Science to Policy Makers.” U.S.
Geological Survey, Seismological Research Letters 86 (2015) 2A.
Just the Facts, “Northridge Earthquake”, Public Policy Institute of California (2006).
45 Just the Facts, “California Earthquake Recovery”, Public Policy Institute of California
(2006).
Just the Facts, “Who Is Prepared? Losing faith In Federal Disaster Response”,
Commentary, Public Policy Institute of California (2006).
Kamel, Nabil M. O., and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. “Residential Assistance and
Recovery Following the Northridge Earthquake.” Urban Studies (Routledge) 41.3
(2004): 533-562.
Kandel, J., Timeline: The 1994 Northridge Earthquake, NBC Los Angeles (2014)
Retrieved from: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/The-Northridge-
Earthquake-Looking-Back-at-Destruction-20-Years-Later-239987861.html
Kunnath, Sashi K., and James O. Malley. “Advances in Seismic Design and Evaluation
of Steel Moment Frames: Recent Findings from FEMA/SAC Phase II Project.”
Journal of Structural Engineering 128.4 (2002): 415.
LAIST News Article, Things You Might Not Have Known About The Northridge
Earthquake, Jan 17, 2014. Retrieved from:
http://laist.com/2014/01/17/northridge_earthquake.php#photo-1
46 Laucelli, Daniele, and Orazio Giustolisi. “Vulnerability Assessment of Water
Distribution Networks under Seismic Actions.” Journal Of Water Resources
Planning & Management 141.6 (2015): 1-14.
Lin, J., Siewert, M., Creelan, J, and Mere, H. “Preparing For the Big One: Saving Lives
through Earthquake Mitigation in Los Angeles, California.” The Office of Policy
Development and Research (1995).
Metropolitan Water District Act, (1928), retrieved from:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/MWDAct/Pages/default.aspx
Metropolitan Water District and Member Agencies, on-line references retrieved from the
following web-links, listed alphabetically, by member agency:
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/
Calleguas Municipal Water District: http://www.calleguas.com/
Central Basin Municipal Water District: https://www.centralbasin.org/
City of Anaheim: http://www.anaheim.net/226/Public-Utilities
City of Beverly Hills:
http://www.beverlyhills.org/citygovernment/departmentsanddivisions/publicwork
s/utilitiesstreetsdivision/
City of Burbank: http://www.burbankca.gov/
City of Compton: http://www.comptoncity.org/
47 City of Fullerton: https://www.cityoffullerton.com/
City of Glendale: http://www.glendaleca.gov/
City of Long Beach: http://www.lbwater.org/
City of Los Angeles:
https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp;jsessionid=wMVYZyFXpw2lSSybc0
kGxfx3q9LtZrhZPQYBdJynPRJl5PdQrbGP!1503110073?_afrLoop=1234787141
869463&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3
Dnull%26_afrLoop%3D1234787141869463%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_ad
f.ctrl-state%3D9jweptcwr_4
City of Pasadena: https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/main/
City of San Fernando: http://ci.san-fernando.ca.us/
City of San Marino: http://www.ci.san-marino.ca.us/
City of Santa Ana: http://www.santa-ana.org/
City of Santa Monica: https://www.smgov.net/
City of Torrance: https://www.torranceca.gov/
Eastern Municipal Water District: https://www.emwd.org/
Foothill Municipal Water District: http://www.fmwd.com/
Inland Empire Utilities Agency: https://www.ieua.org/
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District: http://www.lvmwd.com/
Municipal Water District of Orange County: http://www.mwdoc.com/
San Diego County Water Authority: http://www.sdcwa.org/
Three Valleys Municipal Water District: http://threevalleys.com/
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District: http://upperdistrict.org/
48 West Basin Municipal Water District: http://www.westbasin.org/
Western Municipal Water District: http://www.wmwd.com/
Metropolitan Water District, Webb Archives, retrieved from:
http://edmsidm.mwdh2o.com/idmweb/home.asp
Office of Emergency Services, State of California. Standardized Emergency Management
System Regulations (1993).
Pulskamp, K., “City Manager: Crisis Can Improve Disaster Management.” American City
& County Exclusive Insight (2011).
Rao, R., Eisenberg, J., and Schmitt, T. “Improving Disaster Management: The Role of IT
in Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery.” (2007) the National
Academies Press, National Academy of Sciences.
National Academy of Sciences. San Fernando Earthquake of February 9, 1971: Lessons
Learned From a Moderate earthquake on The Fringe of a Densely Populated
region, (1971).
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), Design Manual, Volume Two, Facility
Design Guide (2007, October) retrieved from:
https://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/files/DesignContractorGuideVol.pdf
49
Seismic Safety Commission, Northridge Earthquake: Turning Loss to Gain, Report to
Governor Pete Wilson (1995).
Seismic Safety Commission: The California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan. California
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act, Government Code Section 8870 et seq.
(2012, first adopted in 1986).
Tierney, Kathleen J. Business Impacts of the Northridge Earthquake. “Journal of
Contingencies & Crisis Management 5.2 (1997) 87.
University of California, Davis. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, (2014),
retrieved from: http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/SGMA/
“USGS Response to an Urban Earthquake: Northridge 1994.” USGS (1996).
USGS Circular 1045: Lessons learned From the Loma Prieta EQ of October 17, 1989.
(1989)
USGS, “How Much Bigger Calculator”, 2017, retrieved from:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/calculator.php
50 Wachs, M., and Kamel, N. “Decision-Making After Disasters: Responding to the
Northridge Earthquake.” Institute Of Transportation Studies, University of
California, Los Angeles (1996).
