Orange County Water District
HISTORY OF
iv
Cover photo: Burris Basin
v
Foreword ...........................................v
Regional Signicance of Orange County’s
Groundwater Basin
Introduction ........................................vii
Orange County Water Agencies
Looking Back ........................................1
Water Works and the Spanish Period
Water Works and the Rancho Period
Water Works and the American Period
e Anaheim Colony and the Anaheim
Water Company
Birth of Santa Ana, Orange, and Tustin
Anaheim Water Company v. Semi–Tropical
Water Company
e Irvine Legacy
Tapping Artesian Groundwater
Arrival of the Railroad
Tri Counties Reforestation Committee
Water Conservation Association
Metropolitan Water District
Orange County Flood Control District
Santa Ana Basin Water Rights Protective Association
Establishing the Orange County Water District ..........13
Orange County Water District
Irvine Company v. Water Conservation Association
Conservation and Replenishment
World War II and Military Bases
First Report on Water Supply in the
Lower Santa Ana Basin
Reducing Overdra
Responding to Growth: From Croplands
to Housing Tracts
Committee of Twelve
Optimizing the Groundwater Basin ....................25
Replenishment Assessment and Registration
Increased Imported Water in Orange County
e Politics of Spreading Basins
Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al.
Basin Equity Assessment
Seawater Barriers
Water Quality in the Watershed
Development of Water Factory 21
Pursuit of New Projects
Table of Contents
vi
Increasing Water Supply Reliability ....................39
Modernizing Orange County Water District
Green Acres Project
Analytical Water Quality Laboratory
Research and Development Laboratory
Improved Recharge Capabilities in the Basin
Stormwater Capture at Prado Basin
Environmental Stewardship at Prado Basin
e Beginning of the Groundwater Replenishment System
Visionary Partnership
Securing a Sustainable Water Future ...................49
Seawater Intrusion Control
Groundwater Replenishment System
Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory
A Tradition of Innovation
Groundwater Replenishment System Initial Expansion
Recharging GWRS Water
Imported Water Programs
Increasing Stormwater Capture
Addressing Groundwater Contamination
Sound Groundwater Management
Groundwater Replenishment System Completion
Continuing the Tradition of Innovation
Aerword ..........................................63
Appendices .........................................65
Historical Timeline—Orange County Water Progress
Locations of District Headquarters
Current Board of Directors
History of Board of Directors
Glossary
Bibliographic and Oral History Works Cited
Attribution .........................................91
vii
e Orange County Water District (OCWD, the district) is
responsible for managing the Orange County Groundwater
Basin, a vast, hidden gem spanning more than three hundred
square miles and holding billions of gallons of water located right
beneath our feet.
Groundwater is water that accumulates and is stored beneath
the surface of Earth in aquifers. Like an underground sponge, an
aquifer is a porous mix of sand and gravel that is lled with water.
Born of ancient rains and held deep underground, groundwater
is Orange County’s wellspring—a critically important water
resource that is largely invisible and yet saturates the lives and
livelihoods of millions of people.
A groundwater basin consists of one or more
aquifers surrounded by non–water–bearing material.
Inside the basin, the aquifers are divided and
shaped by aquitards, clay or silt layers that restrict
movement of water between the aquifers. Water
enters the groundwater basin by percolation
through the ground or by underground ows of
water from an adjoining aquifer. e movement of groundwater
is extremely slow and is usually measured in feet per year. Water
percolates into the basin naturally through rain and river ow.
Recycled and imported water also provide a source of supply into
the basin and these supplies are diverted into articially created
facilities called percolation ponds.
Regional Signicance of Orange County’s Groundwater Basin
Orange County’s groundwater basin began forming millions of
years ago as mountains eroded and ocean and riverine sediments
lled a deep valley, trapping Santa Ana River water within layers
of sand and gravel. e deepest aquifers of the groundwater basin
still contain pristine “fossil water” that fell to the ground thousands
of years ago. e water Orange County drinks today may have
entered the basin one year, one hundred years, or one thousand
years ago, depending on the location and depth of the well.
Orange County’s groundwater basin has a safe operating
capacity of approximately 500,000 acre–feet. is vast basin
reects an interesting geology. e sandy soil
under Yorba Linda, Fullerton, Anaheim, and
Orange provides good access for water on the
surface to reach deep aquifers while clay layers
that underlie other areas impede percolation.
ese restrictive clay layers limit the reach of
OCWD’s recharge areas, but they also limit the
extent and depth of pollution within the basin.
e water from the Santa Ana River is naturally puried
and stored underground without the need for extensive piping
networks to transport it. Further, it is not subject to evaporation
like water stored in a surface reservoir. Properly managed, the
groundwater basin provides a renewable resource for current
and future generations, and in times of drought, ensures water
Foreword
By Cathy Green, President, Orange County Water District
The water Orange
County drinks today
may have entered the
basin one year, one
hundred years, or one
thousand years ago…
viii
reliability that otherwise could be compromised. Responsible
management also ensures a basin that provides a solid foundation
for city infrastructure, as well as environmental benets to plants
and animals that depend upon rivers, streams, and wetlands.
e Orange County Water District has always viewed
groundwater management as a long–term process, and we’ve
made signicant investments to increase local water supplies in
the basin. Ninety years aer its inception, the district continues
to be guided by vision and vigilance to ensure water supply
reliability for future generations.
It is my distinct honor to serve as president of the Board
of Directors. e Board, together with sta, recognizes the
pivotal role the district plays in water resource management.
Its innovative water supply programs are a testament to its
commitment to groundwater stewardship. Please join me in
exploring the Orange County Water District’s remarkable 90–
year history.
La Palma Recharge Basin
in Anaheim
ix
In 1860, William Brewer, professor of agriculture at Sheeld
Scientic School at Yale, accompanied the rst geological survey
party to study the terrain of California. He kept a detailed journal
of his experiences. His early description of the broad riverbed of
the Santa Ana River (river) would still be quite accurate if the river
had not been conned to a channel in Orange County. Even today
during oods, the river appears formidable as it rushes to the sea.
One can imagine that, no longer conned by its banks, it could
ood the wide coastal plain now covered by asphalt and lined with
buildings. e river’s oodwater inundated parts of modern Orange
County at least ve times in the 20th century alone, altering the
homes and lives of residents. Yet, for much of every
year, it is a narrow, shallow stream that simply
disappears into its riverbed about mid–county.
As it disappears, however, its waters sink into a
groundwater reservoir that is capable of holding
some 2.5 to 3 million acre–feet of water (Bailey
1929). Orange County Water District (OCWD,
district) hydrogeologists have since mapped and
modeled the basin and estimate its total capacity to be 66 million
acre–feet (maf), (OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, 2015).
Early in the 20th century, the basin’s supply seemed unlimited.
By the 1930s, however, the groundwater level had dropped
precipitously, indicating the basin was already overdrawn. If
Orange County were to continue its economic expansion, the
basin supply would have to be replenished and protected. To
study the problem, the Farm Bureau and County Chamber of
Commerce established a committee of agribusiness and civic
leaders. e committee proposed legislation to establish a unique
basin–wide management and conservation district for the Santa
Ana Valley. As stated in the original 1933 OCWD Act, the new
district would monitor and conserve underground supplies in
the valley basin and protect local water rights against outside
users. While this basic purpose has remained in place, modern
technology and science have made OCWD’s operation much
more complex.
e rst directors supervised day–to–day
maintenance themselves, hiring engineers as
needed or retaining attorneys to pursue litigation
over water rights against upstream users of the
river. By 2002, OCWD’s operation had grown
to a sta of 186, including scientists, engineers,
technicians, accountants, and attorneys. It owned
more than 1,600 acres of land for groundwater
recharge and had an annual operating budget that exceeded
$76 million. Groundwater management policies had expanded
to include championing internationally acclaimed wastewater
reclamation projects. Now in 2023, supported by a sta of 226 and
an annual operating budget of $159.7 million, the district remains
at the forefront of groundwater management and protection.
Introduction
[OCWD’s] mission
is to provide a…
high–quality supply of
groundwater procured
in an environmentally
responsible manner…
x
Orange County Water Agencies
Several dierent kinds of water districts serve Orange County,
oen with similar names but dierent responsibilities. Only
one—OCWD—manages the groundwater basin of the north
and central part of the county. With the exception of treated
wastewater for irrigation in the Green Acres Project, OCWD
does not directly provide water to anyone. Its mission is to
provide local water retailers with a reliable, adequate, and high–
quality supply of groundwater procured in an environmentally
responsible manner at the lowest reasonable cost.
e Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWD) provides imported water from the Colorado River
and the State Water Project (Northern California to Southern
California). It wholesales this imported water to its Orange
County member agencies, including three independent cities,
Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana, and the Municipal Water
District of Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC represents all
of Orange County (excluding the independent city members of
MWD), acting as a pass–through agency for MWD water sold to
its constituent members, and selling additional untreated water
to OCWD for groundwater recharge.
Special districts, including Irvine Ranch Water District, Mesa
Water District, Yorba Linda Water District, East Orange County
Water District, and Serrano Water District, which until recent
decades were primarily agricultural water producers, also draw
groundwater from the basin. In addition to these districts, cities,
private individuals, and water companies also produce water
independently from the groundwater basin.
Directly or indirectly, water used in OCWD’s service area is
tied to the Santa Ana River. Without river ows, north and central
Orange County would be dependent on the Colorado River or
northern California.
Because of declining river ows, and reducing dependence on
imported water, OCWD has invested over $900 million to develop
a new 134,000 acre–foot per year (afy) supply of advanced treated
recycled water through its Groundwater Replenishment System
(GWRS). Also, OCWD has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to capture stormwater behind Prado Dam
and is working with the USACE to develop storm models to
implement Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) to
potentially capture even more stormwater in the future.
e OCWD has worked diligently over the past 90 years to
actively manage Orange County’s groundwater basin and develop
projects that provide water supply reliability for the 2.5 million
people and 19 retail water agencies it serves.
1
Looking Back
2
Water Works and the Spanish Period
Beginning in the late 18th century, as their colonies developed,
Europeans introduced their concept of community control of
irrigation and water management to Southern California. But
long before this, Indigenous people, including the Tongva and
Maara’yam, lived in this region. ey took advantage of abundant
water, game, plant foods, and bers. e river sustained their lives
and enriched their culture until missionaries arrived and forever
changed their world.
e Spanish clergy were the rst Europeans to draw irrigation
water from California’s streams and springs. According to
Spanish law, no individual could claim the right to a stream ow.
e right to use water was held in common within a community
for the benet of all and did not supersede the similar right of
downstream users. A watermaster, or zanjero, was charged with
the responsibility of allocating water in proportion to the needs of
the people and the quantity available. e pueblo (municipality)
or irrigation district was responsible for the division of the water,
development of water works, and protection of water quality for
the stream as it passed by. us, formal concepts of communal
sharing of water were applied to the river.
In 1810, the Spanish government granted a concession for
grazing rights on the 62,500–acre Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana
to retired soldier José Antonio Yorba and his nephew, Juan Pablo
Peralta. Following the custom of the Spanish government, the
rights to graze cattle on the land, rather than the land itself, were
granted to the men. Because of its location, the rancho claimed
riparian rights to the river ow, conrmed by the United States
land commission in 1860. A rancho’s rights were subordinate to
those of a pueblo. Generally limited to domestic use or watering
of livestock, the rancho’s water usage could be expanded for crop
irrigation or to operate a mill as long as such use did not injure
other downstream users. If, however, a rancher turned water
onto his land to irrigate and no one complained, his use could be
conrmed aer a period of time. In the rst recorded use of river
water for irrigation, Yorba and Peralta diverted water to irrigate
their crops and pastureland on the rancho (OCWD 1983).
Looking Back
Old mission house, California, photo courtesy of ilbusca/iStock
3
Water Works and the Rancho Period
When Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, the
inuence of the missions began to decline in California. What was
once the land of the Maara’yam and Tongva, and later, Spanish
missionaries, became the land of Mexican rancheros and some
German vineyard owners.
e newly independent nation secularized mission lands in the
early 1830s and granted them to settlers. Under the secularization
decree, Don Bernardo Yorba, son of José Antonio, received a
Mexican land grant to the Rancho Cajón de Santa Ana on the
north side of the river. In 1835, Bernardo Yorba built several
irrigation ditches on the river in the vicinity of Bedrock Canyon,
the narrowest point in Santa Ana Canyon (Hall 1888). Within a
year, he was irrigating between 1,000 to 2,000 acres of cropland,
vineyards, and orchards (M. B. Scott 1976).
Despite the transfer of land ownership from the missions to
the settlers, the economy changed little. Yankee traders came into
the region in the late 1820s and early 1830s to trade household
goods for hides, which they shipped by ocean–going vessels to
the eastern United States. Isolated on the West Coast, the Anglos
intermarried with the Mexican ranch families and continued
traditional cattle operations on the plains. Because it was so
dicult and time–consuming to carry freight beyond the Los
Angeles area, there was no outside market for perishables such as
meat nor incentive to irrigate more land than needed for food to
sustain the local population.
Water Works and the American Period
In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo concluded the war
with Mexico and made California part of the United States. James
Wilson Marshall, a sawmill operator on the American River,
discovered gold at the same time, and the rush to California was
on. Farmers came to Southern California and purchased rancho
land to grow grain and other food crops for hungry miners.
Ranchers began to graze cattle for their meat, not just the hides,
because it was nally protable to drive a herd north across the
San Joaquin Valley to Sacramento.
Orange County ranchos
4
e Anaheim Colony and the Anaheim Water Company
Once gold seekers reached San Francisco in the early 1850s,
however, they sought additional resources, including wine.
Western frontier trapper and tracker–turned–settler William
Wolfskill and others began to grow grapes for that market and
soon developed extensive vineyards on land that would become
part of Orange County. In an eort to expand their production,
San Francisco wine merchant John Frohling and his Los Angeles
partner, Charles Kohler, looked for people in San Francisco who
would be willing to come to the Los Angeles region to grow
grapes. At his urging, a group of 50 German immigrants agreed
to establish a vineyard colony near the river. e Germans formed
a stock company to purchase part of the Rancho San Juan Cajon
de Santa Ana, on the north side of the river. eir agent, George
Hansen, also secured a right of way across the remaining part of
the rancho to the river and the right to ll their ditch from the
river with a specic volume of water for irrigation of the 1,165–
acre tract. Hansen supervised the laying out of the individual
plots for vineyards and households in what became known as
Anaheim, a home (heim) by the river (Ana).
Once the vineyards were established, the colonists took
possession of the individual plots of land and established a mutual
water company—the Anaheim Water Company—to continue
to administer the irrigation works. Each landowner owned one
share in the company. is was a pioneering eort to develop a
private water company, distinct from later municipal and district
operations funded by taxes and bonds (Hundley 1992).
Birth of Santa Ana, Orange, and Tustin
While the colonists on the Rancho San Juan Cajón de
Santa Ana had purchased the right to a certain amount of
water to irrigate their acreage, there was no volume limit
on the riparian rights of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana.
The original grant stated that Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana
had the right to half of the waters of the river that came to it.
When Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana was partitioned in 1868,
the water rights went with each parcel—along with a right of
way for a ditch to the river if the parcel did not border the
river. Instead of joining together as the Anaheim colonists
did to form a mutual water company to supervise irrigation,
the landowners on this rancho dug small individual ditches,
which were gradually abandoned.
Mallory’s vineyard, 1898, photo courtesy of Santa Ana Public Library
5
By the mid–1870s, land developers were already establishing
the new communities of Santa Ana, Orange, and Tustin on the
Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. Two of the men who purchased
rancho land or took it in payment for services were attorneys
A.B. Chapman and Andrew Glassell. Andrew Glassell’s brother,
William, supervised the creation of Richland (now the city
of Orange) some distance from the river. Since this had been
rancho land, the development was entitled to water from the
river. In order to bring water to the edgling town, William
Glassell widened and lengthened one of the abandoned ditches,
constructed a small reservoir, and laid iron pipes to hydrants in
the town site (Brigandi 1997). Residents hauled water to their
homes and orchards from these hydrants, including one at the
Orange Plaza at Chapman and Glassell.
Two years later, the brothers formed the Semi–Tropical Water
Company and transferred the ditch, now known as the A.B.
Chapman Ditch, to it. e company then extended its lines to
Tustin and Santa Ana (Hall 1888).
Anaheim Water Company v. Semi–Tropical Water Company
As people moved into the Riverside area and developed
orchards, they used more of the river upstream from the ranchos
for irrigation, allowing less to ow down to the coastal plain.
While it appeared to Anaheim colonists on the north side of the
river that the Semi–Tropical Water Company was taking more
of their water, the upper basin diverters were the real culprits.
e diminished ow was not a problem in wet years, but 1877
was a dry year and the river ran nearly dry at the ditch intake for
Anaheim. Anaheim farmers, accustomed to using as much water
as they needed, had to haul water to save their vineyards. As a
result, the Anaheim Water Company sued the Semi–Tropical
Water Company to regain its volume share of river water.
Litigation of the river began with the lawsuit of Anaheim
Water Company v. Semi–Tropical Water Company. A lower court
decision stated that Anaheim was entitled to a supply of water to
ll its main ditch. at decision was appealed to the California
Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court’s decision and
upheld the Semi–Tropical Water Company’s riparian rights to
the river. e court, however, also recognized riparian rights
invested in the Anaheim Water Company, stating that it had
Open canal of the Anaheim Union Water Company, photo courtesy of
Santa Ana Public Library
6
equal rights to use the water. Justices remanded the case to the
lower court for a nal decision, but suggested that instead of
continuing litigation, the parties agree to an equitable division
of the water and devote their money to “proper development and
use of it” (Hall 1888). By the time the case was nally settled in
1883, the Anaheim Water Company had joined with other small
ditch owners on the north side of the river to form the Anaheim
Union Water Company. Meanwhile, the Semi–Tropical Water
Company had been purchased by the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation
Company, which was formed to irrigate all the river land on the
south side. As a result of these consolidations, two private water
delivery companies commanded the ow of the river in the Santa
Ana Valley. ey continued to supply water to their customers
until the 1960s when OCWD purchased the jointly held land, the
water rights of the Santa Ana Irrigation District, and the works of
the Anaheim Union Water Company to prevent their purchase by
upstream users (Pearson 1968).
e Irvine Legacy
e James Irvine family holds a prominent place in the
county’s history as well as its water resources. Lured by the Gold
Rush, James Irvine I arrived in California in 1848 and worked as
a merchant and miner. His success as a businessperson enabled
him to invest in real estate, both in San Francisco and what would
become Orange County. Timing was everything. e Mexican
land grant system dissolved once California entered the Union
in 1850. e dons who once held title to vast ranchos found
themselves owing property taxes they could not pay. While debt
began eroding their wealth, severe drought began decimating
their cattle herds. Many had no choice but to arrange for quick sale
of their holdings. James Irvine I became a silent partner in Flint,
Bixby, and Company, a sheep raising venture based on Orange
County land comprised of Rancho San Joaquín and Rancho
Lomas de Santiago, and later, Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. In
1876, Irvine bought out his partners, becoming sole owner of the
Irvine Ranch, nearly one–third of present–day Orange County.
His son, James Irvine II, or “J.I.,” assumed control of the Irvine
Ranch in 1892 and founded e Irvine Company two years later.
Aiming to maximize yield without losing control of the land, he
established a program of tenant farming on the property. Sheep
and cattle ranching gave way to the production of lima beans,
citrus, sugar beets, barley, and other crops. e arrival of the
railroad enabled the Irvine Company to tap a national market,
while the construction of wells enabled it to tap into groundwater.
Water was not perceived to be an issue on such a marsh–
dominant landscape. However, within 10 years, the water table
dropped signicantly, and water conservation and management
soon became a company priority. Dams and reservoirs, including
Irvine Lake, were built on the Irvine Ranch, and water supplies
were closely monitored.
Tapping Artesian Groundwater
e presence of groundwater in both the upper and lower Santa
Ana River basins made it possible for growers to irrigate o–stream
farms with wells. In the upper river basin, water from small tributary
streams sunk into the rich, porous soil, lling groundwater basins
7
and reducing the amount of water reaching the river. Irrigation
in the upper basin further reduced the ow of water in the lower
river basin. So great was the irrigation use in the upper valley, later
estimates showed that less than half the mountain runo reached
the river (Bailey 1929). Early on, this was enough water for all, but
in later years, the disparity would create conict among growers in
the three counties.
Where the river enters modern Orange County, water is also
absorbed into the Orange County groundwater basin, underlying
rich farmlands. Citrus ranchers and farmers irrigated from shallow
wells sunk as little as 15 feet into the valley below the foothills.
Closer to the coast, artesian springs owed freely across peatlands.
Called “the Delta of the American Nile” by enthusiastic boosters,
the Fountain Valley area was lled with an almost impenetrable
tangle of scrub trees, peat bog, and vines (Talbert 1982). Between
300 and 400 owing artesian wells ooded this lowland area. Springs
were fed by the seasonal river runo and augmented by the ow
of Santiago Creek. Although a few hardy individuals farmed the
swamp’s edges at Westminster, its rich bottomland soil was too
moist for cultivation.
Determined farmers had to channel the artesian spring runo
before they could cultivate these swampy coastal regions. Since
any drainage channel would have to go all the way to the ocean
to be eective, landowners formed a municipal irrigation, or
drainage, district to clear large sections of swamp. ey assessed
themselves to pay construction costs and built a network of large
ditches—fed by underground tile drains—to carry excess water
to the ocean (Talbert 1982; Osborne 1997). By 1900, they had
successfully drained the swamp to raise sugar beets, barley, lima
beans, and other crops.
Arrival of the Railroad
In 1887, the Santa Fe Railroad arrived at Santa Ana to break
the monopoly of the Southern Pacic Railroad and connect the
valley cities directly with the eastern produce markets of Chicago.
Valley businessmen joined other Southern California growers to
establish the California Fruit Growers Exchange (now Sunkist),
further improving market access and increasing prots as the
Early artesian well, circa late 1880s, photo courtesy of Kern
County Local History Photograph Collection. Kern County Library,
Bakersfield, California
8
citrus industry expanded in the 1890s. ese economic changes
brought substantial population growth to the riverbanks and
correspondingly, more demand for water, from both the river and
the groundwater basin. e changes also meant that the Santa
Ana Valley was nally strong enough politically to separate from
parent Los Angeles County. In 1889, county lines were drawn
along the Coyote Creek and San Gabriel River, carving Orange
County out of the southern section of Los Angeles County.
Tri Counties Reforestation Committee
In 1888, there were about 23,500 irrigated acres in Orange
County. By 1904, there were 30,000 acres, and by 1912, 50,000
acres. At the same time, water levels in county wells started to drop
and farmers began to wonder about their future water supply. A
1905 federal study indicated that the underground supply was
being drawn out faster than it was being relled. Conservation
was urged (Works Progress Administration 1936).
In response, citrus ranchers in Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernardino counties formed the Tri Counties Reforestation
Committee to improve groundwater conditions (Anaheim
Gazette 1906). e committee’s members were among the
successful elite of each county. Simultaneously conservationists
and progressive businessmen, they wanted to protect and
preserve nature to utilize its resources eciently and expand
their own fortunes. ey realized that forest cover slowed
the ow of the river and allowed more water to sink into the
groundwater basin. If they were to maintain or even increase
the groundwater supply, they had to protect the forest above the
watershed. ey began to lobby for federal funds to purchase
more forestlands and reforest burned and lumbered areas in the
San Bernardino Mountains.
Water Conservation Association
Two years later, in 1909, the committee organized and
incorporated the Water Conservation Association to manage
water conservation projects in the upper river basin (Baker 1983).
Under the direction of Francis Cuttle of Riverside, the
association began to spread, or percolate water in the porous
debris beds at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. Earlier
experiments showed that spreading water over permeable soil and
gravel beds could increase the quantity of available groundwater
in the underground basins. In theory, the water would percolate
underground from the upper basin to the lower one or drain
by the river from one to the other. e spreading was primarily
privately funded. County governments, reluctant to pay for
spreading eorts outside their own boundaries, nevertheless
jointly funded studies of the ow. By 1930, engineers in the lower
basin questioned the value and the quantity of water produced in
this manner for Orange County. Eventually, they concluded that
the project was not to the county’s advantage and recommended
that it be stopped.
Metropolitan Water District
e Los Angeles basin population exploded in the 1920s.
Orange County’s population nearly doubled during that
decade to 118,674 people. Until this time, most Orange County
9
communities had enough well water to furnish domestic water
without endangering the irrigation supply. Now, however, there
was doubt that the water supply could be expanded to serve both.
In 1925, water engineer J.B. Lippincott reported to the Orange
County Board of Supervisors that the overdra was about 39,449
acre–feet, that the artesian area had shrunk from 315 square
miles in 1888 to 52 square miles in 1923, and that the water table
level was dropping 2.5 feet per year (Lippincott 1925). Several
breaches in the coastal geologic barrier between the ocean and
the groundwater basin were also discovered. When the level
of water dropped below the breaches, seawater contaminated
coastal water wells and could aect the interior groundwater
basins. Orange County ocials recommended
that the county seek domestic water from outside
the groundwater basin and build a ood control
and conservation dam at Santa Ana Canyon to
control the ow of the river.
Neighboring Los Angeles, undergoing the
same kinds of urban pressures, had already built
the Los Angeles Aqueduct to bring fresh water
from the Owens Valley, over 400 miles away. It
was not enough. William Mulholland, director
of the Los Angeles Water and Power Department, proposed that
the urban region import additional water from the Boulder Dam
project, a ood control, irrigation, and hydropower project in
proposal before Congress. He envisioned an aqueduct from the
Colorado River to Southern California that would bring this water
to the thirsty region. e cost, however, would be enormous,
so he encouraged other regional cities to join the planning and
development process.
In 1924, the Boulder Dam Association—citizens lobbying for
the ood control, irrigation, and hydropower ood project—
proposed the aected cities form a new water district to build
an aqueduct from the Colorado River to the Los Angeles
general area and distribute water to its member municipalities.
It authorized another lobbying organization, the California
Aqueduct Association, to dra and support state legislation to
form the proposed Metropolitan Water District.
Orange County political leaders helped dra the nal
provisions for the enabling act so the city of Los Angeles would
not overwhelm the smaller municipalities in the
district. e Orange County leaders insisted on a
uniform rate for domestic and irrigation water. ey
hoped to preclude Los Angeles from charging
Orange County cities higher rates to cover the
cost of a required trunkline extension into Orange
County. Ultimately, it was OCWD that paid for
the pipeline as a part of the overall project cost.
While farm interests were suspicious of the
motives of Los Angeles and were concerned
that the potentially powerful district might try to condemn local
groundwater for domestic use, they were pragmatic. Inuential
growers realized that if domestic water could be brought from
outside, there would be more groundwater for irrigation purposes.
e enabling legislation for the Metropolitan Water District was
passed in 1927.
The artesian area had
shrunk from 315 square
miles in 1888 to
52 square miles in 1923,
and…the water table
level was dropping 2.5
feet per year.
10
Cities that had their own municipal domestic water supplies
were eligible to join the new district. Anaheim and Santa Ana
joined at once. Fullerton joined in 1931 when its city government
realized its water supply was inadequate for economic expansion.
Orange, the other eligible city in the county, chose not to join at
the time, but eventually joined in 1951 as part of MWDOC. It was
a decade before the Colorado River Aqueduct was nished and
began providing water to the cities. Meanwhile, the civic leaders
planned for expansion based on the availability of sucient
imported water. is optimistic view temporarily relieved
concern about the future of the groundwater supply.
Orange County Flood Control District
e immediate problem along the Santa Ana River, however,
was ooding. Ironically, Orange County faced both a water decit
due to overdraing of groundwater supplies and a dangerous
surplus due to out–of–control ooding during winter storms.
e great ood of 1862 virtually marked the end of the ranching
period in Southern California because it and the subsequent
drought decimated an already weakened cattle economy. e
river ooded again in 1916, causing damage to crops and orchards
in Orange County. It ooded once more in 1927. Although this
ood was smaller than the one in 1916, the damage was greater
because the population had doubled and the cultivated acreage in
the ood plain had increased.
Demographic changes in Orange County—reecting those of
the rest of Southern California in the 1920s—created new wealth.
Men who had come to California during World War I returned
with their families to establish small farms and orchards or to work
in the new industries of the postwar economy. New residential
districts were built on the ood plain. Farmers began to plant in
the overow land of the old river channel in the Anaheim area
and in the outwash at the base of the mountains. e value of
citrus and ground crops increased as farmers cultivated more
acreage. In 1911, for example, the entire citrus crop was valued
at about $2.7 million; by 1927 its value increased to over $28
million (Orange County Department of Agriculture 1911, 1927).
e discovery of oil in Huntington Beach attracted additional
capital and industry to the county in the 1920s. e value of oil
production in the county had increased from $6.5 million (1915)
to more than $56 million (1927) in less than 15 years due to these
major new petroleum strikes (California State Senate 1927). No
wonder the 1939 Army Corps of Engineers’ report on the potential
need for Prado Dam prepared under Major eodore Wyman, Jr.,
stated that “Orange County has been said to have the highest per
capita wealth of any corresponding area in the country.”
e state legislature created the Orange County Flood Control
District (OCFCD) in 1927 at the request of the county’s mayors. It
was designed to provide for control of oodwater and stormwater
that have their source outside the district, to conserve such water
for benecial use by spreading, and to protect property within the
district from ood damage. e district boundaries corresponded
to the county lines, and the County Board of Supervisors served
as district directors. e rst proposal to fund ood control
works on the river was narrowly defeated in 1929, largely because
of the opposition of James Irvine and Susana Bixby, inuential
11
ranchers who opposed the location of a dam on the river. Two
more proposals were defeated or withdrawn in the early 1930s
due to the impact of the Great Depression. Finally, aer the
great ood of 1938 took 34 lives and caused some $14 million in
damage to properties in the county, the Army Corps of Engineers
built Prado Dam as a federal facility (M. B. Scott 1976).
Santa Ana Basin Water Rights Protective Association
Santa Ana Basin Water Rights Protective Association
Water Engineer Paul Bailey’s 1929 report on the diminishing
groundwater supply in the county was a wake–up call to
agricultural interests. Southern California was in the middle of
a multi–year drought despite the occasional ooding of its major
streams. No longer could growers be sure that imported domestic
water alone would ease future shortages; they needed additional
irrigation water to continue expansion. Even in depression times,
citrus production continued to increase. In 1929, there were
almost 44,000 acres devoted to orange orchards. at acreage
rose to 48,000 in 1931 and to nearly 54,000 acres by 1935 (Orange
County Department of Agriculture 1911, 1927).
e Farm Bureau formed the Santa Ana Basin Water
Rights Protective Association to study the political problem of
groundwater recovery and produce a solution. Like the earlier
water committees, this one was composed of prominent farmers
and political gures from throughout the valley, including R.J.
McFadden, L.J. Bushard, John Pope, R.A. Chaee, W.C. Mauerhan,
and J.J. Dwyer. H.C. Head and A.W. Rutan were retained as legal
counsel. Edson Abel, of the California Farm Bureau Federation,
a powerful lobbying group, assisted them on the state level
in Sacramento (Lenain 1983). e committee had two major
challenges: to improve the condition of the groundwater basin and
to prevent “outsiders” from taking water directly from the basin.
e Board of Supervisors of Orange County had given the
water–spreading project tacit support since they could not fund
the experiments directly, but had contributed to tri–county
studies to improve the river ow. As early as 1925, however, J.B.
Lippincott warned that the benets to Orange County had not
yet been demonstrated. Upper basin orchards were drawing their
water upstream from Orange County, near the mountains. ey
were using water that might have percolated into the groundwater
basin and nally come to Orange County in the normal stream
ow. As a result, the anticipated supply was not reaching the lower
basin. Bailey demonstrated in 1929 that, despite several years of
above–normal precipitation, the river stream had declined in
the Prado area and, correspondingly, in north Orange County’s
groundwater basin. He theorized the reduction was because of
the increased pumping in upper basin wells and warned that
pumping would further increase because there was still land to be
put under cultivation in the Riverside and San Bernardino area
(Bailey 1929).
Nevertheless, Francis Cuttle continued the Water Conservation
Association’s eorts to spread water. Both Riverside and San
Bernardino counties began construction of new water spreading
facilities near the mountains as the Great Depression began to
aect Southern California’s economy (Anaheim Gazette 1933).
While Cuttle saw the new construction primarily as a means to
12
provide jobs for the unemployed, the completed diversion works
could have spread most of the ood ow that Orange County
relied upon to replenish its groundwater basin. As a result of this
understanding, G.A. Elliott, a consulting engineer to the OCFCD,
recommended that the county interests discontinue support of
the upper basin spreading program (Bailey 1929). Subsequently,
the Irvine Company entered into a suit against upper basin users
to protect its own rights to a portion of the river ow.
Upper basin users were not the only sources of threats to
northern Orange County’s water interests. Soon aer the Santa
Ana Basin Water Rights Protective Association was formed,
it rallied against an attempt by the city of Long Beach to buy
water–bearing land in the Orange County basin. e association
made a formal legal protest to the Long Beach City Council and
threatened further legal action if its plans continued (Anaheim
Gazette 1931). e threat of litigation plus the support of the
Board of Supervisors deterred the city. Still seeking outside water,
Long Beach joined MWD.
Laguna Beach lay outside the basin, but owned land and water
wells on the ood plain between Newport Beach and Huntington
Beach. e city was piping water through Newport Beach and
Corona del Mar to its residents because it had virtually no other
source of domestic water. Basin landowners resented Laguna
Beach’s use of the local water and considered the city an outsider.
Laguna Beach’s wells in the basin failed because of encroaching
seawater, and the city was forced to import water.
13
Establishing the
Orange County
Water District
14
e Santa Ana Basin Water Rights Protective Association
developed a series of proposals to protect the basin supply from
outsiders and to encourage basin–wide conservation. ese
proposals led to the legislation that created OCWD. e rst
attempts in 1931 to create a water district stalled in the legislature
because of opposition from Orange County cities (Anaheim,
Fullerton, and Santa Ana) that belonged to MWD. ese cities
expected to have MWD water deliveries in the future. Since they
were already being taxed to pay for that outside water, they did
not want to pay additional taxes for water they might not use. In
the 1933 legislative session, the association tried again. is time,
the proposal eliminated MWD cities from the district and made
several other changes to satisfy objections of the urban residents.
Senator N.T. Edwards carried the bill, SB 1201, which was signed
into law on June 14, 1933.
Orange County Water District
e bill as passed formed a district within Orange County of
about 156,000 acres, excluding MWD cities and part of the Irvine
holdings. e new district had broad powers to protect the basin
water supply. It was expected to provide the following:
• Management of the groundwater basin
• Conservation of the groundwater supplies, including both
quantity and quality of the water, and
• Protection of Orange County’s water rights to the natural
ows of the river (Wesner 1973)
ese obligations meant that the new district was to function
as a litigator for basin water rights; to import water from outside
the watershed for basin replenishment; and to control, conserve,
and reclaim ood and stormwater for benecial use in the basin
(OCWD 1983). Its activities would be funded by an ad valorem
tax on real property within the district. Unlike the ood control
district, which was directed by the County Board of Supervisors,
this new district had a board of seven directors, each representing
a subregion within the district. e directors were elected within
each division on the principle of one vote per each $100 of assessed
valuation of property owned, so that each property owner would
have a voice in proportion to their nancial interest in the district.
Nothing like that had been tried before (Anaheim Gazette 1933).
Undoubtedly to forestall hostile challenges, OCWD supporters
instituted a friendly suit against its levy and taxation provisions,
and the legislation was upheld in court (Los Angeles Times 1934).
e rst directors of the new district were Roy Browning,
Frank B. Champion, William Schumacher, William C. Mauerhan,
William Wallop, C.A. Palmer, and Willis Warner. Warner, later a
multi–term member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors,
was elected president of the board.
Establishing the
Orange County Water District
15
Almost immediately, the directors discovered that they needed
to amend the enabling act if they were ever to seek outside water.