51 Appendix A
Appendix A
Date Magnitude Name, Location, or Region Affected Loss of Life and Property Data not available, but shook northern Offshore, somewhere between Cape Mendocino California, Oregon, Washington, and southern 1700, Jan. 26 9.0? and Canada British Columbia; caused tsunami damage to villages in Japan and western US Damaged adobe walls of missions in San Diego 1800, Nov. 22 6.3? San Diego/San Juan Capistrano region and San Juan Capistrano 1812, Dec. 8 7.3? Wrightwood 40 dead at San Juan Capistrano
1812, Dec. 21 7.1? Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara 1 dead [Older reports reported this quake as possibly 1836, June 10 6.4? Near San Juan Bautista larger and centered near Oakland] 1838, June 7.4? San Francisco to San Juan Bautista Damage to San Francisco and Santa Clara 1852, Nov. 29 6.5? Near Fort Yuma, Arizona 1 dead; damage from Monterey to 1857, Jan. 9 7.9 Great Fort Tejon earthquake San Bernardino County 1860, Mar. 15 6.5? Carson City 1865, Oct. 8 6.5 Santa Cruz Mountains $0.5 million in property damage
1868, Oct. 21 7 Hayward Fault 30 dead; $350,000 in property damage 27 dead; 56 injured; $250,000 in property 1872, Mar. 26 7.4 Owens Valley damage 1872, Mar. 26 6.8 Owens Valley Aftershock of previous entry 1872, Apr. 11 6.8 Owens Valley Aftershock of March 26, 1872 quake 1873, Nov. 23 6.9 Crescent City region Damage in California-Oregon border area 1890, Feb. 9 6.8 San Jacinto fault? Little damage 1892, Feb. 24 7.3 Laguna Salida, Baja California Damage to San Diego and Imperial Valley 1892, Apr. 19 6.6 Vacaville 1 dead; $225,000 in property damage 1898, Mar. 31 6.4 Mare Island $350,000 in property damage Damage from Fort Bragg to Mendocino; 3 houses 1898, Apr. 15 6.7? Fort Bragg - Mendocino collapsed; landslides reported
1899, Apr. 16 7 Offshore, about 80 miles west of Eureka
1899, July 22 6.4 Wrightwood Chimneys knocked down; landslides reported
1899, Dec. 25 6.7 San Jacinto and Hemet 6 dead; $50,000 in property damage 3,000 dead; $524 million in property damage 1906, Apr. 18 7.8 Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire (1) (includes damage from fire) 1908, Nov. 4 6 SW of Death Valley 1911, July 1 6.4 Morgan Hill area
1915, Nov. 21 6.6 In Mexico, about 60 miles S of El Centro 1 dead; several injuries; $200,000 in property 1918, Apr. 21 6.8 San Jacinto damage 1918, July 15 6.5 Offshore, about 40 W of Eureka 1922, Jan. 31 7.3 Offshore, about 70 mi W of Eureka 1922, Mar. 10 6.3 Parkfield Destructive in Humboldt County; strongly felt in 1923, Jan. 22 7.2 Off Cape Mendocino Reno 1925, Jun. 29 6.8 Santa Barbara 13 dead; $8 million in property damage Damage in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo 1927, Nov. 4 7.1 40 km west of Lompoc counties 1932, Dec. 21 7.2 Cedar Mountain, near Gabbs, NV 1933, Mar. 11 6.4 Long Beach (1) 115 dead; $40 million in property damage
(1) Indicate Notable Earthquakes in recent history Source: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/Pages/eq_chron.aspx
Significant Earthquakes in California (between 1700 and 2003)
52 Appendix A (Continued)
1934, July 6 6.5 Offshore, about 100 mi WNW of Eureka
1934, Dec. 30 6.5 In Mexico, about 40 miles S of El Centro
1934, Dec 31 7 In Mexico, about 100 miles SE of El Centro
1940, May 19 7 Imperial Valley 9 dead; $6 million in property damage
1941, Feb. 9 6.6 Offshore, about 65 miles W of Eureka
1942, Oct. 21 6.4 About 25 miles W of Westmoreland 1947, Apr. 10 6.5 East of Yermo 1948, Dec. 4 6 East of Yermo 1952, July 21 7.3 Kern County earthquake 12 dead; $60 million in property damage 1954, July 6 6.8 Rainbow Mountain, near Fallon, NV 1954, Aug. 24 6.8 Rainbow Mountain, near Fallon, NV 1954, Dec. 16 7.3 Fairview Peak, near Fallon, NV 1954, Dec. 16 7.1 Dixie Valley, near Fallon, NV 1 dead; several injured; $2.1 million in property 1954, Dec. 21 6.6 East of Arcata damage 1956, Feb. 9 6.5 In Mexico, about 80 miles SW of El Centro
1968, Apr. 8 6.6 Borrego Mountain 65 dead; more than 2,000 injured; $505 million 1971, Feb. 9 6.6 San Fernando (Sylmar) (1) in losses 1976, Nov. 26 6.8 Offshore, about 100 mi WNW of Eureka
1979, Oct. 15 6.5 Imperial Valley 9 injured; $30 million in property damage 1980, May 25 6.2 Mammoth Lakes 1980, May 25 6 Mammoth Lakes 1980, Nov. 8 7.4 West of Eureka 6 injured; $2 million in property damage 1983, May 2 6.4 Coalinga 1984, Apr. 24 6.2 Morgan Hill $8 million in property damage 1986, July 21 6.4 Chalfant Valley 8 dead; $358 million in property damage to 1987, Oct. 1 6 Whittier Narrows (1) 10,500 homes and businesses 1987, Nov. 24 6.2 Superstition Hills $3 million in property damage 1987, Nov. 24 6.6 Superstition Hills part of above damage 63 dead; 3,737 injured; $6 billion in property 1989, Oct. 17 6.9 Loma Prieta (1) damage 1991, July 12 6.6 Offshore west of Crescent City Preceded by two quakes (M 6.3 and 6.2) on Aug. 1991, Aug 17 7 Offshore, about 100 miles NW of Eureka 16 and 17 1992, Apr. 25 7.2 Petrolia 356 injured; $48.3 million in property damage 1992, Apr. 26 6.6 Petrolia Aftershock of the Apr. 25 quake 1992, Apr. 26 6.6 Petrolia Another aftershock of Apr. 25 quake 1 dead; 402 injured; $91.1 million in property 1992, June 28 7.3 Landers (1) damage 1992, June 28 6.5 Big Bear Included with Landers losses, above 57 dead; more than 9,000 injured; about 1994, Jan. 17 6.7 Northridge (1) $40 billion in property damage 1994, Sep. 1 7 Offshore, about 70 miles W of Cape Mendocino
1995, Feb. 19 6.3 Offshore, about 70 miles W of Cape Mendocino Minimal injuries and damage due to sparse 1999, Oct. 16 7.1 Bullion Mountains (Hector Mine) population in affected area 2003, Dec 22 6.5 San Simeon
(1) Indicate Notable Earthquakes in recent history Source: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/Pages/eq_chron.aspx
Significant Earthquakes in California (between 1700 and 2003)
53 Appendix B
Appendix B
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