In the haste to pass the original bill, a section that would allow
them to get water from outside the basin had been inadvertently
dropped. Before they could rally the support needed to amend the
bill, they had to agree not to take water from the Mojave Valley,
located on the eastern side of the San Bernardino Mountains. e
water was plentiful there, and the region had not developed as fast
as had been expected. As a result, Mojave Valley did not use all
of its water for crops. Water specialists in the Los Angeles region
had already considered condemning water rights in this valley
as well as for the Colorado River in their search for imported
water, so the political interests were alert to the possibility of a
takeover. Mojave legislators threatened to block the bill unless
it specically stated that OCWD would not le for water rights
on the valley’s water. e bill was amended so that Mojave water
rights could not be aected. To the relief of the OCWD directors,
the bill passed.
Irvine Company v. Water Conservation Association
It took a couple of years for OCWD to organize itself and
prepare to take on litigation responsibilities for the basin. Finally,
in 1937, OCWD directors intervened in the Irvine suit against
water spreading by the upper basin water users. James Irvine II,
as the largest landowner in the county, had initiated the suit to
protect his own water interests. It was obvious, however, that if
his interests were protected, those of the rest of the basin would
be as well. Farm Bureau leaders thought that the suit was the
proper responsibility of the entire basin, not just James Irvine,
and that James Irvine should be reimbursed for his court costs. In
1936, both sides agreed to a ve–year study of the river ow to be
conducted by a three–person panel of experts. is study was to
be the basis for a decision on the amounts of water to be allocated
to each of the parties involved. OCWD, wary of litigation, sought
arbitration of the issues as the preparations for court continued.
In a 1940 letter, James Irvine argued for arbitration. “I know of
nothing more indenite, intangible, with denite undiscernible,
excessive costs than a nice, juicy water lawsuit,” he wrote to Dian
Gardiner, secretary of OCWD. “In my opinion no opportunity
should be lost at any time to come to any reasonable compromise
Original OCWD Board of Directors, circa 1933
16
settlement in any water issue.” e agreement, reached in
1942, reduced the amount of water that could be spread in
the riverbed, Mill Creek, and Lytle Creek basins upstream to
ensure that Orange County would have water from the river
(M.B. Scott 1976). It also placed monitoring and administrative
responsibilities on the defendants (Blomquist 1992). Although
this was not the nal litigation on the river, it set the limits and
conditions for future spreading and secured Orange County’s
rights to the stream ow.
During the study period, there were several years of above–
average rainfall, resulting in an increased river ow and percolation
into the groundwater basin. Experiments suggested that
management of the spreading areas could increase the percolation,
and OCWD continued to buy river land for that purpose. Flood
control was the primary purpose of Prado Dam when it was
completed in 1941. Holding back water increased the amount
available for percolation into lands below the dam owned by
OCWD. e dam, however, was constructed with ungated
openings to avoid involving the federal government in local water
rights issues; consequently, for many years it was impossible to
hold back water for seasonal storage (Osborne 1997).
Conservation and Replenishment
In addition, to increase the recharge capability of the riverbed,
the OCWD directors began conservation projects along the
river in conjunction with the ood control district and private
landowners. As property became available in the riverbed,
OCWD purchased it to use for replenishment experiments.
OCWD added heavy tractors and trucks to its eet to sculpt the
riverbanks and clear brush as strategies to improve percolation in
the gravel beds. OCWD also built a double–row iron fence along
the riverbank, planting willows between the rows to prevent soil
erosion on the riverbanks. ese small–scale experiments gave
OCWD engineers the condence to begin spreading operations
on a large scale in the late 1940s and 1950s.
Water passing through Prado Dam on its way to Orange County
17
World War II and Military Bases
Even before the Irvine suit was settled, a potentially more
fundamental problem developed. When war engulfed Europe,
the United States began preparations to support the Allies. In
1940, the Army began construction of Camp Haan, an anti–
aircra camp outside Riverside, near March Field. Riverside
proposed to supply the new camp with water from its wells,
which were in the upper river basin. is basin supplied the
rising stream of the river into Orange County, and, according to a
1940 memorandum of protest from Paul Bailey, about two–thirds
of the water that reached the county. Since upper basin use, still
under adjudication, was already imperiling the Orange County
supply, this new demand further threatened the county’s orchards
and eld crops. Although OCWD was supportive of the eorts of
the military to meet the crisis, it was cognizant of the intrabasin
water shortage and determined to protect its water rights for local
irrigation. Bailey suggested bringing Colorado River water to the
base via MWD pipelines instead of pumping precious groundwater.
He and OCWD’s attorney, A.W. Rutan, lobbied strenuously in
Washington to convince the Army to use MWD water as soon as
the pipeline connection could be constructed.
According to the exchange of letters between Bailey, Rutan,
and the Army, the nal agreement between the Army and the
city of Riverside allowed the use of a maximum amount of basin
water for a brief time until MWD could deliver Colorado River
water. It specically said that this was an emergency allotment for
the wartime eort, not an entitlement to the future use of basin
water. Since MWD rules required an entity to be a member of
the district to receive water service, MWD directors also had
to declare a wartime emergency to permit delivery of Colorado
River water to the Army (Oshio 1992). Instead of becoming a
problem for OCWD because of its use of groundwater, Camp
Haan became an early opportunity for MWD to sell its surplus
water and demonstrate to a skeptical population that Colorado
River water was t for domestic use.
At the beginning of World War II, Orange County was still a
sparsely settled agricultural region. War brought county land to
the attention of the military seeking new bases along the coast.
e Marines chose El Toro as an air base. “It was perfect—few
and far away neighbors, close to the ocean so pilots could practice
El Toro air base (1962), photo courtesy of Great Park Design Studio
18
carrier landings, within range of desert bombing ranges and near
Camp Pendleton” (Soja 1992). Editors of the Laguna Beach South
Coast News were only too aware of the increasing burden of the
military bases nearby in the thirsty region. A September 22, 1942
editorial spoke of the necessity of furnishing water to the military
and concluded: “A shortage of water here would immediately
curtail the war eort at one of its vital centers” (Oshio 1992). In
1942, cities along the Orange County coastline formed the Coastal
Municipal Water District and annexed to MWD to ensure their
domestic supply and thereby reduce the burden on the valley’s
groundwater basin. Once again, OCWD supported MWD with
lobbying eorts. When the federal government rst rejected
MWD’s plea for a pipeline to reach the new coastal district,
pragmatic OCWD spokespeople intervened and convinced
skeptics that the pipeline was critical. Rationed materials were
then made available for construction of the pipeline from Santa
Ana to the coast.
First Report on Water Supply in the Lower Santa Ana Basin
By the war’s end, the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and
Santa Ana, and the Coastal Municipal Water District all had
connected to the MWD system and were receiving domestic
water. Nevertheless, a new study (Gleason 1945) showed that
approximately 123,500 acre–feet per year were still being pumped
from the groundwater basin. Aer calculating the typical natural
replacement, the groundwater basin was still being overdrawn by
about 12,000 acre–feet per year. As Bailey had predicted, when
groundwater was drawn down below sea level by the overdra,
seawater ltered into the coastal areas and threatened to pollute
the entire groundwater basin. Several coastal wells had already
been contaminated and abandoned, so the fear of contamination
was warranted. It was imperative that OCWD act to replenish the
groundwater basin just to maintain the status quo.
Even more discouraging than the overdra situation was the
realization that Orange County might not have water available
for industrial expansion. Without adequate water supplies, the
county was limited in its ability to attract new industries rst
drawn to the county by the prospect of less expensive acreage.
OCWD directors threatened that if the overdra were not
Upper Santa Ana River headgate
19
corrected, they would have to oppose postwar expansion and
industrialization to protect the current water users (OCWD
directors 1945). George Gleason, who prepared a report for
OCWD and the California Department of Water Resources,
made several recommendations in his study for improvement,
which he described as “akin to ‘scraping the bottom of the
barrel.’” Nevertheless, he suggested that OCWD might be
able to salvage the 12,000 acre–feet per year shortfall through
wastewater conservation behind Prado Dam, improvement of
the percolation basins below the dam, increased eciency in
the use of irrigation water, and reclamation of sewage water.
Under a seven–point program, OCWD directors began to
implement these recommendations to improve the quantity and
quality of the groundwater. Among the study programs were
agreements with the California Department of Water Resources
to sample and analyze the quality of water in the basin and to
study evaporation and transpiration below the dam. Other
studies involved the reclamation of wastewater and better
irrigation techniques. On a proactive note, OCWD maintenance
crews constructed barriers in the river to prevent channelization,
thus allowing the percolation of water over a broader area of
the river. Finally, OCWD encouraged other cities in the county
to take more of their water directly from MWD and formed a
committee to gure out how to increase the supply of imported
water (Poland 1947).
Still, this was not enough. Postwar growth demanded even
more water than engineers had anticipated. In little more than
a decade, the population of Orange County doubled to 270,000.
Signicantly, crop acreage dropped, and industrial development
increased. By 1952, of the total estimated need for 250,000 acre–
feet of water per year, 80 percent was for industrial and domestic
use, while 20 percent was for irrigation purposes—exactly
the opposite of the pattern in the 1920s (Crooke 1967). If the
overdra was not halted, accumulated water might be used up in
the foreseeable future. To make matters worse for water planners,
the county entered a long drought period in 1945, and water
levels, which had been high in 1944, began to drop once again.
Predictably, during the next decade, water levels in the district’s
3,500 pumping wells dropped an average of 38.5 feet, and ocean
water intruded three to four miles into the Fountain Valley area
(Crooke 1967).
Reducing Overdra
OCWD directors had hoped that natural replenishment
would ll the basin, but clearly, they had to obtain outside water
and limit production from the basin by adjudication or other
means. MWD was nally delivering water to Orange County
through its new pipeline, but only members regularly received it.
OCWD was not a member agency, and because it did not retail
imported water, did not qualify to become one. Even if OCWD
could obtain emergency supplies to halt the overdra, it did not
have enough money from its property tax funds to purchase the
needed quantities.
Legally, the directors could put a special assessment for
replenishment before the voters and hope they would allow it,
but a special assessment was a temporary levy, and replenishment
20
was a long–term endeavor. Not only were the directors unsure
of their approval, but they also knew that the assessment could
not be temporary. Property owners within the district who were
also within MWD’s area would, conceivably, be paying for the
Colorado River water twice—through their taxes for the MWD
system, and for replenishment through OCWD. And nally,
because all property owners within the district paid the ad valorem
tax whether or not they produced groundwater, use of the tax to
purchase water appeared to subsidize groundwater pumpers at
the expense of nonpumping property owners (Blomquist 1988).
Other means of nancing the replenishment had to be
identied for the long term. e alternative was to lose the
groundwater, suer possible subsidence, and fund an extensive
and expensive above–ground pipeline feeder system for imported
water (Blomquist 1988). In the immediate water emergency,
MWD agreed to sell some water for replenishment. e County
Board of Supervisors paid for the deliveries from OCFCD funds
in 1948–1949, 1950–1951, and 1951–1952, but other means of
nancing the replenishment had to be located for the long term.
At the time, imported water was readily available from MWD.
MWD was eager to protect its right to Colorado River water in
anticipation of a future legal challenge, so it was able to secure
and deliver surplus water to Orange County (Blomquist 1988).
e delivery actually met one of MWD’s goals, to use surface
water to replenish groundwater supplies in the general region
(Oshio 1992).
George Osborne, manager of the OCFCD at the time, vividly
recalled the rst deliveries of MWD water. “is water was
introduced upriver at Arlington where the transmission line
from Lake Matthews crosses the river. ey opened the valve
and the water sprayed out several hundred feet and fell into the
river. at was the initial delivery of water to Orange County”
(Osborne 1997). e water, however, was not actually used
for replenishment. Anaheim Union Water Company and the
Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company diverted it to serve their
customers. In turn, the two water companies refrained from
pumping an equivalent amount of water from the basin.
Housing in Orange County was growing
21
Responding to Growth: From Croplands to Housing Tracts
Mid–century Orange County was a different place from
Orange County of the 1920s and 1930s. Until the war years,
the rural landscape was mostly farmland and oil fields dotted
by independent towns. In the north, citrus was king. Citrus
ranchers made comfortable lives from a few acres of lemon
or orange trees. In the plains, prosperous truck farmers
planted a variety of crops for market. Petroleum fields in
the Huntington Beach and Fullerton areas brought transient
wealth to those communities.
Aer the war, though, the pace quickened. A few housing tracts
were built in northern Orange County for workers commuting
to Los Angeles. More housing followed new freeways into the
orchards and open countryside. Los Angeles’ economy was
booming from the wartime aircra industry. e city was already
congested. Land costs within the central industrial and commercial
areas had begun to spiral upward. By the mid–1950s, the aerospace
industry began to take shape throughout Southern California. To
compete in the new industry, major aircra companies established
large branch plants outside the urban center, many of them among
the remaining orange groves of northern Orange County. Land
was less expensive than in Los Angeles, and there was plenty of it
for industrial uses (A.J. Scott 1986). e land only lacked sucient
water to attract these new industries.
Although Orange County leadership was politically cautious,
it was prot minded. Farmers saw that the days of agriculture
were drawing to a close. e “quick decline” disease had begun
to attack citrus orchards, and they were becoming less protable.
Groundwater in other orchards had fallen below the level of their
pumps. In Irvine, for example, it dropped to 60 feet below sea
level (Owen 1997). While the pumpers could set their pumps
even lower into the basin, this deeper pumping process required
more energy and was more expensive. Raw land values were
increasing rapidly and, as it had been in the 1920s, water was still
a critical part of land values. If owners wanted to get top dollar
for their property, they would have to ensure a constant supply
of water for urban and industrial uses. ere was strong talk
of adjudicating the basin to determine each pumper’s rights or
stopping new pumpers from taking water out of the basin (Owen
1997). e groundwater basin had to be stabilized or economic
expansion would be sharply limited.
Committee of Twelve
In spring of 1952, the Farm Bureau and the Associated Chambers
of Commerce recognized that OCWD had to be able to replenish the
groundwater basin with imported water if the county were to reach
its maximum growth potential. e Orange County Water Basin
Conservation Committee was created in June 1952 to investigate
the possibility of recommending a procedure for raising funds for
the purchase of outside water to replenish the underground basin.
All users of the common supply were to be included in any formula
oered (OCWD directors 1952). eir objective was threefold:
to protect the groundwater from seawater intrusion, to replenish
both the annual and long–term overdra with imported water, if
necessary, and to nd a way to pay for it (OCWD directors 1952).
e committee became known by its informal name: the Committee
22
of Twelve. Some of the most inuential people in business and
agribusiness served on it.
e membership list read like a county business and political
“who’s who”: Glen Allen, prominent in MWD and OCWD
policy–making; Courtney Chandler, mayor of Santa Ana, the
county seat; J.W. Crill, president of the OCWD board; W.B.
Hellis, representing the Irvine Company; John Murdy, incoming
state senator; Walter Knott of Buena Park, owner of Knott’s Berry
Farm; industrialist H.H. Kohlenberger of Fullerton; Charles
Pearson, mayor of Anaheim; Walter Schmid, representing the
still–powerful Farm Bureau; Ross Shafer, prominent water
and land consultant; E.T. Watson, representing the Santa Ana
Valley Development Company, owner of the conservation
lands behind Prado; and Roy Seabridge, mayor of Huntington
Beach and member of the OCWD Board of Directors (OCWD
directors 1952).
e members of the Committee of Twelve were not developers.
For the most part, they were farmers who wanted to be able to sell
their land for the highest return (Owen 1997). ey believed a
common pool of water in the basin was worth more to the land
than a limited, individually adjudicated share of the current
groundwater supply. at meant they had to manage the water
rights dierently than other districts in the region, which had
gone to court to adjudicate individual rights.
Over a period of four months, the committee arrived at a
proposal. According to Howard Crooke, who soon would become
the rst OCWD secretary–manager, the committee reached two
conclusions in its deliberations. One was that they did not want
to adjudicate the basin’s water because the action would lead to
a “philosophy of scarcity.” e process of adjudication was long
and involved litigation of the quantity of water each producer was
entitled to receive. Langdon (Don) Owen, who later became the
second secretary–manager of OCWD, recalled that the thinking
at the time was that if each producer took the rights to a certain
quantity of water as an individual, they would get only about 25
percent of the water they needed. If, however, the producers did not
establish individual rights, but functioned as a group, they would
be able to manage and replenish the basin so that all had more
water (Owen 1997). e second conclusion was that equitable
nancing for importing water to replenish the groundwater basin
was the most practical solution to having adequate water for
landholders and inhabitants alike (Crooke 1965).
ese politically conservative individuals made several
socialistic recommendations that were incorporated into
a revision of the OCWD Act. In doing so, they set a new
course for OCWD. ey set aside their individual property
rights concept in favor of a basin–wide use policy in which
they would share the surplus in wet years and the shortage in
drought. Identied as a policy of surplus rather than shortage,
it meant that every producer in the future would have an equal
right to pump as much water as they could benecially use,
but that each would also have the obligation to pay the costs of
replacing their yearly extractions to continue making the basin
as productive as possible (Owen 1997). Howard Crooke and
the others who promoted the new concept knew that everyone
could not get all they needed from the basin, regardless of how
23
much additional water they could produce in common action.
ey expected to purchase MWD or other imported water to
make up the dierence.
is was a dicult concept to implement, further complicated
by opposition from all sides. Traditionally, groundwater basins
were adjudicated among the users. e idea of a non–adjudicated
common pool basin was dicult to reconcile. Farmers feared they
would lose agricultural water to the cities if they did not establish
rights to it, and cities feared they might not obtain any legal
right to the groundwater without adjudication. Nevertheless, the
committee recommended the common pool approach without
adjudication, a policy that has continued until today.
Up to this point, the three MWD member cities from Orange
County had been excluded from OCWD. ese cities, however,
were pumping about 50 percent groundwater. If they remained
outside the district, they could not be required to pay for the
replenishment water. On the other hand, the three cities did not
want to pay OCWD for replenishment water through ad valorem
taxes because they were already paying for MWD water in their
property tax rate. A method of assessment had to be developed to
include the cities without double taxation.
Since the district had been primarily an agricultural entity,
voting was on the basis of property value. An early proposal from
the committee had suggested a popular vote for the directors.