2015 Median Agency 2015 Population 2015 Poverty Household Agency # (or Community) Served (1) Rate(1) Income (1) Name (million) (%) l· I· I· ($) l•I l· 20 Hidden Hills 0.002 245,694 4.9% 25 Rolling Hills 0.002 218,583 2.0% 1 Lake Sherwood 0.002 189,744 4.8% 1 Santa Rosa Valley 0.004 176,305 5.4% 25 Palos Verdes Estates 0.014 171,328 3.6% 21 Coto De Caza 0.015 166,328 3.6% 18 La Canada Flintridge 0.020 151,789 2.5% 21 Villa Park 0.006 150,864 3.7% 25 View Park 0.006 150,864 3.7% 25 Manhattan Beach 0.036 142,071 4.0% 25 Rolling Hills Estates 0.008 136,477 5.4% 13 City of San Marino 0.013 133,676 5.5% 25 Malibu 0.013 130,432 10.5% 20 Monte Nido 0.027 130,194 21 Emerald Bay 0.001 129,251 21 Tustin Foothills 0.026 124,248 3.1% 21 Las Flores 0.006 121,696 3.8% 25 Rancho Palos Verdes 0.042 120,697 4.3% 1 Oak Park 0.015 120,696 5.5% 1 Newbury park 0.038 117,244 5.2% 20 Calabasas 0.024 117,176 7.9% 21 Yorba Linda 0.066 115,994 3.6% 20 Westlake Village 0.084 115,550 6.1% 21 Rossmoor 0.011 114,239 2.9% 24 Bradburry 0.001 112,273 8.8% 2 La Habra Heights 0.005 111,382 3.4% 26 Eastvale 0.055 109,783 5.9% 22 Jamul 0.005 109,492 5.4% 21 Newport Beach 0.087 107,991 7.1% 20 Agoura Hills 0.021 107,268 5.8% 25 Ross-Sexton 0.002 106,061 5.1% 25 Hermosa Beach 0.020 105,029 4.0% 21 Rancho Santa Margarita 0.049 104,952 4.0%
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
54
Appendix B (Continued)
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
2015 Median Agency 2015 Population 2015 Poverty Household Agency # (or Community) Served (1) Rate(1) Income (1) Name (million) (%) L::. ly l.:. ($) l.:.: L:. 22 Del Mar 0.004 103,457 3.5% 25 Redondo Beach 0.068 103,064 4.7% 21 Aliso Viego 0.049 102,325 4.9% 25 Marina Del Rey 0.009 101,860 13.0% 22 Rancho Santa Fe 0.003 101,250 11.9% 1 Thousand Oaks 0.129 100,946 6.2% 23 Walnut 0.030 100,934 6.7% 1 Somis 0.003 100,849 25 Ladera Heights 0.007 100,811 6.8% 1 Moorpark 0.036 99,777 7.2% 21 Laguna Niguel 0.064 98,957 6.6% 21 Mission Viejo 0.952 98,157 5.4% 21 Laguna Beach 0.023 97,881 6.7% 19 Chino Hills 0.076 97,609 6.5% 4 City of Beverly Hills 0.035 97,327 8.9% 1 Las Posas Valley 0.072 97,023 5.4% 22 Poway 0.049 96,315 6.0% 20 Chatsworth 0.071 96,225 11.1% 24 North Whittier 0.004 93,841 21 Lake Forest 0.079 92,781 7.4% 22 Encinitas 0.061 92,564 8.1% 21 Irvine 0.230 91,999 12.3% 21 San Clemente 0.065 91,749 8.0% 21 Laguna Hills 0.031 91,460 8.5% 23 Diamond Bar 0.056 90,901 7.0% 22 Solana Beach 0.013 90,579 6.8% 2 Cerritos 0.051 90,321 4.8% 1 Simi Valley 0.126 90,210 6.1% 18 La Crescenta 0.020 89,737 7.5% 23 Claremont 0.036 89,648 8.2% 26 Temescal Canyon 0.025 89,259 8.0% 17 French Valley 0.027 88,699 4.8% 1 Camarillo 0.067 88,152 6.4%
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
55
Appendix B (Continued)
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
2015 Median Agency 2015 Population 2015 Poverty Household Agency # (or Community) Served (1) Rate(1) Income (1) Name (million) (%) l T IT IT ($) l•I l· 22 Bonita 0.014 87,666 12.0% 22 Leucadia 0.059 87,665 9.9% 22 Carlsbad 0.109 87,416 9.1% 26 Woodcrest 0.016 86,095 8.9% 18 Montrose 0.020 85,458 7.5% 22 Valley Center 0.010 85,176 8.5% 26 Norco 0.027 85,142 7.0% 24 Spy Glass Hill 0.009 85,088 8.8% 23 Covina Hills 0.044 84,836 21 Dana Point 0.034 84,404 9.2% 21 La Palma 0.016 84,026 7.3% 25 El Camino Village 0.017 84,004 11.9% 25 El Segundo 0.017 84,004 7.3% 18 Altadena 0.045 83,917 11.0% 21 Cypress 0.049 83,819 7.3% 21 Huntington Beach 0.197 82,554 9.4% 21 Fountain Valley 0.056 82,532 8.1% 21 Los Alamitos 0.012 82,258 11.2% 21 Brea 0.040 81,857 7.1% 22 Rancho San Diego 0.022 80,591 8.8% 24 South Pasadena 0.026 80,479 7.8% 24 Arcadia 0.057 80,147 9.6% 25 Del Aire 0.010 79,943 13.2% 16 City of Torrance 0.147 79,549 7.0% 2 La Mirada 0.049 79,330 7.5% 25 Culver City 0.039 79,292 8.9% 21 Placentia 0.052 79,275 11.4% 2 Lakewood 0.081 79,193 7.9% 23 San Dimas 0.034 78,911 6.8% 17 Temecula 0.105 78,535 7.0% 22 Alpine 0.015 78,433 8.8% 20 West Hills 0.074 77,365 10.0% 21 Orange 0.140 77,086 13.2%
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
56
Appendix B (Continued)
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
2015 Median Agency 2015 Population 2015 Poverty Household Agency # (or Community) Served (1) Rate(1) Income (1) Name (million) (%) l- 1- 1- ($) [-1 L- 19 Rancho Cucamonga 0.170 77,061 8.8% 26 Corona 0.157 77,021 11.7% 15 City of Santa Monica 0.925 76,580 11.3% 25 Windsor Hills 0.011 76,461 8.7% 24 Hacienda Heights 0.055 76,435 7.9% 23 La Verne 0.032 75,662 8.2% 22 Mount Helix 0.021 75,637 12.0% 1 Naval Base Ventura County 0.022 74,979 26 Eagle Valley 0.054 74,836 26 Canyon Lake 0.011 74,682 6.5% 17 Murrieta 0.106 74,401 8.4% 22 Santee 0.055 74,213 7.8% 23 Glendora 0.051 74,169 9.4% 21 San Juan Capistrano 0.036 72,568 15.4% 19 Chino 0.081 72,554 11.6% 25 Topanga Canyon 0.001 72,500 5.1% 25 Carson 0.093 72,421 10.9% 11 City of Pasadena 0.142 72,402 15.3% 24 Avocado Heights 0.015 72,174 12.8% 24 Monrovia 0.037 72,034 10.1% 21 Tustin 0.078 71,105 13.6% 22 Bonsall 0.004 69,399 5.7% 26 Lake Mathews 0.006 69,011 12.8% 21 Buena Park 0.082 68,884 13.4% 26 March Air Reserve Base 0.001 68,261 22.4% 25 San Pedro 0.088 67,677 23 West Covina 0.107 67,069 10.3% 24 South San Gabriel 0.008 66,958 13.1% 24 Valinda 0.024 66,697 12.5% 21 Costa Mesa 0.112 66,491 14.5% 2 Whittier 0.087 66,457 12.5% 22 Chula Vista 0.253 66,110 12.5% 5 City of Burbank 0.104 66,076 11.0%
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
57
Appendix B (Continued)
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
2015 Median Agency 2015 Population 2015 Poverty Household Agency # (or Community) Served (1) Rate(1) Income (1) Name (million) (%) I· I· I· ($) !Tl I· 7 City of Fullerton 0.141 65,974 16.8% 2 Signal Hill 0.012 65,773 18.1% 22 San Diego 1.342 65,753 15.4% 2 West Whittier-Los Nietos 0.027 65,363 8.9% 25 Howard 0.159 65,096 13.4% 19 Fontana 0.201 64,995 16.1% 22 Spring Valley 0.030 64,517 12.0% 23 Covina 0.048 64,496 10.9% 24 Temple City 0.036 63,803 9.6% 26 Lake Elsinore 0.056 63,303 14.6% 22 Ramona 0.022 62,919 9.5% 2 Downey 0.113 62,897 11.4% 2 South Whittier 0.059 62,592 14.0% 24 Duarte 0.022 62,186 15.5% 22 Lakeside 0.021 62,037 11.6% 23 Charter Oak 0.009 61,946 11.6% 19 Upland 0.075 61,551 15.5% 23 Rowland Heights 0.052 61,375 11.8% 26 Rubidoux 0.034 61,279 20.8% 2 Vernon 0.0001 61,250 2.4% 17 Quail Valley 0.002 61,232 20.4% 17 Romoland 0.002 61,232 15.7% 3 City of Anaheim 0.358 60,752 16.5% 2 Artesia 0.017 60,749 12.4% 26 El Sobrante 0.013 60,732 12.6% 1 Oxnard 0.208 60,621 16.6% 2 Norwalk 0.106 59,756 14.3% 17 Nuevo 0.007 59,464 21.4% 21 Garden Grove 0.174 59,360 17.6% 22 Oceanside 0.171 58,385 14.1% 23 South San Jose Hills 0.021 58,154 19.9% 17 Winchester 0.027 57,935 14.1% 1 Port Hueme 0.022 57,848 15.0%