If that happened, urban interests could easily outvote the
agricultural interests. OCWD counsel, A.W. Rutan, expressed the
property owners’ viewpoint in a letter to the Board of Directors
on December 29, 1952: “Personally, I do not like a popular vote in
districts of this kind. Persons owning no property are too willing
to vote large bond issues and assessments which the property
owners have to pay.” As a result of his inuence, the voting policy
remained unchanged for the time being.
e committee members proposed changes to the law that
addressed most of the general legislative concerns. Membership
was extended to cover MWD cities as individual units within
the district. Each city’s governing board was permitted to name
a director who would serve the same length term as the elected
directors from the dierent geographic subregions. Voting
outside the cities would continue to be by property value, but
there would be no direct vote within the cities. Technically, while
city residents had no direct vote on their choice of director, they
did elect the city ocials who appointed them. By the middle
OCWD Board of Directors, circa 1971
24
of the 1960s, however, large parcels of agricultural land had
been purchased by outside interests intent on developing them
commercially, and there were many more homeowners within
the district subregions. Voting by property value was no longer
a protection for agriculture or other local small property owners,
but instead reected dierent outside interests. e method of
electing directors was modied by amendments to the Act in
1967, which put the vote in compliance with the general election
voting laws (California Codes n.d.). Aer this, directors were
elected in the geographic regions on the basis of one vote per
registered voter. e cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana,
however, continued to appoint their representatives.
To meet the three cities’ objections to double taxation and to
put the burden of payment on those who used the groundwater,
the committee proposed a gross pump tax on future water
production. Under this concept, everyone paid alike, on the
basis of the amount of water they produced, regardless of when
they began to pump from the basin. ere would be no special
protection for those who had been in the basin for a long time,
nor special reservations for newcomers. e committee rejected
an ad valorem tax to pay for imported water to meet future
overdras, but agreed that the current landowners, whose land
had appreciated greatly in the past decade, could be taxed to
add enough water to the basin to replenish the current overdra
(Owen 1997).
e proposed amendments set up a two–tier tax system: an
ad valorem tax to cover OCWD’s expenses in setting up the
new system and to pay for enough water to slow the seawater
intrusion, and a “pump tax,” called a replenishment assessment
(RA), based on each pumper’s yearly extraction to pay for water
to replace the estimated future annual overdra (Weschler 1968).
Beginning in 1954, each pumper, or producer, was required to
register its well(s) with OCWD, maintain records of the amount
withdrawn during the year, report that gure, and pay a tax
(the RA) in proportion to the amount of water used. e tax
would be established aer completion of an engineer’s report
that indicated how much water had been used in the previous
year, estimated the amount that could be extracted safely,
and calculated how much water would have to be imported
to maintain the groundwater at a safe level. For the rst time,
the entire basin supply was placed under the management of
a single water entity. Although each of the producers was free
to use the water needed, each producer was now responsible
to a governmental agency for documenting all extractions.
Because a producer would pay a tax on what it removed, based
on the condition of the entire basin, the producer was forced to
consider how its eorts aected the groundwater supply.
State Senator John Murdy, a member of the committee,
introduced the bill amending the OCWD Act in the 1953 legislative
session, and it became law in June 1953, to be eective in 1954.
25
Optimizing the
Groundwater
Basin
26
Replenishment Assessment and Registration
Until this time, there had been little need for either a permanent
oce sta or an administrator. e board met regularly and
managed its business by committee. Secretarial support was oen
provided by someone in a member’s personal oce, and expert
advice was provided by consultants. By 1952, conditions had
changed, and district responsibilities had multiplied. Permanent
sta were needed. e OCWD Board of Directors hired its rst
full–time administrator and secretary in 1952–1953. elma
Willoughby became a full–time oce manager/
secretary in 1952, and Howard Crooke became
secretary–manager in 1953. Both, according to
later manager Neil Cline, were critical to the early
success of the new structure. Crooke was the “rough
and ready” personality who implemented the
amendments, convincing producers to support
the concept of pooled resources. Willoughby was
the gentle diplomat and organizer who oen dealt
with disgruntled producers in the district oce
and helped them understand the new regulations. Although the
board had received applications from several qualied engineers
for the position of secretary–manager, its members decided
against hiring a technical expert to manage OCWD. ey looked
instead for someone with administrative ability, diplomatic skills,
and a close familiarity with the local conditions. e board’s
general feeling was that they could hire an engineer when they
needed that expertise (OCWD directors 1953).
Crooke was from Garden Grove and had managed a Sunkist
citrus warehouse. He had no engineering training, but was a
farmer, with a farmer’s instinct on how to manage water. Neil
Cline characterized him as a gru person, a deep thinker. “He
could be quite charming,” he said, “but was very businesslike,
very goal–oriented, and a genius” (Cline 1997). Crooke had the
persuasive ability to convince the ranchers that their land was
of limited value with a water scarcity problem,
but with an adequate water supply had limitless
value. If they were to sacrice their individual
rights for the good of all, they would all benet.
He made them realize that this was a good
business decision, and a good farming decision
(Cline 1997). Apparently, no one really believed
Crooke when he started out promoting the
program, but by the force of his personality, he
succeeded. His successor, Don Owen, said that
Crooke convinced the skeptics that the pump tax would be used
for the purchase of water only. “I can buy neither the pencil nor
the eraser to audit this account out of the pump tax,” Crooke
would say “I can only buy water.” Even aer the amendments
passed, there was disagreement over the mechanics of a pump
tax. Charles Pearson tried to smooth feelings aer a particularly
Optimizing the Groundwater Basin
By 1952…permanent
staff were needed.
The OCWD Board of
Directors hired its first
full–time administrator
and secretary.
27
heated meeting. “It [the amendments] is a new theory, sort of a
trial and error proposition, and that is the way we have to accept
it...” (OCWD directors 1954). As Crooke and the Committee
of Twelve had hoped, the eorts to increase production were
successful and instrumental in promoting Orange County’s urban
development. Crooke made the following comments about the
cost of importing MWD water for replenishment in the basin and
alternate use:
Payments made by the people of Orange County to e
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in the
form of water charges and taxes for the entire period from
the formation of MWD in November 1928 to July 1, 1963
total $61.5 million. In the eleven–year period from 1954–55
to 1964–65, the taxable assessed valuation of the area of the
Orange County Water District increased by $1.1 billion. Actual
values of these properties in this same period increased more
than $3.8 billion. e $61.5 million in payments to MWD are
but 1.6% of the increase in actual values of these properties
that have taken place. is is cheap insurance, indeed, for the
development of an area that could not have occurred without
a water management program that guaranteed a rm and
adequate water supply (Crooke 1967).
Increased Imported Water in Orange County
In 1951, several more Orange County cities—Huntington
Beach, La Habra, Orange, Placentia, Seal Beach, and Tustin
(Oshio 1992)—realized that they, too, would have to join MWD
and purchase domestic water to serve their expanded populations.
MWD’s policy was that cities could join as geographic groups,
which included the surrounding rural areas. e cities, therefore,
formed the Orange County Municipal Water District, soon
renamed the Municipal Water District of Orange County
(MWDOC). MWDOC promptly joined MWD, representing the
cities and most of the underrepresented portions of the county
as a pass–through agency to obtain MWD imported water. Once
MWDOC became a member, OCWD purchased imported water
indirectly from MWD through MWDOC.
OCWD’s policy for the period from 1954 to 1964 was to ll
the groundwater basin in an attempt to keep out the seawater
and ensure an adequate supply of fresh water. Crooke acted
swily because there were already out–of–state challenges to
California’s entitlement to Colorado River water, and no one
was certain how long MWD would have a surplus to share. Aer
the rst replenishment assessment (RA) was collected in 1954,
OCWD began to purchase MWD water in large quantities for
replenishment. In 1954, OCWD purchased 50,000 acre–feet of
water from MWD at a cost of $500,000. OCWD spent $3,247,136
to purchase 234,789 acre–feet in 1963 at the peak of the program
(Blomquist 1992).
e Politics of Spreading Basins
It took several years of spreading to make a dierence in the
water levels. In 1956, the water dropped to its lowest point, as
much as 40 feet below sea level, and seawater intruded three–
and–a–half miles inland (Blomquist 1992). en, the basin began
to recover. By 1964, the overall water level had reached 1944
28
levels; however, the aquifer had shied as a result of subsidence
and pumping patterns. While the water level in the forebay (the
area where spreading took place) was 50 to 80 feet above the
1944 level, seawater was able to intrude into some of the coastal
areas where the level was still below sea level (Blomquist 1988;
Weschler 1968). Worse, if OCWD continued to add water in
an attempt to block the intrusion, it would recreate the swampy
conditions that gave the Fountain Valley area the appellation of
“Gospel Swamp.” Like the rest of the valley, that area had been
extensively developed with homes and businesses. OCWD did
not want to be seen as responsible for a long–abandoned artesian
well bubbling up in someone’s backyard because the basin
overlled. e OCWD engineer’s report said that the basin was
probably as full as it could be and recommended that spreading
be reduced even though seawater intrusion continued (Weschler
1968). Subsequently, the basin equity assessment (BEA) and
basin production percentage (BPP) programs were established to
control the quantities of groundwater throughout the basin.
In the mid–1950s, when OCWD began to prepare its recharge
basins to capture as much imported water and natural ow as
possible, no one realized the consequences of massive water
spreading to properties near the spreading grounds. e plan
was simply to prepare percolation basins to handle the additional
water. Because of the strong economic climate, there was a
demand for the sand and gravel that would be removed to create
these basins.
Two freeways were being built through the county at that time,
in addition to other major construction projects in the region.
ey all required enormous amounts of ll materials. Commercial
sand and gravel companies excavated pits 40 to 50 feet deep in
the porous ground adjacent to the river to provide base materials
for the heavy construction. As OCWD began to add water in the
river spreading grounds in Anaheim, water would seep into the
gravel pits and hamper operations. e result was conict with
the owners. Owen recalled that “these people played very rough.
Howard [Crooke] could stand like a bulldog if he had to.” OCWD
fought desperately to establish its rights to spread water in the
forebay and resisted the opposition of the sand and gravel people
Storm flow spilling over a drop structure en route to ocean
29
to any spreading. In addition, the district worked closely with
George Osborne, then manager of the ood control district, to
improve ood control works, permit wider spreading operations,
and improve public safety (Owen 1997).
When they rst began to improve the spreading beds in the
Anaheim forebay, Crooke planned to have sand and gravel pits
dug by district personnel and their extracted material sold. at
would have put OCWD in competition with private companies.
e potential competitors protested, stopping Crooke’s original
approach. Instead, the sand and gravel operators removed the
sand and paid OCWD 10 to 15 cents per ton for the material. As
OCWD continued to spread water, it purchased additional sand
and gravel property in the forebay area and excavated additional
spreading basins. Crill Basin, purchased in 1957, was one of the
rst. Later named Anaheim Lake, it became a popular shing spot.
With this purchase, OCWD began a new policy. It treated
the sand and gravel removal as a public works contract, setting
conditions and specications for the operation. Everything was
done under a bid contract. is way the district could enforce
performance, and most importantly, increase the price of the
material to $1.42 per ton. OCWD purchased the land for $20,000
an acre and received $45,000 in revenues from the sand and gravel
contract revenues. With this kind of return, OCWD could aord
to purchase even more gravel land for percolation and continue
the spreading operations (Owen 1997).
At the same time, OCWD began spreading MWD water to
recharge the basin it also began another suit against the upstream
users to protect its rights to the Santa Ana River ow. is suit,
originally led in 1951, was against the four major upstream
cities—Riverside, San Bernardino, Colton, and Redlands—to limit
their water production and protect the river’s ow into Orange
County (Blomquist 1992). Like Orange County’s cities, these
cities had grown during the war years because of the military bases
nearby. As they expanded, their use of groundwater increased, in
part because none had joined MWD to get outside water. OCWD
sued to force a declaration of the rights of these cities to water,
and to ensure that they take only the amount stipulated. e case
nally reached court in 1957. It was determined that the cities
had a right to the amount of water they used in 1946 at the start
of the ve–year period before the initial suit was led. eir water
use was scaled back, and OCWD’s share of the water increased.
Sand and gravel mining at Burris Pit, 1974
30
e case was last appealed in 1961, but the basic judgment held
(Blomquist 1992).
Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al.
Two years later, the inow of water at Prado Dam from the
Santa Ana River decreased due to upstream use (Blomquist 1992).
is necessitated a new and larger–scale suit. In 1963, OCWD
led suit again, this time to require an adjudication of the entire
upper basin and ensure a minimum level of water for Orange
County, regardless of the use and needs of upper basin pumpers.
e case, OCWD v. City of Chino, et al., was really aimed at all
water producers above Prado Dam. Negotiations were held and
the nal settlement came in 1969.
e stipulations generally allocated the natural supply of water
between the basins and le individual rights within the basin for
users of the water basins to determine internally. OCWD was
given the rights to conserve and store stormwater behind Prado
Dam in Riverside County, and all parties agreed that water that
passed through their treatment facilities and into the river must
meet the water quality standards of the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board. e settlement stated that pumpers on
the upper basin had to ensure that an average of 42,000 acre–feet
of base ow reached Prado Dam annually. Further, it stipulated
that the volume required would be adjusted for quality using a
formula based on the quantity of total dissolved solids in the water.
e new rules were to be administered by a joint Watermaster
Committee made up of representatives of each of the major
districts above Prado Dam and OCWD. is committee would
compile a yearly report of the water ow and quality (Superior
Court of the State of California 1969).
e district needed more land for spreading operations by
the close of the Chino suit. It already owned Anaheim Lake and
six miles of riverbed stretching from Imperial Boulevard to Ball
Road, managing it in conjunction with the OCFCD for spreading
and ood control. However, additional spreading grounds did
not come without conict.
Construction continued throughout the north county at a
steadily increasing rate. Manufacturing had eclipsed agriculture
Reconstructed sand levee in the river
31
and become the county’s major industry. Many of the major
aerospace and aircra employers had built plants in the Fullerton
and Anaheim areas. Land prices in the best percolating areas of
the river were escalating because the properties were ideally suited
to small businesses that served major industries. If OCWD could
not acquire enough open acreage before industry developed,
the spreading program would be constrained. To be successful,
OCWD had to contend with landowners who considered giving
their land away just to have construction that would bring more
business into the area.
e district purchased 95 acres on the north side of the river
for a percolation basin, now known as Warner Basin, in 1966.
Ten years later, in 1976, they purchased a portion of the Kraemer
property near Anaheim Lake and the ood control district’s
Miller Retarding Basin to complete a series of interrelated storage
basins. At the same time, the district purchased Burris Pit, near
Ball Road, and enlarged it as a recharge and conservation basin
(Blomquist 1988). In 1983, OCWD purchased two sand and
gravel pits along Santiago Creek for additional recharge capacity.
ese were joined with Burris Pit by a pipeline so that additional
river water could be transferred from Burris to the Santiago Creek
Recharge Basin.
As OCWD accumulated land along the river, it came in
conict with county residents. Anaheim citizens did not want to
see the river changed or turned into a gravel pit. ey wanted the
area to remain undeveloped for recreation. People in other areas
were disgruntled that OCWD was spending all of its money in
the forebay area without seeming to benet them. e district
realized that the protests could lead to stoppage of all spreading
programs. To forestall this and provide benets for the entire
district population, OCWD directors dedicated 10 percent of the
sand and gravel gross revenue to recreational activities along the
river (Owen 1997). Several years aer the purchase and lling
of Burris Pit, a creative concessionaire developed a golf driving
range over it, complete with distance markers set on islands, and
oating golf balls. ese recreational facilities, developed with
the nancial assistance of OCWD, are open to the public. In
addition to the water–oriented recreation sites, OCWD worked
with the OCFCD to build trails along the riverbanks as part of
the countywide equestrian, hiking, and biking trail system (Cline
1997). Today, these trails remain an important, well–traveled
feature in the river landscape.
e newly acquired basins gave OCWD added recharge
capability but did not address the problem of how to balance
the use of water throughout the district. Producers could draw
as much water as they needed, regardless of location, since there
were no restrictions on pumping. at meant a pumper in the
coastal area could pump the groundwater below sea level, allowing
seawater to reach the basin, while in another area, a producer
might not pump enough to permit adequate recharging.
Basin Equity Assessment
OCWD produced a plan to regulate the pumping (Osborne
1997). e district thought the groundwater basin should be used
in conjunction with MWD supply. If customers would purchase
MWD water during the year, and use groundwater primarily for
32
peak–need periods, the groundwater basin could be used to store
water for emergency drought periods when imported water was
scarce. Owen described the outcome of this concept as a bathtub
in which you could raise and lower the water level at will. In a
period when water was plentiful, OCWD could add to the basin
supply, conserving additional water against a dry period when
producers would draw heavily on it and lower the level. All the
persuasive powers that OCWD could muster were needed to
convince the cities to cooperate in a conjunctive use program by
taking at least 50 percent of their water from MWD, since it was
more expensive than groundwater (Owen 1997).
e OCWD Act was amended in 1969 to implement this
pumping regulation proposal. e district envisioned that each
year, engineers would determine how much water could be
safely pumped from the basin to meet the estimated total needs
of the district. In most years, this gure was less than the total
estimated need, which had to be made up with imported water.
e estimate of water to be pumped from underground versus
that to be imported is expressed as a percentage gure, the basin
production percentage (BPP). While producers were theoretically
obligated to take water in that ratio, OCWD did not necessarily
expect them all to do so. In some cases, as in the coastal area,
OCWD may want one producer to pump less than the stated
percentage. In other cases, a producer may not be able to obtain
MWD water and therefore would have to pump all groundwater.
Historically, imported water costs more than groundwater,
so providers were reluctant to purchase more than they required
to meet their obligations. If the BPP were to work, the cost of
Aerial view of the Santa Ana River
33
imported water would have to be subsidized so producers would
use it instead of groundwater. In order to make the cost equitable
for those who take imported water, OCWD would assess
producers who pump more than the BPP based on the dierence
between the cost of the additional groundwater pumped and the
cost of an equivalent amount of MWD water purchased. is
assessment is known as the basin equity assessment (BEA). To
this day, OCWD determines which water retailers cannot pump
the maximum groundwater percentage—or which ones it wants
to produce less from groundwater—and pays them the dierence
in cost from the fund established by overproducers’ assessments.
eoretically, the total cost for every water retailer in the district
is based on the same ratio of groundwater and MWD water
(Owen 1997).
is program came about not only because of OCWD’s vision,
but also because of the exibility of the District Act. e legislature
could amend it when it was necessary to adjust or devise new
management programs. is program, as well as others that
changed district operations, was a result of a management
decision, not users’ decisions. If, according to Owen, individual
producers had the choice to limit production or pay district
assessments, their cooperation might not be extended.