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
58
Appendix B (Continued)
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
2015 Median Agency 2015 Population 2015 Poverty Household Agency # (or Community) Served (1) Rate(1) Income (1) Name (million) (%) ly ly ly ($) lyl IT 25 Lomita 0.021 57,245 14.7% 24 Bassett 0.032 56,869 17 Menifee 0.082 56,671 12.1% 24 Irwindale 0.002 56,625 12.5% 17 North Canyon Lake 0.010 56,607 24 San Gabriel 0.040 56,238 13.8% 22 San Marcos 0.088 56,139 16.0% 26 Riverside 0.313 56,089 18.8% 25 West Hollywood 0.035 56,025 15.3% 26 Jurupa Valley 0.097 55,898 17.0% 2 Pico River 0.064 55,752 13.7% 25 Alondra Park 0.009 55,263 23.2% 21 South West Anaheim 0.114 55,189 12 City of San Fernando 0.025 55,170 18.9% 24 La Puente 0.040 54,660 14.5% 22 La Mesa 0.058 54,630 12.4% 22 Rainbow 0.002 54,408 12.6% 17 Moreno Valley 0.199 54,229 19.3% 19 Ontario 0.167 54,156 18.1% 2 Monterrey Park 0.061 54,097 17.3% 21 Seal Beach 0.024 54,026 8.1% 21 Westminster 0.091 53,660 17.8% 2 Santa Fe Springs 0.018 53,168 12.6% 9 City of Long Beach 0.470 52,783 20.6% 8 City of Glendale 0.201 52,574 14.6% 22 Lemon Grove 0.026 52,339 15.1% 14 City of Santa Ana 0.334 52,253 22.1% 23 Azusa 0.047 52,087 17.6% 23 Industry 0.0004 51,951 2.4% 17 Mead Valley 0.0004 51,944 33.4% 22 Fallbrook 0.031 51,765 19.0% 24 Baldwin Park 0.076 51,189 16.7% 10 City of Los Angeles 3.976 50,205 22.1%
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
59
Appendix B (Continued)
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
2015 Median Agency 2015 Population 2015 Poverty Household Agency # (or Community) Served (1) Rate(1) Income (1) Name (million) (%) l T IT IT ($) l•I l· 1 Camarillo Heights 0.087 50,047 15.4% 22 Pauma Valley 0.002 49,796 24.3% 22 Escondido 0.148 49,409 18.7% 23 Pomona 0.151 48,993 22.1% 2 Bellflower 0.078 48,823 17.9% 19 Montclair 0.038 48,767 16.9% 17 Perris 0.071 48,591 25.3% 25 Lawndale 0.033 48,376 17.8% 25 Gardena 0.060 47,856 15.0% 22 Vista 0.096 47,782 17.8% 17 Juniper Flats 0.002 47,383 17 Lakeview 0.002 47,383 22.0% 17 San Jacinto 0.045 46,714 20.4% 22 El Cajon 0.102 45,957 24.2% 2 Montebello 0.063 45,875 14.0% 21 Stanton 0.038 45,842 21.8% 2 Paramount 0.055 45,792 23.1% 21 Midway City 0.009 45,581 22.2% 2 Commerce 0.013 45,341 16.0% 24 Rosemead 0.054 44,524 19.3% 24 South El Monte 0.020 44,498 20.5% 25 Hawthorne 0.086 44,384 20.1% 2 South Gate 0.096 43,552 20.0% 6 City of Compton 0.098 43,507 26.6% 2 Lynwood 0.071 43,109 25.3% 2 Walnut Park 0.016 42,400 19.1% 25 Inglewood 0.111 42,249 22.4% 22 Camp Pendelton 0.039 41,715 9.0% 17 Sun City 0.023 40,523 12.0% 17 Valle Vista 0.016 40,010 23.2% 22 National City 0.060 39,517 24.5% 24 El Monte 0.115 38,906 24.9% 2 East Los Angeles 0.125 38,766 27.2%
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
60
Appendix B (Continued)
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
2015 Median Agency 2015 Population 2015 Poverty Household Agency # (or Community) Served (1) Rate(1) Income (1) Name (million) (%) I- I- I- ($) lyl I- 25 West Athens 0.009 38,371 25.7% 2 Bell Gardens 0.043 37,882 28.1% 2 Hawaiian Gardens 0.014 37,571 30.7% 2 Bell 0.036 37,269 27.7% 21 Laguna Woods 0.016 36,708 10.3% 25 Lennox 0.022 36,573 32.3% 17 Homeland 0.006 36,516 26.6% 2 Willowbrook 0.021 36,481 29.4% 2 Cudahy 0.024 36,429 31.3% 2 Maywood 0.028 35,582 30.1% 2 Huntington Park 0.059 34,887 29.6% 17 Good Hope 0.009 34,801 38.1% 2 Florence-Graham 0.063 33,934 32.8% 17 Hemet 0.081 33,932 26.0% 25 Westmont 0.031 27,072 37.0% Total = 20.80 (1) Sources: http://www.mwdh2o.com; https://www.california-demographics.com; https://www.point2homes.com; & http://www.city-data.com
List of Agencies and Communities, Sorted by Median Household Income
61 Appendix C
Appendix C Category: MITIGATION Weight = 40% Criteria: Water Supply Reliability & Redundancy Importance: Agency's Resiliency to Water Shortages Value Description 0 1 source (Import) 1 1 Source (Local Wells) 2 2 Sources (Import and low % Local Wells) 3 2 Sources (Import and high % Local Wells) 4 3 Sources (Import, Local Wells, and RCLD Wtr) 5 3 Sources + Ocean Desalination, OR Min. 1 Source + Emergency Supply in Storage
Category: MITIGATION Weight = 20% Criteria: Water Shortage Contingency Plans Importance: Agency's Water Conservation Efforts Value Description 0 No Conservation Efforts 1 2 Early Stages of Conservation Efforts 3 4 Demonstrated Commitment to Meet the Mandated 20% Demand Reduction by 2020 5 Already Exceed the Mandated 20% Demand Reduction by 2020
Category: PREPARATION Weight = 20% Criteria: Hazard/Risk Assessment & Engineering Standards Importance: Identify Hazards/Risks, Adopt Stringent Engineering Standards to Protect Key Facilities Value Description 0 No Evidence of Hazards/Risk Assessment & Engineering Standards 1 2 Early Stages of Hazards/Risk Assessment & Engineering Standards 3 4 (Outdated) Established Assessment & Standards for All Critical Facilities 5 (Contemporary) Established Assessment & Standards for All Critical Facilities
Category: PREPARATION Weight = 20% Criteria: Emergency Management Plan (EMP) Importance: Allows the Agency to Adequately Respond to, and Recover from, Emergencies Value Description 0 No Evidence of EMP 1 2 EMP Under Development 3 4 Published yet Outdated EMP 5 Published and Contemporary EMP Agency-Readiness Categories and Criteria Ratings 62 Appendix D
lorado River Aqueduct
Main Water Supplies Imported Into Southern California Source: City of Los Angeles 2015 UWMP, Page ES-3
63 Appendix E
Appendix E
ACTUAL Reported & Estimated R-GPCD (1) (2)
2013-2017 Base Line Agency Met Agency Name Base Line Savings to Latest Actual: Population # (1) (2) Sep Jun Jun Jul Aug Sep Target of R-GPCD or Savings Served 2013 2014 2017 2017 2017 2017 20 by 2020? (Gal/Day) Reduction or Reduction (million) (Yes/No) (%) (%)
0 MWD NA (3) 1 Calleguas MWD NA 2 Central Basin MWD NA 3 City of Anaheim 203 108 94 13% 54% Yes 0.358 4 City of Beverly Hills 292 186 139 25% 52% Yes 0.035 5 City of Burbank 197 145 118 18% 40% Yes 0.104 6 City of Compton 89 63 70 -11% 21% Yes 0.082 7 City of Fullerton 223 142 91 36% 59% Yes 0.138 8 City of Glendale 144 112 97 13% 32% Yes 0.199 9 City of Long Beach 134 81 66 18% 51% Yes 0.470 10 City of Los Angeles 154 97 82 16% 47% Yes 3.976 11 City of Pasadena 211 149 123 17% 41% Yes 0.142 12 City of San Fernando 141 126 100 21% 29% Yes 0.025 13 City of San Marino NA 14 City of Santa Ana 130 79 68 14% 48% Yes 0.332 15 City of Santa Monica 154 100 79 21% 49% Yes 0.094 16 City of Torrance 157 107 84 21% 47% Yes 0.106 17 Eastern MWD 197 131 106 19% 46% Yes 0.567 18 Foothill MWD NA 19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency NA 20 Las Virgenes MWD 311 278 200 28% 36% Yes 0.075 21 MWD of Orange County NA 22 SD County Water Authority NA 23 Three Valleys MWD NA 24 Upper SG Valley MWD NA 25 West Basin MWD NA 26 Western MWD 430 195 198 -1% 54% Yes 0.096 Footnotes: Total = 6.80 (1) R-GPCD means Residential Gallon Per Day Per Capita Population %: 33% Sources: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/conservation_reporting.shtml; and (2) https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/uwmp_export.asp (3) NA means wholesale agency, with no retail customers, exempt from R-GPCD reporting Water Conservation Reports Summary
64 Appendix F Appendix F (Part 1 of 5)
(1) (2) Service Within Class A Water Companies: Capita Per Population Service In # of Southern More than 10,000 service connections Customer Served in California(1) Customers Southern California(1) Household California 1 1 California American Water 15,000 4 60,000.0 Coronado (HQ); Service Areas: Los Angeles, Monterey, Placer, Sacramento, San Diego, Sonoma, Ventura and Yolo Counties) 1 1 California Water Service Company San Jose (HQ); Service Areas/Districts: 15,000 4 60,000.0 Antelope Valley, East Los Angeles, Rancho Dominguez, Westlake, (Los Angeles County); Bakersfield, Kern River Valley (Kern County); Bayshore, Bear Gulch (San Mateo County); Chico, Oroville (Butte County); Dixon (Solano County); King City, Salinas (Monterey County); Livermore (Alameda County); Los Altos (Santa Clara County); Marysville (Yuba County); Redwood Valley (Sonoma and Lake Counties); Selma (Fresno County); Visalia (Tulare County); Stockton (San Joaquin); Willows (Glenn County) 1 1 Golden State Water Company San Dimas (Contra Costa, Imperial, Lake, Los 15,000 4 60,000.0 Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties) 1 Great Oaks Water Company San Jose (Santa Clara County) 1 1 Liberty Utilities Apple Valley (San Bernardino County) and Downey (Los 15,000 4 60,000.0 Angeles County) 1 1 San Gabriel Valley Water Company El Monte (Los Angeles and San Bernardino 15,000 4 60,000.0 Counties) 1 San Jose Water Company San Jose (Santa Clara County) 1 1 Suburban Water Systems Covina (Los Angeles and Orange Counties) 15,000 4 60,000.0 8 6 90,000 360,000.0 Regulated (Private) Water Companies in California Appendix F (Part 2 of 5)
(1) (2) Service Within Class B Water Companies: Capita Per Population Service In # of Served in Southern 2,000-10,000 service connections Customer California(1) Customers Southern California(1) Household California 1 Alco Water Service Salinas (Monterey County) 1 Bakman Water Company Fresno (Fresno County) 1 Del Oro Water Co., Inc. Chico (Butte and Tuolumne Counties) 1 1 East Pasadena Water Company Pasadena (Los Angeles County) 10,000 4 40,000.0 1 Fruitridge Vista Water Company Sacramento (Sacramento County) 5 1 10,000 40,000.0 Regulated (Private) Water Companies in California
65 Appendix F (Part 3 of 5) (1) (2) Service Within Class C Water Companies: Capita Per Population Service In # of Served in Southern 500-2,000 Service Connections Customer California(1) Customers Southern California(1) Household California 1 Agate Bay Water Company Carmichael (Placer County) (Agate Bay, northwest shore of Lake Tahoe) 1 Bass Lake Water Company Bass Lake (Madera County) 1 Big Basin Water Co., Inc. Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz County) 1 Catalina Water Division, Southern California Edison Company Santa Catalina Island (Los Angeles County) 1 Erskine Creek Water Company Lake Isabella (Kern County) 1 Fulton Water Company Tahoe City (Placer County) 1 Graeagle Water Company, Inc. Graeagle (Plumas County) 1 Hillview Water Company Oakhurst (Madera County) 1 Little Bear Water Company King City (Monterey County) 1 Lukins Brothers Water Company South Lake Tahoe (El Dorado County) 1 Meadowbrook Water Co. of Merced, Inc. Merced (Merced County) 1 1 Mesa-Crest Water Company La Canada (Los Angeles County) 2,000 4 8,000.0 1 Nacimiento Water Company Bradley (San Luis Obispo County) 1 North Gualala Water Works Gualala (Mendocino County) 1 Penngrove Water Company Santa Rosa (Sonoma County) 1 1 Rio Plaza Water Company, Inc. Moorepark (Ventura County) 2,000 4 8,000.0 1 Rogina Water Company, Inc. Talmage (Mendocino County) 1 Rural Water, Inc. Grover Beach (San Luis Obispo County) 1 Sea Ranch Water Company The Sea Ranch (Sonoma County) 1 1 Searles Domestic Water Company Trona (San Bernardino County) 2,000 4 8,000.0 1 1 Southern California Edison Company Santa Catilina Island (Los Angeles 2,000 4 8,000.0 County) 1 Tahoe Cedars Water Company Tahoma (El Dorado and Placer Counties) 1 Tahoe Park Water Company, Inc. Tahoe City (Placer County) 1 Yosemite Spring Park Utility Co. Coarsegold (Madera County) 24 4 8,000 32,000.0 Regulated (Private) Water Companies in California