Still, the metaphor of a bathtub had a aw. e sides of a tub
are all the same level. In reality, the “bathtub” of the Santa Ana
Valley groundwater basin had breeches along its coastal front.
Even when OCWD engineers could theoretically raise and lower
the level, they had to “patch” the hole in the coastal walls before
they could actually control the basin. ere was a geological
barrier at the coastal edge of the basin that had openings in at
least two places, the Alamitos Gap, near the mouth of the San
Gabriel River, and the Talbert Gap, in Fountain Valley. Seawater
could seep into the basin through these gaps if the freshwater
level were not maintained about sea level.
Seawater Barriers
In 1965, OCWD began a joint program with the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District to maintain a freshwater barrier at
Alamitos. e seawater intrusion at this gap aected both Orange
County and the central basin of Los Angeles County, including
the Long Beach area. As a barrier against the sea at the mouth of
the San Gabriel River, OWCD placed 26 injection wells in the area
to force fresh water into the basin. Water for these injection wells
originally was secured jointly through Los Angeles County Flood
Control District and OCWD from MWD (Blomquist 1992).
Talbert Gap required a dierent solution. Studies began in
1965 to plan for protecting this barrier area (Wesner 1973). It
would have required nearly six times the quantity of water to
create an adequate barrier similar to the one at Alamitos.
Water Quality in the Watershed
In 1967, representatives of the three major water agencies
upstream met with OCWD to develop a joint program for
improvement of water quality (OCWD directors 1967).
Subsequently, the OCWD board authorized a joint powers
agreement between OCWD, Chino Basin Municipal Water
District, Western Municipal Water District (Riverside area),
34
and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to “create a
self–help agency which will conduct a water quality management
program study for the Santa Ana River watershed” (OCWD
directors 1967). e Santa Ana Watershed Planning Authority
obtained start–up grants and initial funding from the four
districts in 1968 to plan a basin–wide program that addressed
buildup of total dissolved solids. e study recommended
treatment plants, desalters and a brine line to the ocean to carry
o residual wastewater. Since no district was willing to embark on
a project of this size alone, the authority was recast as the Santa
Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA). In 1972, it began
building the pipeline that now stretches from San Bernardino to
Fountain Valley (Cline 1997). Projects of SAWPA continue today
with desalting plants and other water quality facilities.
Development of Water Factory 21
In the 1960s, the shared sentiment of most water planners was
that there might not be surplus water for Southern California
beyond the next 20 years. Mindful of the possibility, OCWD
urged the development of additional local water, knowing it
would take 20 to 30 years to perfect the technological processes
(Environmental Coalition of Orange County 1975; Owen 1997).
To do so, however, the district had to develop a program that
would be politically acceptable throughout the basin and still
provide extensive protection for the coastal barrier. A plan was
conceptualized to create a program that would add storage capacity
to the basin because it gave the exibility of raising or lowering
the water level at will without the danger of seawater breaching
the gap. is approach was acceptable because it emphasized that
the entire basin was to benet from the cost of stopping seawater
intrusion in the coastal areas (Owen 1997).
e district’s plan consisted of two sets of wells, one for
injection, and the other for extraction. Extraction wells were
placed about two miles inland, to pull the seawater out of the
aquifer. is caused a depression in the groundwater basin level.
At the same time, injection wells, placed four miles inland, added
water to the basin. Because of the depression, the fresh water
tended to ow toward the ocean, forming a mound of water as
Aerial view of Water Factory 21, circa 1971
35
a barrier to seawater intrusion. By careful monitoring, engineers
would be able to determine how much water to inject to maintain
the slope of the basin.
Although OCWD could have purchased expensive MWD
water, at least for the time being, the district decided to develop
a multimillion–dollar treatment plant to provide wastewater
that had been brought to drinking water standards for injection.
is water was still expensive, but it was cheaper than building a
pipeline from MWD connections to its destination in Fountain
Valley (Owen 1997).
ere had been talk as early as 1929 about trying to process
wastewater for replenishment, but the technology had not been
developed. Finally, in the mid–1960s, district engineers decided
to consider treating wastewater for injection along the coast at
Talbert Gap. e directors purchased land next to the sewage
treatment plant for a pilot plant to conduct experiments in tertiary
treatment of the wastewater before it was injected and to monitor
the experimental injection wells. Meanwhile, Howard Crooke
retired from OCWD and Don Owen, his assistant, became
secretary–manager. Owen hired Neil Cline, a geologist he had
known when both were working for the California Department
of Water Resources, as his assistant to oversee the injection
experiments. Owen and Cline thought they would be able to
inject treated wastewater into the barrier where it would mingle
with the other waters and be diluted. e rst experiments found
that the treated water was too saline and did not dilute but stayed
in a mass (Cline 1997). Experiments continued for several years
under the supervision of the State Department of Health. Finally,
by 1971, both OCWD and the health department were satised
with the advanced treatment’s capacity to remove organics and,
together with deep well fresh water or desalinized seawater, form
the barrier mound of fresh water.
e timing of the pilot plant was auspicious. e Department
of the Interior’s Oce of Saline Water (later the Oce of Water
Resources and Technology) was interested in developing a joint
desalinization project in Southern California and had talked to
MWD about building a desalter plant. At the time, MWD showed
less interest than OCWD because of the costs. OCWD was
interested since the experimental plant would be one more way
to develop water for the barrier project and oered the potential
of additional potable water for the future. Jointly funded by the
federal government and OCWD, the project began in 1971 with
construction of an advanced recycled water treatment plant
and desalter. e technical operation process was almost too
much for the general audience to comprehend, although most
welcomed the potential for more fresh water. In a 1975 article,
Owen recalled how the project got its name, “Water Factory 21.”
According to Owen, he had been invited to discuss this project
at a League of Women Voters meeting in Newport Beach. He
began by saying something like, “e plant consists of a seawater
desalting module that will combine two ash distillation methods,
vertical tube evaporation and multi–stage ash, and a wastewater
reclamation plant using lime coagulation, clarication and
solids settling, ammonia stripping, recarbonation, mixed/media
ltration, carbon adsorption, and chlorination.” One woman in
the front said, “What?” Owen repeated his description, which was
36
no more enlightening the second time through. e woman said,
“But what does it do?” Owen replied that it cleaned up sewage
and made fresh water out of ocean water. “Oh,” the woman said.
“It’s a water factory.” Owen liked that, and though he says he was
met with initial opposition, that became the project’s name. e
“21” was added to connote the plant’s futuristic technology and
implications (Environmental Coalition of Orange County 1975).
e prototype wastewater treatment plant went into operation
in April 1975. In June, the desalter unit was completed and put
into operation by the federal government. Although designed for
a ve–year pilot study, it operated for less than a year before the
project was canceled (Los Angeles Times 1976). Cline recalled that
almost from the beginning, the directors knew the joint project
was doomed for several reasons. e rst was an increase in
operation costs. e desalter was designed to clean 15 million
gallons per day (mgd), but even though it was only producing 3
mgd in the demonstration phase, it used the same amount of fuel
as if the plant were in full production. Overall fuel costs had gone
up dramatically as a result of the 1973 Oil Embargo, making the
demonstration concept less practical. e economy was faltering,
and federal programs were reduced or phased out, as funds
became dicult to secure. Of the eight federal desalinization
projects testing dierent methods of operation, ve were canceled,
including this one (Huntington Beach Independent Review 1975).
As of April 30, 1976, the Fountain Valley plant’s operation was
halted, and the plant placed in standby condition.
Withdrawal of support by the federal government le OCWD
in a dicult position. e directors had committed funds not
only for the desalting plant, but also for the wastewater treatment
plant, which was now operating. Condent in the availability of
demineralized seawater, OCWD had planned to have 30 mgd of
reclaimed water, including the desalted seawater, for injection into
the barrier. Now, OCWD had to nd another way to get higher
quality water to blend with the wastewater. Cline remembered
the political battle he fought to get federal funding to continue
the desalter. He recalled wryly that he was unsuccessful in getting
the administration to continue the project even though millions
had been spent on it. “It came down to an advisor to President
Ford saying, ‘We regret the local inconvenience.’” (Cline 1997).
Reverse osmosis plant inside Water Factory 21, circa 1990
37
Although he was able to get some Congressional support and a
little more funding, the seawater plant was obviously dead.
Pursuit of New Projects
Resilient district engineers settled on a method of improving
the quality of wastewater for injection. ey turned to reverse
osmosis (RO), a process not used before in wastewater treatment.
In this process, water is passed over a series of membranes that
lter out salts and other impurities, leaving water that meets
drinking water standards. OCWD engineers believed that they
could blend the treated water with water drawn from deep wells
to produce a blend suitable for injection into the water table.
e pilot operation, however, produced only 5 mgd of the water
required for injection, and an activated carbon adsorption process
was used to purify the remainder of the wastewater component.
In an interview, Bill Dunivin, Water Factory 21 plant manager,
remembered the years of research that perfected the operations.
“is was an entirely new concept,” he said (Dunivin 1997).
Visitors came from around the world to examine the new plant
and learn about the technology OCWD was developing. At rst,
the cost was high (over $1,000 per acre–foot), but by 1996, it
had come down to within a few dollars of the cost of imported
water. e initial cost of reclaimed water was a concern, but the
planners expected it to be high in the beginning and anticipated
that it would decrease as new technology became available.
What is noteworthy about this research eort is that Water
Factory 21 had provided the freedom to research a variety of
technologies. Further, the cooperation of the water industry
manufacturers who supplied experimental materials for testing
was outstanding.
Water Factory 21 had become the success its proponents
anticipated. Aer ve years (1976–1981) of experimentation, a
Stanford study stated that “no evidence was found that would
indicate that this reclaimed municipal wastewater would pose
a signicant health risk if used as a source of municipal water
supply” (OCWD directors 1983). In 1991, OCWD reached
its ultimate goal when it received a permit to inject undiluted
product water from Water Factory 21 into the groundwater basin.
ese endorsements were important to the future of the project.
Both Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach drew their domestic
Reverse osmosis (RO) membranes
38
water from the basin in the vicinity of the injection wells. e
treated wastewater had to meet municipal standards because it
was likely to mingle with groundwater in the cities’ wells.
In 1978 when the California State Ballot Proposition 13 passed,
restricting the rate of increase of property tax and rolling the level
backwards, many public agencies were devastated. Orange County
Water District funding, however, came from the replenishment
assessment (RA), as well as the ad valorem tax, so OCWD had an
untouched source of money to continue operation. e District
Act was amended to permit use of the RA for all purposes instead
of just the purchase of imported water. Under the old method
of assessing the ad valorem tax, OCWD had estimated its yearly
needs and set a rate accordingly. Aer Prop 13, the rate was set
as a portion of the one percent tax rate allowed on real property
in the county, regardless of what the anticipated expenditure was.
During this wet period, OCWD did not spend as much on
imported water as it had projected. e current projects had been
built, and there was a lull in new construction. As a result of these
factors, OCWD accumulated reserve funds that could be used to
fund new projects.
Serving punch made with reclaimed water to guests touring
Water Factory 21, circa 1980
39
Increasing Water
Supply Reliability
40
Modernizing Orange County Water District
William Mills, a private consultant and former employee of
the California Department of Water Resources, was the board’s
ultimate choice to succeed Cline in 1987. Mills recognized that
OCWD needed a long–term improvement plan to continue the
programs that had been previously started. He made several
changes to modernize OCWD’s operations, including changing
his title from secretary–manager to general manager, creating a
nance department, and integrating a complex computer system
for data management. Under his direction, OCWD developed
an eight–point plan for groundwater management. e plan
provided for: “water quality monitoring, contaminant cleanup,
regulatory agency support, toxic residuals removal, hazardous
waste management, technical information, public disclosure,
and periodic evaluation of overall policy eectiveness” (OCWD
1994). Slightly modied, these points have continued to guide
district planning.
To carry out his goals, Mills developed a capital improvement
plan that identied “a couple hundred million dollars” worth of
facilities to be built within the next ve or six years to increase the
amount of groundwater that could be pumped. His nancial plan
increased the revenue base of OCWD by raising the RA. “With
the stability of a higher revenue base, OCWD secured additional
outside funding for the planned improvements” (Mills 1997). e
ultimate benet of this capital improvement plan was the capacity
of OCWD to slow down increases in water costs for retail water
agencies by reducing their necessary purchases of more expensive
imported water.
Green Acres Project
Having proved it was possible to treat wastewater for injection,
OCWD began another program to develop tertiary treated
wastewater for urban irrigation use. Until this time, county
golf courses, public parks, and landscaping were watered with
drinking water because the treated euent—or outow—from
the sanitation district did not meet water quality standards for
reuse. e Green Acres Project was designed in the mid–1980s to
provide this reclaimed water for use within ve miles of the plant.
Operational in 1991, the plant initially provided water for nearby
Mile Square Park. Secondary treated wastewater was piped from
the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD, OC San) to the
adjacent OCWD reclamation plant in Fountain Valley, treated to
a tertiary level, and piped out for use. Since this time, additional
reaches of pipe have been installed to serve Santa Ana and other
cities beyond the ve–mile range (Orange County Water District
1991). Since 1991, the Green Acres Project has provided an
average of 4,000 acre–feet of water a year to customers in Fountain
Valley, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana.
Increasing Water Supply Reliability
41
Analytical Water Quality Laboratory
e permits that allowed OCWD to build Water Factory 21
required an increase in the sophistication of sta to meet the
challenges of developing and monitoring the new project. e
proposal called for “a highly qualied operation and maintenance
sta of about 14 persons including one superintendent, eight
operators, one chemist, and four maintenance men” (Wesner
1987). Laboratory services—initiated in response to the needs
of Water Factory 21—continued to expand, monitoring water
quality at wells throughout the district.
Dr. Yvonne Shen, a research chemist trained at the University
of Massachusetts, established the rst of two labs—the water
quality lab—in 1973. is lab was planned to monitor the water
quality of river water and the demonstration injection wells of
Water Factory 21. When the EPA rules for water quality became
more stringent, requiring extensive testing for more chemical
contaminants, OCWD took over that responsibility from the
Orange County Health Department and added it to the work of its
lab. e workload increased dramatically, and other technicians
were hired to assist. In 1991, the lab processed 176,900 analyses
for a network of over 400 monitoring and production wells. e
water quality lab’s responsibilities continued to increase, as did
the size and level of sophistication of its testing equipment. It
earned a high level of accreditation from the State of California
for complete chemical, physical, and microbiological analysis
of groundwater and wastewater. As a result of this approval and
recognition, the lab’s technicians conducted testing not only for
OCWD and its producers, but also for OC San facilities as well
The Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory
42
(Shen 1997). To meet this growing demand, OCWD added 1,000
square feet of space and acquired new equipment, including
four new high–performance water–testing instruments. OCWD
chemists use these and other instruments to test for new
contaminants at very low detection levels (e.g., parts per trillion).
Research and Development Laboratory
OCWD’s research laboratory is another dynamic contributor
to the future of water technology. Like the water quality lab, it
grew out of the need for research for Water Factory 21. David
Argo, former district engineer, recruited Harry Ridgway, a post–
doctoral research scientist at the University of California, Irvine,
to study the problem of a fouling layer (slime) on RO membranes.
Argo and Cline decided that district management needed to set
up a second research lab. OCWD directors were
skeptical at rst, but established an annuity to
fund the lab, and Ridgway was hired to continue
research on RO membranes (Cline 1997). Since
then, the research laboratory has expanded to
include other scientists and state–of–the–art
equipment. Its projects have included continued
RO membrane studies and other bacteria–related
research such as percolation enhancement in the recharge basins
and biological treatment of groundwater contaminants (Orange
County Water District 1995, 1996). Additional research focused
on advanced oxidation processes (AOP) like the ultraviolet light
(UV)/hydrogen peroxide process used with GWRS, sediment
removal by preltration before percolation of river water, fouling
of both microltration (MF) and reverse osmosis membranes by
nanoparticles, and factors aecting the mobilization of metals
in aquifer materials by low ionic strength waters such as RO
product water.
It was at this lab in Fountain Valley where OCWD rst tested
MF as a potential technology, prior to the use of RO. is led to
the design of an integrated membrane system. Both technologies
were proven to be successful in the water purication process. In
fact, Water Factory 21 was the rst–ever application using RO on
municipal wastewater.
Improved Recharge Capabilities in the Basin
When the Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et
al. decision was handed down in 1969, it was a mixed blessing.
Orange County was assured of a water supply
for recharging and production. OCWD facilities,
however, had to be improved to take advantage
of the additional base ow and storm ow that
would come downriver from Prado Dam.
A major project envisioned by OCWD
engineers was to develop storage basins at
Santiago Creek and construct a pump station and
pipeline to connect them to Burris Pit so that additional water
could be transferred there. Former Forebay Operations Manager
Alan Flowers recalled that the project cost about $25 million but
paid for itself in water—saved water that OCWD did not have to
purchase for recharge (Flowers 1997). When nished in 1991, the
system added another 25,000 acre–feet of capacity to the basin,
OCWD’s research
laboratory is another
dynamic contributor
to the future of water
technology.
43
bringing OCWD’s total recharge capability to between 300,000
and 400,000 acre–feet per year.
e Santiago Creek project had an unexpected natural bonus
for nearby residents, despite additional cost and frustration for
OCWD management. Since the new basins would inundate
small, isolated wetlands within the basin, engineers had to
include a mitigation project. OCWD directors authorized nearly
$200,000 to pay for planting, irrigation, and other measures to
create a wildlife habitat on a 16–acre island between the two
basins (Fonley 1997).
Over the years, OCWD’s research has included work with the
recharge basins themselves. Initially, in each of the percolation
basins, beginning with Anaheim Lake in 1962, water inltrated
quickly. Gradually, however, the silt from the Santa Ana River ow
collected in the basins, retarding inltration. Cleaning became
a yearly task as the managers emptied the basins to scrape the
accumulated solids that were preventing inltration. Since the
process was time consuming, it could not be done easily during
the winter months when the operators expected a storm ow. As
a result, water inltration declined when it was needed most to
capture the heavy ow. Precious water was also lost during the
process because once a basin was emptied for cleaning, there was
no way to hold the water or transfer it from one basin to another.
e rst step taken to correct this problem was building a
maze of pipes linking the dierent basins in the forebay area.