66 Appendix F (Part 4 of 5) (1) (2) Service Within Class D Water Companies: Capita Per Population Service In # of Served in Southern Less than 500 Service Connections Customer California(1) Customers Southern California(1) Household California 1 Alpine Village Water Company Porterville (Tulare County) 1 Arroyo Center Water Co., Inc. Greenfield (Monterey County) 1 Baycliff Subdivision Lower Lake (Lake County) 1 Beasore Meadows Water System Oakhurst (Madera County) 1 Benbow Water Corporation Garberville (Humboldt County) 1 Black Butte Water Co. Orland (Glenn County) 1 California Hot Springs Water Serv. California Hot Springs (Tulare County) 1 Canada Woods Water Company Salinas (Monterey County) 1 1 Casmite Corporation Casmalia Subdivision (Santa Barbara County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 Cazadero Water Company Cazadero (Sonoma County) 1 Central Camp Water Inc. Friant (Madera County) 1 Cobb Mountain Water Company Cobb (Lake County) 1 Cold Springs Water Company, Inc. Cold Springs (Tuolumne County) 1 Cottage Springs Water Company Avery (Calaveras County) 1 Dunnigan Water Works Dunnigan (Yolo County) 1 Easton Estates Water Company Fresno (Fresno County) 1 Foothill Ditch Company Exeter (Tulare County) 1 Geyserville Water Works Geyserville (Sonoma County) 1 Goodyears Bar Water Company Sacramento (Sierra County) 1 Hat Creek Water Company Old Station (Shasta County) 1 1 Havasu Water Company, Inc. Havasu Landing (San Bernardino County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 Idylwild Water System Los Gatos (Santa Clara County) 1 Interstate 5 Utility Company, Inc. Bakersfield (Kern County) 1 January Water Company Tulare (Tulare County) 1 Keene Water System Keene, Woodford (Kern County) 1 Kenwood Village Water Company Santa Rosa (Sonoma County) 1 Lake Alpine Water Company, Inc. Bear Valley (Alpine County) 1 1 Lakeview Water Company Havasu Landing (San Bernardino County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 Larkspur Meadows Water Company Paramount (Tehama County) 1 Las Flores Water Works Gerber (Tehama County) 1 Lewiston Valley Water Co., Inc. Lewiston (Trinity County) 1 Little Bear Water, Inc. King City (Monterey County) 1 1 Live Oak Springs Water and Power Co. Boulevard (San Diego County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 1 Llano Del Rio Water Company Llano (Los Angeles County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 Long Canyon Water Company Bakersfield (Kern County) 1 1 Lytle Springs Water Company Lytle Creek (San Bernardino County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 MacDoel Water Works Klamath Falls (Siskiyou County) 1 Madden Creek Water Company Tahoma (Placer County) 1 Meadow Valley Water Works Meadow Valley (Plumas County) Regulated (Private) Water Companies in California
67 Appendix F (Part 5 of 5) (1) (2) Service Within Class D Water Companies (continued): Capita Per Population Service In # of Southern Less than 500 Service Connections Customer Served in California(1) Customers Southern California(1) Household California 1 Mecchi Water Company San Jose (Santa Clara County)
1 Meyers Water Company Napa (Napa County) 1 MHC Aquisition One, LLC Chicago (Santa Cruz County) 1 Mira Monte Water Company Gerber (Tehama County) 1 Mountain Mesa Water Company Bakersfield (Kern County) 1 Owens Valley Water Company Los Angeles (Inyo County) 1 Pierpoint Springs Resort Water Co. Camp Nelson (Tulare County) 1 Pinon Hill Water Company Tehachapi (Kern County) 1 Point Arena Water Works, Inc. Point Arena (Mendocino County) 1 Ponderosa Sky Ranch Water System Paynes Creek (Tehama County) 1 PureSource Water, Inc. Aptos (Santa Cruz County) 1 R.R. Lewis Small Water Company Stockton (Sierra County) 1 1 Ramona Water Company Palm Desert (Riverside County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 Redwood Lodge Water Company Los Gatos (Santa Cruz County) 1 Riverview Estates Water Company Red Bluff (Tahama County) 1 Rolling Green Utilities, Inc. Big Pine (Inyo County) 1 Sequoia Crest, Inc. Springville (Tulare County) 1 Sereno Del Mar Water Company Sereno Del Mar (Sonoma County) 1 Sierra City Water Works, Inc. Sierra City (Sierra County) 1 Slide Inn/Snobowl Water Company Sonora (Tuolumne County) 1 Sonoma Springs Water Company, LLC Kenwood (Sonoma County) 1 Sonora Water Company Sonora (Tuolumne County) 1 Spreckels Water Company Spreckels (Monterey County) 1 1 Spring Crest Water and Power Company Mountain Center (Riverside County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 1 Stone Creek Water, Inc. Stone Creek (Riverside County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 Susan River Park Water Company Susanville (Lassen County) 1 Tahoe Swiss Village Utilities, Inc. Homewood (El Dorado and Placer Counties) 1 Timberland Water Service Tahoe City (Placer County) 1 Traver Water Company Coalinga (Tulare County) 1 Trinity Village Water Company Eureka (Trinity County) 1 Twin Lakes Enterprises Bridgeport (Mono County) 1 Twin Valley Water Company, Inc. Morgan Hill (Santa Clara County) 1 Vista Grande Water System Gerber (Tehama County) 1 Warring Water Service, Inc. Piru (Ventura County) 1 Weimar Water Company, Inc. Weimar (Placer County) 1 Wendell Water Company Santa Rosa (Sonoma County) 1 West San Martin Water Works, Inc. San Martin (Santa Clara County) 1 West Water Company Cloverdale (Sonoma County) 1 1 Yerba Buena Water Company Thousand Oaks (Ventura County) 500 4 2,000.0 1 1 Yermo Water Company Yermo (San Bernardino County) 500 4 2,000.0 79 I 11 (1) Source: http://www.calwaterassn.com/about-cwa/regulated-water-utilities-in-california/ (2) Estimated by the author of this paper 5,500 22,000.0
113,500 454,000 Regulated (Private) Water Companies in California
68 Appendix G
Magnitude 7 .8 Earthquake Video Simulation Source: The Great Caiifomia Shakeout, retrieved from: https://www.shakeoun:.org/california/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTx92TuWHA
69
Magnitude 7 ,8 E.irthquake Video Simulation Source: The Great Cafifomia Shakeout, retrieved from: https://www. shakeovt.org/califomia/ and hnps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTx92TuWHA