As one basin required cleaning, its contents could be shied to
another. High– powered submersible pumps were also installed
in each basin to empty it quickly. Soon, operators could empty,
clean, and rell the recharge basins during the winter as well as
the summer to increase inltration by as much as 40 percent.
Along with purchasing land, OCWD’s infrastructure
investments have maximized the recharge capacity of its facilities.
For instance, the addition of two inatable rubber dams across the
river channel in the early 1990s increased recharge capacity. ese
replaced earthen levees that had been built to capture normal
runo and direct it into the recharge basins. However, when storm
ow was high, these levees washed out and could not be replaced
until the water level went down enough to bring heavy equipment
into the riverbed. Valuable replenishment water was lost in the
interim. e rubber dams deate during storms and can be raised
again in 30 minutes to capture runo once the ow has decreased.
e dams allow water to be diverted from the active river channel
into the district’s complex system of channels and pipelines that
distribute water into the various groundwater recharge facilities.
e cost to purchase the rst dam, constructed in 1992, was
recovered within its rst year of operation. e increased amount
of stormwater captured oset this cost.
Other improvements include multiple pumping stations,
miles of pipelines, numerous valves, ow meters, water level
sensors, and a sophisticated computerized control system that
allows the system to be monitored and controlled remotely. With
these facilities, OCWD can recharge river water, imported water,
stormwater and GWRS supplies.
OCWD operates and maintains one of the world’s most
advanced–managed aquifer recharge systems to replace the water
that is pumped from the basin by local water agencies, cities, and
44
other groundwater users. e location of the recharge system, the
cities of Anaheim and Orange, is determined by the geology of the
land. e naturally coarse–grained soils in these cities are conducive
to surface water percolation and aquifer recharge operations.
Recharge basins are extremely important in the management of
groundwater supplies and OCWD realized early on the need for
constructing additional basins to maintain a reliable and adequate
water supply. e district took an opportunistic approach to
acquiring land. When land was available, OCWD purchased it.
Stormwater Capture at Prado Basin
Prado Dam in Riverside County was originally conceived as a
ood control dam, with water conservation being an incidental
secondary purpose. Although it is still a critical point in ood
protection in the lower Santa Ana basin, its importance for
conservation has increased. For many years, two private water
companies, Anaheim Union Water Company and Santa Ana
Valley Irrigation Company, owned land behind Prado Dam for
conservation. Ditches dug in the overow lands helped relieve
waterlogged conditions by increasing the ow through the dam’s
ungated opening (Osborne 1997).
OCWD owns about 2,150 acres of bottomland behind Prado
Dam that can be ooded for conservation purposes. During the
1970s and early 1980s, OCWD began working toward a proactive
water conservation program. e basic concern was that ood
control and water conservation require opposite management
techniques. Flood control managers want to keep the ood
land behind a dam as free of water as possible, to prepare for an
unexpected heavy runo. Water managers, on the other hand,
want to store as much water as possible behind the dam, releasing
it slowly so that it can be inltrated in spreading grounds and
saved as groundwater. OCWD directors authorized $600,000 in
1986 to study the feasibility of conservation consistent with ood
control at Prado.
Environmental Stewardship at Prado Basin
e study, completed by the USACE in 1988, indicated that
seasonal storage would not jeopardize ood control at the dam
(Orange County Water District 1991). Conservation could
take place between March 1 and September 1, while ood
control eorts would take precedence between November 1 and
The Santa Ana River in the Prado wetlands
45
February 28 (Van Haun 1997). Environmental studies followed
to determine the impact on wildlife in the proposed storage area.
Finally, in 1991, OCWD, the USACE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and e Nature Conservancy reached an
agreement to allow storage and mitigate and alleviate anticipated
damage to wildlife habitat. Under the agreement, OCWD set aside
land for habitat for an endangered songbird, the least Bell’s vireo,
and contributed $900,000 for habitat management and other land
conservation projects. In spring 1991 alone, some 40,000 acre–
feet of high–quality water were saved from runo by storage
behind the dam (Orange County Water District 1991). Had
OCWD needed to purchase that amount of water to replenish
the basin, the total cost would have been far greater than the cost
of the conservation project.
Jim Van Haun, former associate general manager, remembered
that OCWD had seriously considered giving up on the
conservation project in 1986 when the least Bell’s vireo was
listed as a federal and state endangered species. Prado Basin
had the second largest population of these small songbirds
and its population had dropped to 19 nesting pairs. Since their
migration period from Mexico to Prado, where they nested, was
mid–March, these few pairs would be directly aected by the
proposed conservation plan. OCWD directors nally decided
to try to “live with the Endangered Species Act” and continued
the study. According to Van Haun, biologists discovered that
the bird population decline was due more to an incursion of
brown–headed cowbirds, not necessarily the loss of habitat
alone. Cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of other birds, like the
least Bell’s vireo, and leave. e diminutive vireo parents are le
raising a large and aggressive cowbird nestling that starves and
crowds out the vireo nestlings.
e immediate solution was to build and install Australian
cowbird traps. For several years, OCWD spent $35,000 to $40,000
each year trapping cowbirds. Dick Zembal, OCWD natural
resources director, who at the time served as USFWS deputy eld
supervisor, and Martin Rigby, former assistant general manager
of OCWD, collaborated to develop a recovery plan. By setting
cowbird traps and changing mowing patterns of elds behind
Prado Dam, the least Bell’s vireo population rebounded. Since
rst being listed as an endangered species in 1977, the population
of vireos at Prado Basin has grown from 12 territories to 610
Endangered songbird, the least Bell’s vireo, photo by Benjamin Smith
46
territories in 2022. As a result, OCWD has been allowed to
expand the area it seasonally oods for conservation. Overall, the
good results from trapping, while costly, saved millions of dollars
worth of water and provided the basis for a permanent water
conservation agreement (Van Haun 1997).
Subsequent to the decision to trap cowbirds, researchers found
that an invasive species, Arundo donax (giant cane) had overrun
the birds’ habitat. OCWD, USFWS, and the USACE entered a
cooperative agreement to remove this plant throughout the upper
watershed. OCWD’s share of the cost was $1 million. In March
1995, just a few days aer the environmental impact statements
were completed and approved to allow additional storage behind
the dam, a storm came up and the dam lled, saving $3.2 million
worth of water for use in Orange County (Van Haun 1997).
OCWD provided the leadership to form a team with seven
other agencies to develop the Santa Ana River Conservation
Trust Fund. Its unique concept of depositing funds into a trust
dedicated to solving a regional problem provides the opportunity
for broader solutions with more lasting results. By 2002, the
Trust Fund had funded the removal of 600 acres of Arundo
from the watershed. Ten years later, more than 5,000 acres had
been removed. Currently, OCWD continues to collaborate with
its partners, including the Santa Ana Watershed Association,
SAWPA, and the USACE to control Arundo in the watershed.
rough its water quality research program, OCWD scientists
and engineers discovered other benets of the Prado conservation
program. e water that reaches Prado Dam is degraded because
of nonpoint source pollution upstream. Under terms of the Chino
decision, this water had to meet certain water quality standards
when it reached Prado Dam. Even before the conclusion of the
lawsuit, the water agencies realized that the water quality of the
river was continuing to deteriorate in the watershed.
Routine testing led scientists to another means of improving
the water quality at the dam site. Behind the dam was a 450–acre
constructed wetlands consisting of 50 linked pools through which
half of the baseline ow of the river passed. is was originally
operated by a concessionaire as a waterfowl hunting area. Water
quality engineers discovered that the water passing through these
ponds was of a higher quality than other water reaching Prado,
indicating that the series of ponds naturally removed some of the
nitrate and other compounds accumulating in the urban ow. As
a result of these studies, OCWD modied the pond system to
increase the ow in and out of each pond. It deepened individual
ponds, widened and deepened the main diversion channel to
the pond system, and improved the conveyance system between
ponds. With these modications, OCWD increased the rate
of ow from 60 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 200 cfs, thereby
allowing more river water to ow through the ponds (Orange
County Water District 1995). e wetlands have proven to be
very eective at removing nitrate from the river water. In fact,
they remove up to 2,000 tons of nitrate per year.
e Beginning of the Groundwater Replenishment System
e early 1990s were marked by drought and groundwater
levels were low. Concerned that the existing amount of water
injected into the seawater barrier was inadequate, OCWD sta
47
recommended that injection volume more than double to 35 mgd
to ensure that groundwater levels could be lower in the basin
without risking seawater intrusion. It was determined that newer
technologies could be explored to replace the existing treatment
process used by Water Factory 21. is would lead to overall
lower treatment costs.
In 1995, the district began pilot testing new technologies,
including MF, a new membrane material for the RO system, and
UV light. MF had not been used to treat wastewater before. It
was used for surface water treatment and for various treatments
in the industrial sector. e district pilot–tested several
manufacturers’ products. It then decided to continue testing on
a larger scale with three manufacturers, U.S. Filter Memcor, Pall,
and Zenon, to determine which operated best and had the lowest
lifecycle costs. At the same time, the district evaluated three
dierent RO membranes manufactured by Hydranautics, Dow/
Filmtec, and Koch/Fluid Systems, which used a new membrane
material (polyamide thin lm composite) that operated at much
lower pressures and higher salt rejection than the previous
cellulous acetate RO membranes. e district also evaluated
the performance of UV light technology produced by Trojan
Technologies, Calgon Corporation, and Wedeco.
Conducted over the course of three years, this pilot testing
provided data to the regulators that indicated that the processes
were eective. Further, the data enabled the district to evaluate
which technology provided the overall lowest costs in terms of
capital, operations, and maintenance.
Visionary Partnership
While OCWD was pilot testing various treatment technologies
for possible use in an expanded seawater barrier project, OC San
was facing the challenge of having to build a second ocean outfall
ve miles o the coast of Huntington Beach. Needing to address
100 mgd of ow relief, it approached OCWD to see if it would be
willing to build an expanded project. No longer facing the need
to build the outfall, OC San was willing to contribute half the
capital costs of OCWD’s expanded seawater barrier project. e
two agencies decided that such a project could be developed and
proposed an advanced treatment plant with an ultimate capacity
of 130 mgd along with a 14–mile pipeline. is pipeline would
pump water from Fountain Valley, where the treatment facility
was located, to recharge basins in Anaheim, as well as 15 new
injection wells to expand the seawater barrier.
e two agencies began moving forward on this visionary
project. In 1997, OCWD Directors Phil Anthony, Don Owen,
and Irv Pickler met with OC San Directors George Brown, Norm
Eckenrode, and Peer Swan in a newly created ad hoc committee.
Two noteworthy actions were taken at this meeting. Committee
members agreed to prepare a request for proposals to hire a public
aairs rm and develop a scope of work for the environmental
tasks that needed to be undertaken. During the following three
years, the agencies launched a public aairs campaign, and in
1999, issued a preliminary design contract with Camp Dresser &
McKee, Brown and Caldwell, and Tetra Tech.
49
Securing a
Sustainable
Water Future
50
Securing a Sustainable Water Future
Seawater Intrusion Control
Guided by its mission to safeguard the groundwater supply
for Orange County, OCWD has constructed critical water
infrastructure that includes seawater intrusion barriers. OCWD
has used injection wells successfully at the Talbert Barrier, located
in Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. Beginning in 1999,
the district began strengthening this barrier with construction of
its Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier. OCWD constructed
several injection well sites—two in 1999,one in 2000, two in 2003,
and eight in 2004–05. e addition of four new well sites at the west
end of the barrier and four to the southeast helps prevent seawater
from going around the existing Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion
Barrier. Further, these wells have more than doubled the barrier’s
annual injection of 100 percent puried recycled water, allowing
coastal water utilities to access even more groundwater without
damaging the basin. e Talbert Barrier provides enormous value
to local water utilities—without it, seawater would intrude several
more miles into the basin, contaminating production wells,
reducing the freshwater capacity of the basin, and limiting the
amount of water that could be produced each year.
Since 2010, the district has also been investigating the
nature and extent of seawater intrusion in the Sunset Gap area
beneath the Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach. Here, basin
aquifers are connected to the ocean and are relatively shallow.
OCWD’s investigation has found that brackish groundwater
approaches active city production wells. To further understand
the ow paths and extent of seawater intrusion in the Sunset Gap,
OCWD installed multi–depth monitoring wells at 12 locations
in Huntington Beach and Seal Beach and as of 2023, has plans
to install more. Using data derived from these wells, the district
developed a computer groundwater model to evaluate a potential
future seawater intrusion barrier.
Groundwater Replenishment System
Two public agencies, OCWD and OC San, shared the vision
to do what was once unthinkable—purify wastewater into high–
quality drinking water. While this concept had been thought of
by others, it had not been successfully implemented. is quest
for innovation is nowhere more evident than in the cutting–
edge Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project. e
GWRS is the world’s largest advanced water purication system
for potable reuse. It takes treated wastewater that otherwise
would be discharged to the Pacic Ocean and puries it using a
three–step advanced treatment process. Applying microltration,
reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide,
this innovative process produces high–quality water that is
superior to all state and federal drinking water standards. Aer
post–treatment stabilization, this water is injected into a seawater
barrier and pumped to recharge basins where it naturally
percolates into the groundwater basin.
51
In 2001, the Boards of both OCWD and OC San voted
overwhelmingly to move forward and begin detailed design of
the rst phase of GWRS with a target goal of producing 72,000
acre–feet per year of puried water, enough to serve nearly
600,000 people. e cost was projected at $481 million.
Part of developing GWRS involved the construction of the
$300 million Advanced Water Purication Facility. It is here
that 70 million gallons of secondary–treated wastewater are
transformed each day to near distilled water quality. Aer
undergoing microltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light
with hydrogen peroxide, the puried water is then placed into the
groundwater basin.
e GWRS project received signicant attention from outside
agencies that recognize the applicability of this technology to
many other communities. Several grants and low–interest rate
loans were received by many local, state and federal agencies,
including an annual Local Resources Program (LRP) operational
subsidy of $121 per acre–foot over 23 years that amounted to
$86.2 million, provided by the Metropolitan Water District, $67
million in grants from the 2000 California State Water Bond
including $37 million from the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) and $30 million from the Department of
Water Resources (DWR), $20 million from the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) through its Title XVI program — and more.
Construction of this monumental project began in 2002.
Online in January 2008, the GWRS became one of the most
celebrated civil engineering and water projects in the world.
Beyond its global recognition, the project proved to be a critical
source of supply for Orange County, helping bring a new,
drought–proof local water source to the communities served by
OCWD. e GWRS is the ultimate expression of OCWD and OC
San’s long–term goal of developing a dependable water supply
from a resource that formerly was wasted to the ocean.
In addition, a robust education and outreach program was
developed and implemented to build upon the public’s trust
and earn overwhelming support for this unprecedented water
recycling project.
At the request of the district, the National Water Research
Institute (NWRI) established an Independent Advisory Panel
(IAP) for GWRS in 2004. Inspired by the success of the earlier
OCWD Board of Directors at the GWRS Initial Expansion
groundbreaking ceremony
52
NWRI Santa Ana River Monitoring (SARMON) Scientic
Advisory Panel, the GWRS IAP was intended to provide guidance
to the district, state regulators, and the public regarding GWRS
operations and water quality. At the time, the size and extent of the
GWRS project represented an unprecedented use of technologies
such as reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation treatment for
municipal potable reuse. Furthermore, water quality issues,
such as the occurrence of trace levels of pharmaceuticals and
personal care products in conventionally treated wastewater, had
just emerged in the scientic and public consciousness. e IAP
review of the project helped conrm that the GWRS recycling
process contained multiple robust treatment barriers to chemical
contaminants and pathogenic microorganisms. e NWRI
GWRS IAP continues to meet regularly and provide ongoing
guidance. is has helped the district update required GWRS
monitoring and operating plans, as well as inform the district’s
applied research eorts on treatment optimization and eciency.
Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory
OCWD’s Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory
opened in 2009, expanding the district’s existing water quality
lab. Home to chemists, lab technicians, quality assurance sta,
and water quality monitoring personnel, the laboratory handles
over 400,000 analyses of approximately 20,000 water samples
each year. Regular monitoring of water quality represents an
understated contribution vital to the health of water supplies. Core
monitoring programs supported by the laboratory include Title
22 drinking water compliance for the groundwater producers,
GWRS operational and permit compliance monitoring, and
testing across the groundwater basin and watershed to document
ambient conditions and impacts of various potential sources of
contamination. e laboratory also supports the district’s applied
research activities.
Reecting sustainable design features, the new laboratory
building was constructed with locally manufactured materials
with recycled components and low emissions of volatile organic
compounds. Landscaping consists of drought–resistant plants
irrigated with recycled water.
e work in the water quality laboratory involves meticulous
recordkeeping and adherence to strict quality control practices.
e lab is accredited by the state of California’s Environmental
Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) for more than 240
Bottles of GWRS purified water
53
Fields of Testing (FOTs) and has also earned United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approval to perform
drinking water analyses during all the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule (UCMR) programs. Renamed the Philip L.
Anthony Water Quality Laboratory in 2018, the state–of–the–art
laboratory has gained a reputation as one of the premier water
quality laboratories in the world.
A Tradition of Innovation
OCWD has fostered a tradition of innovation to overcome both
water supply and water quality problems. Early eorts focused
on the evaluation of the best means for restoring percolation at
the district’s recharge basins as they were becoming clogged with
ne particles of silt and clay aer capturing stormwater runo,
as well as the use of “T” and “L” levees in the Santa Ana River
to spread out river ows across the entire channel to maximize
percolation and minimize downcutting into the riverbed.
e 1960s development and 1970s initial operation of the
groundbreaking Water Factory 21 project, predecessor to today’s
GWRS, required creative thinking and planning, as the injection
of recycled water into a potable aquifer had never been previously
attempted anywhere in the U.S. e district carried out a program
to test the best technologies available at the time to improve the
quality of treated wastewater supplied by OC San, such that both
injection well performance and potable quality in the aquifer
could be maintained. Following the abolishment of the federal
Oce of Saline Water and associated withdrawal of federal
government support for the seawater desalination component
of Water Factory 21, the district had to pivot to nd a source of
demineralized water for the project. OCWD rapidly tested and
implemented wastewater reclamation to drinking water standards
using reverse osmosis technology, an unprecedented application
of such treatment at this scale.