70
AppendixG: M agnitude 7.8 Earthquake Video Simulation Source: The Great Califomia Shakeout, retrieved from: https://www.shakeout.org/california/ and https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=blTx92TuWHA
71
Appendix G: Magnitude 7.8 Earthquake Vtdeo Simulation Source: The Great California Shakeout, retrieved from: hnps://www .shakeout.org/califomia/ and httpsJ/www.youtube.com/ watch ?v=blTx92TuWHA
72 Appendix H
Appendix H
Phase: MITIGATION
Criteria 1: Water Supply Reliability & Redundancy
Agency # Agency Name Local Brakish Water Imported source Ocean Water Water Shortage Emergency Recycled Well Water & Desalination Contingency Plan Storage Desalination Wells
100% from two 0 The Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal. no no no yes yes sources 1 Calleguas MWD 45% 55% limited use no yes yes
2 Central Basin MWD 28% 67% 4% no no yes
3 City of Anaheim 30% 70% small % no no yes
4 City of Beverly Hills 92% 9% no no no yes
5 City of Burbank 32% 68% yes no no yes
6 City of Compton 30% 70% no no no yes
7 City of Fullerton 25% 75% no no no yes
8 City of Glendale 69% 27% 4% no no yes yes, pilot 9 City of Long Beach 40% 60% yes yes project 62% from two 10 City of Los Angeles 11% 27% no considering it yes yes sources 11 City of Pasadena 60% 36% no no no yes yes
12 City of San Fernando occasionally 100% no no no yes yes
13 City of San Marino 11% 89%
14 City of Santa Ana 29% 71% yes no no yes
15 City of Santa Monica 45% 54% 1% no no yes
16 City of Torrance 84% 16% yes no yes yes yes
17 Eastern MWD 54 10 31 0 5 yes
18 Foothill MWD 60% 40% no no no yes
19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 25% 40% yes yes yes
20 Las Virgenes MWD 100% yes yes no no yes yes
21 Municipal Water District of Orange County 41% 50% 9% yes yes yes yes 78% from three 22 San Diego County Water Authority different 8% 5% 9% yes yes yes sources
23 Three Valleys MWD 54% 41% 2% no yes
24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 100% yes
25 West Basin MWD 65% 21% 8% no yes yes 26 Western MWD 86% 8% 1% no yes yes Collected Data for Criteria 1, Water Supply Reliability & Redundancy
73 Appendix I
Appendix I ACTUAL Reported & Estimated R-GPCD (1) (2)
Agency Agency Name Base Line # (1) (2) Sep Jun Jun Jul Aug Sep R-GPCD 2013 2014 2017 2017 2017 2017 (Gal/Day)
0 MWD NA (3) 1 Calleguas MWD NA 2 Central Basin MWD NA 3 City of Anaheim 203 108 94 4 City of Beverly Hills 292 186 139 5 City of Burbank 197 145 118 6 City of Compton 89 63 70 7 City of Fullerton 223 142 91 8 City of Glendale 144 112 97 9 City of Long Beach 134 81 66 10 City of Los Angeles 154 97 82 11 City of Pasadena 211 149 123 12 City of San Fernando 141 126 100 13 City of San Marino NA 14 City of Santa Ana 130 79 68 15 City of Santa Monica 154 100 79 16 City of Torrance 157 107 84 17 Eastern MWD 197 131 106 18 Foothill MWD NA 19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency NA 20 Las Virgenes MWD 311 278 200 21 MWD of Orange County NA 22 SD County Water Authority NA 23 Three Valleys MWD NA 24 Upper SG Valley MWD NA 25 West Basin MWD NA 26 Western MWD 430 195 198 Footnotes: ~ (1) R-GPCD means Residential Gallon Per Day Per Capita ~ (2) Sources: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/conservation_reporting.shtml; and https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/uwmp_export.asp
~ (3) NA means wholesale agency, with no retail customers, exempt from R-GPCD reporting
Collected Data for Criteria 2, Water Shortage Contingency Plans
74 Appendix J
Appendix J Phase: PREPARATION Agency # Agency Name Criteria 3: Hazard/Risk Assessment & Engineering Standards
0 The Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal. H&R Assesment Plan not found 1 Calleguas MWD industry stds for design stds H&R Assesment Plan not found 2 Central Basin MWD industry stds for design stds 2015 H&R Assesment Plan 3 City of Anaheim industry stds for design stds (2009) 2016 H&R Assesment Plan 4 City of Beverly Hills industry stds for design stds 2017 H&R Mitigation Plan 5 City of Burbank industry stds for design stds 2011 H&R Mitigation Plan 6 City of Compton industry stds for design stds 2010 H&R Mitigation Plan 7 City of Fullerton industry stds for design stds 2013 H&R MitigationPlan 8 City of Glendale industry stds for design stds 2013 H&R Mitigation Plan 9 City of Long Beach industry stds for design stds 2017 HMP + 2015 Resiliency By Design + 10 City of Los Angeles advanced stds for design 2013 H&R Mitigation Plan 11 City of Pasadena industry stds for design stds could not find H&R Mitigation Plan 12 City of San Fernando industry stds for design stds 2017 Hazard Mitigation plan 13 City of San Marino industry stds for design stds 2010 H&R Mitigation Plan + industry stds for 14 City of Santa Ana design stds + 2017 Design Guidelines 2015 H&R Mitigation Plan 15 City of Santa Monica industry stds for design stds 2016 H&R Mitigation Plan 16 City of Torrance industry stds for design stds 2017 Hazards Assessment Plan 17 Eastern MWD industry stds for design stds could not find H&R Mitigation Plan 18 Foothill MWD industry stds for design stds / no publications 2017 H&R Mitigation Plan 19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency industry stds for design stds could not find H&R Mitigatin Plan 20 Las Virgenes MWD industry stds for design stds (published 1997) 2017 H&R Mitigation Plan 21 Municipal Water District of Orange County industry stds for design stds 2015 H&R Mitigation Plan 22 San Diego County Water Authority industry stds for design stds, 2077 guide tailored for risk mitigation could not find H&R Mitigation Plan 23 Three Valleys MWD industry stds for design stds could not find H&R Mitigation Plan 24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD industry stds for design stds could not find H&R Mitigation Plan 25 West Basin MWD industry stds for design stds 2017 H&R Mitigation Plan 26 Western MWD industry stds for design stds, design handbook Collected Data for Criteria 3, Hazard/Risk Assessment & Engineering Standards