With the onset of Water Factory 21 operations in the late 1970s,
the district recognized the need for an ongoing applied research
program to optimize the operation of the cutting–edge facility.
A Research Laboratory and Research & Development (R&D)
Department were established, initially focusing fundamental
research on observation, measurement, quantication, and
mitigation strategies for reverse osmosis membrane biofouling.
An early research partnership with Stanford University led to the
discovery that reverse osmosis not only was eective at removing
salt from wastewater, but also a wide range of organic molecules.
Subsequent eorts focused on wetlands treatment, microltration,
and ultraltration membranes as pre–treatment ahead of reverse
osmosis, and optimization of chemical addition at the GWRS
facility. More recently, the district’s applied research has focused
on new methods for eciently measuring microbiological and
organic contaminants, GWRS treatment process optimization,
and treatment technology evaluations for PFAS removal and
destruction. e current mission of the R&D Department is to
conduct applied research that supports the district’s operational,
regulatory, and water quality objectives. R&D sta are committed
to seeking innovative means to develop and evaluate new or
improved processes and methods, oen through collaboration
with universities and topic experts.
54
Groundwater Replenishment System Initial Expansion
In the 2000s, faced with declining river ows from the Santa
Ana River and continued cycles of drought in the region, OCWD
recognized the importance of continuing to provide a local,
reliable water supply. In 2011, shortly aer the GWRS facility
became operational, OCWD’s Board of Directors approved
construction of an initial expansion to the facility that would
bring water production up to 100 million gallons a day, enough to
serve 850,000 people. e project cost $142 million and received
$1 million in state grants, and a $137 million Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan from the SWRCB.
To support the expansion, construction of additional
treatment facilities at the Advanced Water Purication Facility
site in Fountain Valley began, including expansion of the
microltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light treatment
processes. Supporting equipment such as pumps and electrical
and additional post treatment systems were also a part of the
expansion, though a signicant portion of the infrastructure was
already in place. In addition to creating a reliable local source
of water, the project reduces the amount of treated wastewater
discharged to the Pacic Ocean, helps protect Orange County’s
coastline, and provides all these benets with fewer greenhouse
gas emissions compared to importing water.
With construction complete a few years later, ocials gathered
to dedicate the facility in 2015. Leading up to the 10th anniversary
of the GWRS in 2018, a robust public outreach campaign was
implemented. In 2016, OCWD and OC San co–sponsored
Assembly Bill 2022 which Governor Brown signed into law in
2016. is legislation allowed the bottling of advanced puried
demonstration water to support educational outreach eorts.
OCWD and OC San were the rst in the Western Hemisphere to
bottle and share such water.
Beginning in March of 2017, sta of OCWD and OC San took
bottles of GWRS puried water on a year–long tour in California
to share information about water reuse and provide a taste to
audiences who otherwise would not have the opportunity to
try it. Sta distributed 13,000 bottles at various events from San
Diego to Sacramento, sharing literature and quenching the thirst
and curiosity of thousands of people.
Treating wastewater with ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide
55
OCWD and OC San also challenged social media inuencers
and the media to #GetOverIt and take a taste test, which these
groups promoted. e agencies created these campaigns to help
overcome “toilet–to–tap” misconceptions and gain support for
water reuse for future infrastructure and program investments
on the public’s behalf.
At the tour’s end in February of 2018, and in celebration of
its 10th anniversary, the GWRS was declared “ocially amazing”
when OCWD and OC San succeeded in setting the Guinness
World Records™ title for the most wastewater recycled (100
million gallons) to drinking water in 24 hours.
Recharging GWRS Water
On average, OCWD’s surface water recharge system puts
250,000 acre–feet per year of water into the groundwater basin.
Over the years, the district has expanded its recharge system,
which now includes more than two dozen separate facilities that
cover more than 1,000 wetted acres. A number of these facilities
are recharge basins that range in depth from 5 to 150 feet. Other
facilities include the Santa Ana River channel and Santiago
Creek. Sources of water percolated by the recharge system
include Santa Ana River base ow, storm ow, local surface
water runo, imported water, and GWRS water. OCWD’s
recharge activities are foundational to meeting the water needs
of north and central Orange County, approximately 400,000
acre–feet per year.
One of the principal methods for recharging the groundwater
aquifers involves supplying GWRS water to four of the district’s
spreading basins: Kraemer, Miller, La Palma, and Miraloma
Basins in Anaheim.
Percolation rates with cleaner sources of water, such as GWRS,
are more than four times the rates achieved with Santa Ana River
water.Water in the Santa Ana River contains suspended solids,
typically comprised of inorganic silts and clays that clog the basin
surface during inltration.
Kraemer Basin consists of 31 acres and has a maximum storage
capacity of 1,170 AF (381 million gallons) with a maximum
recharge rate of approximately 300 AF (97 million gallons) per
day. e average recharge capacity in this basin is 19,000 acre–
feet per year (AFY), (6 billion gallons per year).
GWRS product water
56
OCWD purchased two separate pieces of property and
constructed the Miraloma and La Palma recharge basins between
2010 and 2016. Located on the north side of Miraloma Avenue
just east of Kraemer Basin and south of Miller Basin, the rst
property is 13 acres. It is dedicated to only receiving GWRS water
from a 14–mile pipeline from the advanced water treatment plant
located in Fountain Valley.
The second property, La Palma Recharge Basin, is a 17.7–
acre site located along La Palma Avenue. It was previously part
of a larger Boeing facility and conveniently located adjacent
to the GWRS pipeline. La Palma Basin is the district’s newest
recharge facility and, like Miraloma Basin, is devoted solely
to recharging GWRS water. Favorable geology at the site and
ultra–pure water from the GWRS have resulted in the district’s
highest percolation rates measured so far.
In 2017, $9.1 million in Proposition 1 funding went toward
OCWD’s Centennial Park Mid Basin Injection (MBI) Project,
which injects puried GWRS water to replenish the principal
aquifer of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. is site
has an injection capacity of 10 million gallons per day to rell
the groundwater basin, equivalent to the water needs of 85,000
people. It provides operational advantages to the district as
well as benets to the Orange County region while addressing
statewide water challenges by creating an additional local water
storage mechanism.
Imported Water Programs
While OCWD emphasizes the signicance of local water
resources, imported water accounts for a modest proportion of
the district’s water supply portfolio. OCWD has coordinated
the management and operation of the groundwater basin with
the availability of imported water supplies from the Colorado
River and northern California. e Metropolitan Water District
imports and manages available water supplies for the region. Each
year the district typically purchases 20,000 to 60,000 acre–feet per
year of untreated MWD water to recharge the groundwater basin.
e district and MWD entered a historic contract in 2003
whereby MWD can store up to 66,000 acre–feet of water in the
Orange County Groundwater Basin through a Conjunctive Use
Program (CUP). e district received approximately $33 million
in initial compensation which was used to construct water supply
facilities around the basin.
In 2017, the district and MWD entered into a cyclic storage
agreement which allows MWD to pre–deliver up to 100,000
acre–feet of water in the basin. e district must pay for the
water within ve years at the prevailing MWD wholesale rate.
All of these programs help the district increase the overall water
reliability of its service territory.
In 2021, OCWD and regional water agencies worked together
with MWD to reach a historic agreement, the Santa Ana River
Conservation and Conjunctive Use Program (SARCCUP) to
better prepare the region for future droughts and promote
water use eciency in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino
counties—an area serving millions of customers.
57
SARCCUP is a rst–of–its–kind regional groundwater banking
program between several agencies within the Santa Ana Watershed
and MWD. e Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority helped
distribute more than $55 million of grant funding from California
Proposition 84 to support the program.
e $150–million–SARCCUP program will provide a
collaborative, watershed–scale approach toward groundwater
basin management, replenishment, and water transfers. Under the
agreement, SARCCUP will store up to 137,000 acre–feet of storage
in six groundwater basins. e regional water agencies will also
collectively plan for droughts while also restoring
wildlife habitat and assisting with the development
of regional water use eciency programs.
Increasing Stormwater Capture
e district continues to implement an “all
of the above” approach when it comes to water
management and remains prepared to maximize
water supply for the region during wet or dry
times. Local stormwater capture is important because it lessens
demand on imported water supplies, which are more costly and
less reliable than groundwater.
Building upon its longstanding partnership with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers at Prado Dam, the district has increased
stormwater capture eorts, which has proven to be an eective
and economically viable solution to the region’s water challenges
without compromising the safety of the dam. Should there be
multiple storms each year, this helps OCWD bank a signicant
amount of water to help mitigate future droughts and ensure
sucient supply in the long term.
e district remains committed to working with the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography at the University of California,
San Diego to develop predictive models for atmospheric rivers.
An atmospheric river is a relatively long and narrow region in
the atmosphere that transports the bulk of water vapor outside
of the tropics. Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO)
is a research and operations partnership that uses data from
watershed monitoring, and modern weather and hydrologic
forecasting, specically the study of atmospheric
rivers, to help water managers selectively retain
or release water from reservoirs in a manner that
reects current and forecasted conditions.
rough the FIRO project, OCWD is working
with the USACE to update its water control
manuals to increase water storage levels at Prado
Dam by capturing stormwater up to reservoir
pool elevation of 508 feet above mean sea level
(amsl) whenever it rains. is could add 7,000 acre–feet of water
annually into the groundwater basin, creating a new supply for
approximately 60,000 people per year. In addition to increased
water supply, this study recommends restoration of more than
600 acres of valuable riparian and associated habitats within the
Prado Basin. Restoration of this critical wildlife corridor will
improve aquatic and riparian ecosystems by removing non–native
vegetation in Prado Basin, planting native plants, and restoring a
portion of Chino Creek.
OCWD…worked
to reach a historic
agreement…to better
prepare for future
droughts…
58
e Prado Dam FIRO project is an example of the continued
partnerships between federal, state, and local agencies. e FIRO
program has shown that by better utilizing emerging technologies
in observations and forecasts to create an adaptive strategy,
OCWD can improve water management, not only during the wet
years, but also during drought conditions.
Addressing Groundwater Contamination
Key to managing a healthy groundwater basin is ensuring
water quality. OCWD’s commitment to exceptional water quality
requires comprehensive knowledge of groundwater quality.
Given this commitment to protect and enhance the quality of the
groundwater basin, the district’s Philip L. Anthony Water Quality
Laboratory implements a proactive, diverse, and comprehensive
groundwater and surface water monitoring program to
continually generate real–time data.
Groundwater is typically high–quality within the basin.
Recharge basins and the streambed of the Santa Ana River improve
groundwater quality through natural percolation. Purifying
recycled water to near–distilled water quality at GWRS not only
increases the water supply quantity, but also enhances the quality
of the water in the groundwater basin.
However, releases of industrial chemicals have impacted an
area in the North Basin near the cities of Fullerton, Anaheim,
and Placentia and the South Basin near the cities of Santa
Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. Groundwater plumes created by past
manufacturing are spreading and threaten to impact the basin.
Consequently, several municipal drinking water wells have been
removed from service. OCWD is proactively seeking ways to
clean up the pollution in a united eort with state and federal
regulatory agencies. e initial cleanup eorts are focused on
cutting o and preventing the spread of contamination before
it travels further into the main aquifer that supplies hundreds of
potable supply wells.
In September 2020, the Orange County North Basin Superfund
Site was listed by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) as a National Priorities List (NPL or Superfund)
site. e goal of the Superfund listing is to get contamination
Inland spreading and percolation basins
59
contained and mitigated and to compel parties responsible for
the contamination to implement and pay for the cleanup.
e district also responds quickly and eciently to address
issues related to emerging contaminants like PFAS. OCWD
has successfully gained laboratory accreditation for analytical
testing, pilot testing of eective treatment techniques, and
construction of treatment plants that remove PFAS from local
groundwater supplies.
PFAS are a group of thousands of manmade chemicals
that are used in consumer products such as Teflon pans,
stain–resistant carpets, waterproof clothing, and fast–food
packaging. Due to their extensive and prolonged use in
commerce and industry, PFAS are being detected in water
sources throughout the United States, including Orange
County’s groundwater basin. Much of this water is affected
by treated wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff from
upstream communities in San Bernardino and Riverside
counties via the Santa Ana River.
While not responsible for releasing PFAS into the environment,
OCWD nevertheless took swi action to explore this emerging
contaminant. It is committed to nding ways to remove it from
local water supplies. In February 2019, OCWD’s laboratory
became the rst public agency laboratory in California to achieve
state certication to analyze PFAS in drinking water. OCWD
launched the nation’s largest pilot testing program in December
2019 to test treatment techniques and begin the long–term
restoration of the local drinking water supply.
In 2020, as a result of state ocials lowering health advisory
levels for two legacy PFAS chemicals, peruorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) and peruorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), dozens of wells
operated by several of OCWD’s member agencies were taken out
of service. OCWD’s eorts to address PFAS in Orange County
also included a multi–faceted communications plan that provided
rapid and transparent information to a multitude of stakeholders.
In the OCWD service area alone, the current PFAS response
cost is estimated to be at least $1 billion in capital and operating
costs for wellhead treatment over 30 years, and it is likely to
increase. OCWD has committed to funding 100 percent of
design and construction costs and 50 percent of operations and
maintenance costs for these treatment facilities. To support this
costly eort, OCWD is actively pursuing all possible funding
opportunities, including litigation to hold the manufacturers of
PFAS accountable. OCWD received a $131 million federal Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan from
the EPA, which is expected to save the district approximately $26
million over alternative nancing options.
In June 2021, the county’s rst PFAS treatment facility came
online in Fullerton. By 2024, 36 treatment facilities will be online.
OCWD has continuously shared its research and ndings with
the broader water, technology, and research industries, paving
the way for others to implement cost–eective PFAS removal
programs in their communities. Working collaboratively with
its project partners, OCWD has prepared extensive reports and
publications detailing the results of the PFAS treatment study.
60
Sound Groundwater Management
e district works proactively to manage, protect, and
expand its groundwater operations. It excels in its groundwater
management because it simultaneously explores strategies related
to water recycling, recharge operations, technological advances,
and stormwater capture. Together they all contribute to sound
groundwater management.
In 2019, the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR) approved an alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability
Plan for the Orange County Groundwater Basin, as the
district demonstrated how it has already achieved sustainable
groundwater management. e approval of the plan is a testament
to OCWD’s tremendous stewardship of the basin since 1933. As
other California agencies worked to meet requirements of the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014,
DWR showcased OCWD’s plan as an example of a basin that is
already sustainably managed.
As a regional water leader, the district continues to work with
south Orange County water agencies to study new options to provide
water from the groundwater basin during emergency events.
For most south Orange County agencies, nearly 100 percent
of their drinking water supply is imported from MWD and
these agencies don’t benet directly from the Orange County
Groundwater Basin. Building on its history of being a good
neighbor and allowing groundwater to be moved to the southern
part of Orange County as the district has previously done during
emergencies, OCWD is working to consider a new program to
provide additional water supplies during emergency events or
shutdowns of the imported water system.
Groundwater Replenishment System Completion
From its initial conception, the roadmap to GWRS included
strategic expansions over the years. During the nal expansion,
OCWD and OC San faced a formidable challenge pertaining
to moving water from OC San’s second wastewater plant, Plant
No. 2, which is located nearly four miles away in Huntington
Beach. is required construction of new conveyance facilities,
expanded infrastructure, and a vision to reimagine GWRS’
existing design to accept and treat more water, which arrives
at the plant with higher salt and organics concentrations. e
priority was to ensure this goal could be met, while still creating
a high–quality water supply that meets all state and federal
drinking water standards.
Groundwater Replenishment System building
61
e nal expansion has resulted in the production of 130 mgd
and the recycling of 100 percent of OC San’s reclaimable wastewater
ows. Recycling 100 percent of OC San’s reclaimable ows is an
industry rst and unheard of with other wastewater recycling
projects. e path to 130 mgd came with challenges that OCWD
met and resolved. ese challenges were addressed eectively with
innovation, sound science, engineering, and applied research,
where sta implemented solutions to optimize eciency, use less
energy, and produce more water from Plant No 2.
GWRS maximizes water reuse eorts in the region. By
producing more water, the GWRS provides a drought–resilient
supply, beneting not only the Orange County region, but also
the entire state. Ultimately, GWRS means importing less water
from Northern California and the Colorado River.
e $284 million GWRS nal expansion project included
many dierent construction components, such as the Advanced
Water Treatment Facility expansion, a new pump station, two ow
equalization tanks, a pipeline rehabilitation, and modication of
OC San’s headworks to be able to segregate reclaimable and non–
reclaimable ows.
Funding is through a variety of sources, including OCWD’s
successful eorts to obtain a low–interest rate loan of $135 million
from the EPA’s WIFIA and two CWSRF loans in the amount not to
exceed $186 million from the SWRCB. e project also received
more than $8 million in state grants.
In January 2023, the GWRS celebrated its 15th “crystal”
anniversary, apt recognition for a facility that produces crystal–
clear water. By this time, the facility had achieved production
of more than 400 billion gallons of water since 2008. In April
2023, ocials gathered to dedicate the completion of the GWRS
through the nal expansion.
Tours and tastings continue to be oered to the public.
Since its inception, the GWRS has welcomed more than 60,000
visitors. It has also garnered more than 80 awards, including the
prestigious American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2009
Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement Award for the year’s
most outstanding national engineering project and the Stockholm
2008 Industry Water Award for the year’s most outstanding
international water project. OCWD was awarded the 2014 Lee
Kuan Yew Water Prize, an international honor presented to the
district for its pioneering work in groundwater management and
water recycling, as well as its achievements in public policy and
community outreach. e district also earned the 2017 Governor’s
Environmental and Economic Leadership Award (GEELA), given
to OCWD for making contributions to conserving California’s
precious resources, protecting and enhancing the environment,
and strengthening the state’s economy. In 2023, the GWRS was
recognized as Outstanding Water/Wastewater Treatment Project
and Project of the Year by the ASCE Orange County chapter.
e district completed its GWRS program goals by constantly
innovating and testing new technologies, and it hasn’t taken its
foot o the pedal. OCWD continues to test new technology such
as ow–reversal reverse osmosis (FR–RO) to evaluate if the GWRS
can create even more clean water. e current GWRS has an 85
percent recovery rate to meet the current production goal of 130
mgd. Enhanced water recovery technologies like FR–RO could
62
increase the recovery rate to as high as 95 percent, potentially
squeezing even more water out of the system. Looking ahead,
OCWD will also conduct further studies and continue working
with regulators and stakeholders to identify opportunities to bring
more water to the GWRS to be recycled, resulting in less ocean
discharge in the future and an enhanced water supply portfolio.