75 Appendix K
Appendix K
Phase: PREPARATION Agency # Agency Name Criteria 4: Emergency Management Plan
0 The Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal.
1 Calleguas MWD EMP not found
2 Central Basin MWD EMP not found
3 City of Anaheim 2017 EMP and report
4 City of Beverly Hills 2013 EMP
5 City of Burbank 2015 EMP
6 City of Compton 2010 EMP
7 City of Fullerton CERT and AlertOC programs
8 City of Glendale 2017 EP (uncertain of year) 2017 Security & Emergency Preparedness Plan 9 City of Long Beach and EOP 2015 10 City of Los Angeles 2014 EMP
11 City of Pasadena 2011 EOP web page guide to the public 12 City of San Fernando could not find an EMP 13 City of San Marino 2017 EOP CERT program 14 City of Santa Ana could not find EMP 15 City of Santa Monica 2017 OEM, Emerg Plan + CERT
16 City of Torrance 2010 EOP + CERT + public outreach on web page
17 Eastern MWD 2017 Emergency Operations Plan
18 Foothill MWD could not find EMP 2013 Asset Management Pan 19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency could not find EMP 20 Las Virgenes MWD 2013 ERP
21 Municipal Water District of Orange County 2016 EMP
22 San Diego County Water Authority 2017 EMP
23 Three Valleys MWD could not find EMP
24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 2016 EMP
25 West Basin MWD could not find EMP
26 Western MWD 2011 EMP
Collected Data for Criteria 4, Emergency Management Plan (EMP)
76 Appendix L
Appendix L Phase: MITIGATION Calculated Agency # Agency Name Criteria 1: Water Supply Reliability & Weight Score Redundancy
0 The Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal. 0 40% 0.0
1 Calleguas MWD 5 40% 2.0
2 Central Basin MWD 4 40% 1.6
3 City of Anaheim 3 40% 1.2
4 City of Beverly Hills 2 40% 0.8
5 City of Burbank 3 40% 1.2
6 City of Compton 3 40% 1.2
7 City of Fullerton 3 40% 1.2
8 City of Glendale 2 40% 0.8
9 City of Long Beach 3 40% 1.2
10 City of Los Angeles 5 40% 2.0
11 City of Pasadena 5 40% 2.0
12 City of San Fernando 5 40% 2.0
13 City of San Marino 3 40% 1.2
14 City of Santa Ana 3 40% 1.2
15 City of Santa Monica 3 40% 1.2
16 City of Torrance 5 40% 2.0
17 Eastern MWD 4 40% 1.6
18 Foothill MWD 2 40% 0.8
19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 4 40% 1.6
20 Las Virgenes MWD 5 40% 2.0
21 Municipal Water District of Orange County 5 40% 2.0
22 San Diego County Water Authority 5 40% 2.0
23 Three Valleys MWD 2 40% 0.8
24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 0 40% 0.0
25 West Basin MWD 2 40% 0.8
26 Western MWD 2 40% 0.8
A = 35.2
Potential Maximum Score = B = 52.0 Readiness Index for This Crietria, for All Agencies = A/B = 67.7% Criteria 1 Scoring & Calculations for: Water Supply Reliability and Redundancy
77 Appendix M
Appendix M Phase: MITIGATION Calculated Agency # Agency Name Criteria 2: Water Shortage Weight Score Contingency Plans
0 The Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal. 0 20% 0.0
1 Calleguas MWD 4 20% 0.8
2 Central Basin MWD 4 20% 0.8
3 City of Anaheim 5 20% 1.0
4 City of Beverly Hills 5 20% 1.0
5 City of Burbank 5 20% 1.0
6 City of Compton 5 20% 1.0
7 City of Fullerton 5 20% 1.0
8 City of Glendale 5 20% 1.0
9 City of Long Beach 5 20% 1.0
10 City of Los Angeles 5 20% 1.0
11 City of Pasadena 5 20% 1.0
12 City of San Fernando 5 20% 1.0
13 City of San Marino 4 20% 0.8
14 City of Santa Ana 5 20% 1.0
15 City of Santa Monica 5 20% 1.0
16 City of Torrance 5 20% 1.0
17 Eastern MWD 5 20% 1.0
18 Foothill MWD 4 20% 0.8
19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 4 20% 0.8
20 Las Virgenes MWD 5 20% 1.0
21 Municipal Water District of Orange County 4 20% 0.8
22 San Diego County Water Authority 4 20% 0.8
23 Three Valleys MWD 4 20% 0.8
24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 4 20% 0.8
25 West Basin MWD 4 20% 0.8
26 Western MWD 5 20% 1.0
A = 24.0
Potential Maximum Score = B = 26.0 Readiness Index for This Crietria, for All Agencies = A/B = 92.3% Criteria 2 Scoring & Calculations for: Water Shortage Contingency Plan
78 Appendix N
Appendix N Phase: PREPARATION Calculated Agency # Agency Name Criteria 3: Hazard/Risk Assessment Weight Score & Engineering Standards
0 The Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal. 0 20% 0.0
1 Calleguas MWD 1 20% 0.2
2 Central Basin MWD 1 20% 0.2
3 City of Anaheim 5 20% 1.0
4 City of Beverly Hills 5 20% 1.0
5 City of Burbank 5 20% 1.0
6 City of Compton 4 20% 0.8
7 City of Fullerton 4 20% 0.8
8 City of Glendale 5 20% 1.0
9 City of Long Beach 5 20% 1.0
10 City of Los Angeles 5 20% 1.0
11 City of Pasadena 5 20% 1.0
12 City of San Fernando 1 20% 0.2
13 City of San Marino 5 20% 1.0
14 City of Santa Ana 4 20% 0.8
15 City of Santa Monica 5 20% 1.0
16 City of Torrance 5 20% 1.0
17 Eastern MWD 5 20% 1.0
18 Foothill MWD 1 20% 0.2
19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 5 20% 1.0
20 Las Virgenes MWD 1 20% 0.2
21 Municipal Water District of Orange County 5 20% 1.0
22 San Diego County Water Authority 5 20% 1.0
23 Three Valleys MWD 1 20% 0.2
24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 1 20% 0.2
25 West Basin MWD 1 20% 0.2
26 Western MWD 5 20% 1.0
A = 19.0
Potential Maximum Score = B = 26.0 Readiness Index for This Crietria, for All Agencies = A/B = 73.1% Criteria 3 Scoring & Calculations for: Hazard/Risk Assessment & Engineering Standards
79 Appendix O
Appendix O Phase: PREPARATION Calculated Agency # Agency Name Criteria 4: Emergency Management Weight Score Plan (EMP)
0 The Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal. 0 20% 0.0
1 Calleguas MWD 1 20% 0.2
2 Central Basin MWD 1 20% 0.2
3 City of Anaheim 5 20% 1.0
4 City of Beverly Hills 5 20% 1.0
5 City of Burbank 5 20% 1.0
6 City of Compton 4 20% 0.8
7 City of Fullerton 4 20% 0.8
8 City of Glendale 5 20% 1.0
9 City of Long Beach 5 20% 1.0
10 City of Los Angeles 5 20% 1.0
11 City of Pasadena 4 20% 0.8
12 City of San Fernando 1 20% 0.2
13 City of San Marino 5 20% 1.0
14 City of Santa Ana 3 20% 0.6
15 City of Santa Monica 5 20% 1.0
16 City of Torrance 4 20% 0.8
17 Eastern MWD 5 20% 1.0
18 Foothill MWD 1 20% 0.2
19 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 4 20% 0.8
20 Las Virgenes MWD 4 20% 0.8
21 Municipal Water District of Orange County 5 20% 1.0
22 San Diego County Water Authority 5 20% 1.0
23 Three Valleys MWD 1 20% 0.2
24 Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 5 20% 1.0
25 West Basin MWD 1 20% 0.2
26 Western MWD 4 20% 0.8
A = 19.4
Potential Maximum Score = B = 26.0 Readiness Index for This Crietria, for All Agencies = A/B = 74.6% Criteria 4 Scoring & Calculations for: Emergency Management Plan (EMP)
80