Continuing the Tradition of Innovation
From the early days of Water Factory 21 to today, sound
research gave OCWD a worldwide reputation for supporting
a culture of innovation that still exists. Expert sta, combined
with increasingly sophisticated water quality testing, provides
the condence needed by the health and regulatory community
and the general public to allow OCWD to continually push the
frontiers of water reuse.
OCWD has a long history of supporting research on both the
technical and water quality aspects of water purication. Realizing
that research was integral to its goal of becoming a leader in water
recycling, an Engineering Research Center was constructed as
part of the GWRS project, where new technologies could be
installed and evaluated on a pilot basis. Today, this testing facility
continues to evaluate new membranes and processes and eorts
continue to grow at OCWD to tackle challenges associated with
emerging water treatment technologies.
Driven by its tradition of innovation, OCWD continues to
be a worldwide leader in the water industry. anks to visionary
leaders, and dedicated and talented sta, OCWD has earned
its outstanding reputation in groundwater management, water
reuse, and water supply reliability.
63
Afterword
By Michael R. Markus, P.E., D.WRE, BCEE, F.ASCE, General Manager, Orange County Water District
is book details the tremendous achievements of the
Orange County Water District over the past 90 years. ese
accomplishments have made the district a global leader in
groundwater management and recycled water. is would not
have been achieved without the vision and leadership of the
past and present Boards of Directors. ese leaders have shaped
the decisions and policies that have made the district what it is
today. ey have understood the need for investments in water
infrastructure and the impact of these investments on Orange
County’s economic vitality.
e district has faced challenges in the past and met them
head–on with innovation and foresight. is same spirit will need
to continue because future challenges loom on the immediate
horizon. ese challenges will include decreased ow in the
Santa Ana River due to recycling and groundwater extractions in
the upper Santa Ana River watershed, decreased stormow due
to drought cycles, and potential shortages of imported water. All
of these issues aect the supply of water into the groundwater
basin and eventually could lead to a decrease in pumping out of
the basin.
Even though the challenges will be great, I am condent that
the district sta will rise to the occasion and produce creative
solutions in nding additional ways in which to maximize the
potential of the groundwater basin. e district has always been
recognized for its “tradition of innovation” and high–caliber sta.
With the combination of the leadership of the Board of Directors
and the ingenuity of the sta, the Orange County Water District
will continue its preeminent reputation well into the future.
65
Appendices
66
Historical Timeline
Orange County Water Progress
1769 Father Serra camps in Santa Ana Valley
1776 Mission San Juan Capistrano is established
1848 California’s gold rush begins, Alta California ceded to U.S.
1850 California achieves statehood
1861 Start of 43–day historic ood
1862 Irvine Ranch is established
1870s Major cities in Orange County are established
1889 Orange County is established
1916
Historic ood, Santa Ana River is rerouted to
present location
1928
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWD) is established, Santa Ana and Anaheim represent
Orange County as founding member cities
1931
Fullerton joins MWD as third member city from
Orange County
1932 Construction of Colorado River Aqueduct begins
1933
Orange County Water District (OCWD) is established to
manage the groundwater basin
1938 Historic ood (Orange County covered by 3 feet of water)
1941
Construction of Prado Dam is completed by U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
1941 Colorado River Water Aqueduct is completed
1941
Coastal Municipal Water District is established, annexed to
MWD as a member agency the following year
1949–
1950
OCWD rst purchases imported water from MWD
1951
Orange County Municipal Water District (OCMWD) is
formed and annexed to MWD as a member agency
1952
Orange County Water Basin Committee establishes new
water management policies
1954 Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana are annexed to OCWD
1954
OCWD establishes replenishment assessment (RA) to
bring in revenue to purchase imported water to ll the
groundwater basin
1957
OCWD purchases its rst recharge basin, Crill Basin (later
named to Anaheim Lake)
1961
Additional replenishment assessment is established for
non–agricultural groundwater pumping to bring in revenue
for capital projects
1965 Alamitos Barrier is operational
1969
Stipulated judgment resolves Santa Ana River water
disputes
1969 Historic ood
67
1969
OCMWD changes name to Municipal Water District of
Orange County (MWDOC)
1969
Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) and Basin Production
Percentage (BPP) are created to assist OCWD in managing
the groundwater basin
1972
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) is
formed
1973 OCWD establishes its rst water quality lab
1975 First northern California water deliveries to Orange County
1975 Water Factory 21 is operational
1978 Proposition 13 is enacted, restricting use of ad valorem tax
1983
Water Advisory Committee of Orange County (WACO) is
established
1991 Green Acres Project is completed and begins operation
1991 Arlington Desalter becomes operational
1995
OCWD reaches historic agreement with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to store Santa Ana River ows behind
Prado Dam
1995 Expansion of Prado Wetlands is complete
1996 Proposition 204 Water Bond passes
1996
A $20 million grant for the Groundwater Replenishment
System (GWRS) is received from the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation through its Title XVI program
1997
GWRS joint board committee is formed to discuss
preparation of required studies, governance issues, and
public outreach
1999
Santa Ana River base ows peak at 158,637 acre–feet a year
(afy) and begin a steady decline to approximately 75,000 afy
over the next 20 years
1999 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GWRS is certied
2000 Proposition 13 Water Bond passes
2001 Coastal Municipal Water District is part of MWDOC
2001 Chino Desalter is operational
2001
OCWD and Orange County Sanitation District (OC San)
approve design and construction of GWRS
2002
OCWD receives Proposition 13 grant in the amount of $37
million from the Southern California Integrated Watershed
Program and SAWPA
2003
Department of Water Resources awards a $30 million
Proposition 13 grant for GWRS
2003
OCWD enters into program allowing MWD to store
imported water in the groundwater basin
2004 Water Factory 21 ceases operations
2004 OCWD and OC San break ground on the GWRS
2006
Voters approve Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water,
Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and
Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006
2008 GWRS begins operation
2009 Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory opens
2011 OCWD breaks ground on initial expansion of GWRS
2012
Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory earns full
certication from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to monitor unregulated constituents of emerging
concern (CEC)
2013
OCWD celebrates 80th anniversary and 5th anniversary
of GWRS
68
2014 Proposition 1 Water Bond passes
2015 GWRS initial expansion is completed and begins operation
2016
Governor Brown signs AB 2022 into law, allowing the
bottling of advanced puried drinking water to support
educational outreach eorts
2017
OCWD develops cyclic storage agreement with MWD that
allows pre-delivery of up to 100,000 acre–feet of imported
water into the groundwater basin
2018
GWRS earns Guinness World Record title for greatest
volume of drinking water produced from recycled
wastewater in 24 hours (100 million gallons)
2019 OCWD breaks ground on nal expansion of GWRS
2020
EPA identies Orange County’s North Basin as a
Superfund site
2020
OCWD receives $131 million low–interest WIFIA loan to
help nance per– and polyuoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
treatment plants
2021
Orange County’s rst PFAS treatment plant comes online
in Fullerton
2022
GWRS makes over 1,000,000 acre-feet of water since
coming online in 2008
2023
OCWD celebrates 90th anniversary and 15th anniversary
of GWRS
2023
OCWD increases the BPP up to 85
percent
2023 Final expansion of GWRS is completed
69
Locations of District Headquarters
1933–1935 Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce oce
1935–1941 Medical Building, 622 N. Main St., Santa Ana
1941–1947 Ramona Building, 118 W. 5th St., Santa Ana
1947–1957 1104 W. 8th St., Santa Ana
1957–1960 941 E. 1st St., Santa Ana
1960–1974 1629 W. 17th St., Santa Ana
Fountain Valley headquarters
March 1974 10500 Ellis Ave., Fountain Valley
1988–present Field Headquarters, 4060 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim
August 1991 New Administration Building completed
2007–present 18700 Ward St., Fountain Valley
70
Current Board of Directors
Division
No. Director Since
Current
Term Expires
1 Dina L. Nguyen, Esq. 12/14 12/26
2 Denis R. Bilodeau, P.E.
1st Vice President
12/00 12/24
3 Roger C. Yoh, P.E. 12/04 12/24
4 Van Tran, Esq.
2nd Vice President
12/22 12/24
5 Stephen R. Sheldon 05/05 12/26
6 Cathy Green
President
12/10 12/24
7 Kelly E. Rowe, CFM, P.G., C.E.G., C.H. 12/18 12/26
8 Valerie Amezcua 12/22 12/26
9 Natalie Meeks 12/22 12/26
10 Bruce Whitaker 01/21 12/24
71
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
SECRETARY MANAGER/GENERAL MANAGER
C. A. Palmer Director/Secretary 1933–1939
Wm. C. Mauerhan Director/Secretary 1939–1942
W. W. Hoy Secretary (part-time) 1942–1945
Dion R. Gardner Secretary–Engineer
(part-time)
1945–1949
W. D. Miller Secretary (part-time) 1949–1953
Howard W. Crooke Secretary Manager 1953–1968
Langdon W. Owen Secretary Manager 1968–1973
Neil M. Cline Secretary Manager 1973–1987
William R. Mills Jr. Secretary Manager
General Manager
1987–1988
1988–2002
Virginia Grebbien General Manager 2002–2007
Michael R. Markus General Manager 2007–present
DISTRICT SECRETARY
Mary E. Johnson 1988–1995
Barbara White 1995–1999
Janice Durant 1999–2023
Christina Fuller 2023–present
ASSISTANT DISTRICT SECRETARY
elma G. Willoughby 1952–1972
Mary E. Johnson 1972–1988
Barbara A. White 1988–1995
Janice Durant 1995–1999
Judy–Rae Karlsen 2000–2017
Christina Fuller 2017–2023
Leticia Villarreal 2023–present
72
William C. Mauerhan
Resigned 11/44
1933–1937
1937–1941
1941–1945
John W. Crill
Appointed 11/44
Died 5/55
President
Vice President
1951–1955
1945–1951
1944–1945
1945–1949
1949–1953
1953–1957
Walter R. Schmid
Appointed 6/55
1955–1957
1957–1961
H. Louis Lake
Died 4/74
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1973–1974
1965–1973
1961–1965
1965–1969
1969–1973
1973–1977
omas T. Lacy
Appointed 6/74
Resigned 6/79
1974–1977
1977–1981
Kathryn L. Barr President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1995, 2010
1988–1995
2000–2002
1985–1988
2005–2007
1979–1981
1981–1985
1985–1990
1990–1994
1994–1998
1998–2002
2002–2006
2006–2010
2010–2014
Appointed 8/79
Retired 12/14
Dina L. Nguyen 2014–2018
2018–2022
2022–2026
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 1
History of Board of Directors
73
C.A. Palmer Secretary 1933–1939 1933–1935
1935–1939
Dion R. Gardner President 1939–1943 1939–1943
Errol Traord
(E.T.) Watson
President
Vice President
1955–1961
1951–1955
1943–1947
1947–1951
1951–1955
1955–1959
1959–1963
1963–1967
1967–1971
1971–1975
Resigned 11/75
John V. Fonley President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1985–1988
1983–1985
1981–1983
1998–2000
1975–1979
1979–1983
1983–1988
1988–1992
1992–1996
1996–2000
Denis R. Bilodeau President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
2002, 2003
2016–2018
2022–
present
2008–2009
2000–2004
2004–2008
2008–2012
2012–2016
2016–2020
2020–2024
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 2
74
William Wallop
Resigned 12/38
1933–1935
1935–1939
Ralph J. McFadden
Appointed 12/38
Resigned 12/48
1938–1939
1939–1943
1943–1947
1947–1951
Lewis Lemke
Appointed 12/48
Died 4/51
1948–1951
1951–1955
Merwin Wagner
Appointed 4/51
Resigned 2/78
President
Vice President
1961–1967
1959–1961
1951–1955
1955–1959
1959–1963
1963–1967
1967–1971
1971–1975
1975–1979
Lawrence P.
Kraemer Jr.
President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1988–1990
1985–1988
1998–2000
1983–1985
2000–2002
1978–1979
1979–1983
1983–1988
1988–1992
1992–1996
1996–2000
2000–2004
Appointed 4/78
Roger C. Yoh 2nd Vice President 2013–2014 2004–2008
2008–2012
2012–2016
2016–2020
2020–2024
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 3
75
William Schumacher 1933–1935
1935–1939
Job J. Denni Sr.
Resigned 9/62
1939–1943
1943–1947
1947–1951
1951–1955
1955–1959
1959–1963
Jake Van Dyke
Appointed 3/63
Resigned 2/65
1963–1967
Preston K. Allen
Appointed 4/65
Resigned 12/80
President
Vice President
2nd Vice President
1975–1979
1974–1975
1973–1974
1965–1967
1967–1971
1971–1975
1975–1979
1979–1983
Philip L. Anthony
Appointed 2/81
Died 7/18
President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1992–1995
2005–2007
2003
2010–2012
2016 –2018
1990–1992
2004
2014–2016
1981–1983
1983–1988
1988–1992
1992–1996
1996–2000
2000–2004
2004–2008
2008–2012
2012–2016
2016–2020
Tri Ta
Appointed 9/18
Resigned 11/22
2nd Vice President 2020–2022 2018–2020
2020–2024
Van Tran
Appointed 12/22
2nd Vice President 2022–
present
2022–2024
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 4
76
C. Roy Browning
Resigned 3/39
1933–1937
1937–1941
Charles E. Smith
Appointed 3/39
Resigned 4/42
1939–1941
1941–1945
C. Roy Browning
Appointed 4/42
Resigned 2/55
1942–1945
1945–1949
1949–1953
1953–1957
Wayne E aton
Appointed 2/55
Disqualied by boundary realignment 9/55
1955–1957
W. F. Mitchell
Appointed 1/56
Resigned 9/64
1956–1957
1957–1961
1961–1965
Minor Warne
Appointed 10/64
Resigned 1/70
1964–1965
1965–1969
1969–1973
Paul H. Cleary
Appointed 3/70
Resigned 6/74
1970–1973
1973–1977
E. Ray Quigley Jr.
Appointed 9/74
Resigned 10/80
1974–1977
1977–1981
Langdon W. Owen
Appointed 12/80
President
2nd Vice President
1990–1992
1988–1990
1980–1981
1981–1985
1985–1990
1990–1994
1994–1998
Jerry A. King President 2000–2002 1998–2002
Paul Cook
Resigned 4/05
1st Vice President 2004 2002–2006
Stephen R . Sheldon
Appointed 5/05
President
2nd Vice President
2008–2009
2020–2022
2018–2020
2005–2006
2006–2010
2010–2014
2014–2018
2018–2022
2022–2026
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 5
77
Willis H. Warner
Resigned 12/38
President 1933–1938 1933–1935
1935–1939
Vernon C. Heil
Appointed 12/38
Died 1/51
1938–1939
1939–1943
1943–1947
1947–1951
Gerald E. Price
Appointed to ll term, never qualied because of election
Roy Seabridge
Resigned 4/70
President
Vice President
1959–1961
1955–1959
1951–1955
1955–1959
1959–1963
1963–1967
1967–1971
Noble J. Waite
Appointed 7/70
Resigned 11/91
President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1981–1983
1979–1981
1975–1979
1970–1971
1971–1975
1975–1979
1979–1983
1983–1988
1988–1992
Wesley M. Bannister
Appointed 12/91
Died 12/09
President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1996–1997
1995–1996
2008–2009
1995
1991–1992
1992–1996
1996–2000
2000–2004
2004–2008
2008–2012
Noble J. Waite
Appointed 2/10
2010–2010
Cathy Green President
1st Vice President
2014–2016
2022–
present
2013–2014
2018–2022
2010–2012
2012–2016
2016–2020
2020–2024
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 6
78
Frank B. Champion
Resigned 3/45
President
Vice President
1942–1943
1935–1945
1933–1937
1937–1941
1941–1945
1945–1949
Donald J. Dodge
Appointed 3/45
Disqualied by boundary survey 7/49
1945–1949
Stephen Griset
Appointed 7/49
1949–1953
1953–1957
Henry T. Segerstrom
Resigned 3/84
President
1st Vice President
1967–1983
1962–1967
1957–1961
1961–1965
1965–1969
1969–1973
1973–1977
1977–1981
1981–1985
Donn Hall
Appointed 5/84
2nd Vice President 1993–1994 1984–1985
1985–1990
1990–1994
Arnt G. “Bud” Quist 1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1997–1998
1996–1997
1994–1998
Kelly E. Rowe
Resigned 12/00
1998–2002
Jan Debay
Appointed 2/01
President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
2006–2007
2005
2010
2001–2002
2002–2006
2006–2010
Shawn Dewane President
2nd Vice President
2013–2014
2016–2018
2010–2014
2014–2018
Kelly E. Rowe 2018–2022
2022–2026
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 7
79
Courtney R. Chandler 1953–1977
John Garthe President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1983–1985
1981–1983
1979–1981
1977–1992
Daniel E. Griset President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1997–1998
1996–1997
1995–1996
1992–1998
Miguel A. Pulido 1998–1999
omas A. Lutz 1999–2000
Brett Franklin 2nd Vice President 2003 2000–2005
Jose Solorio 2005–2006
Claudia Alvarez President 2010–2012 2007–2013
Vincent Sarmiento 1st Vice President 2015 2013–2015
Roman Reyna 2015–2016
Vicente Sarmiento President 2018–2020 2017–2020
Nelida Mendoza 2021–2022
Valerie Amezecua 2022–
present
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 8, CITY OF SANTA ANA
80
Charles H. Pearson 1953–1972
August F. Lenain 1972–1991
William D. Ehrle 1991–1992
Irv Pickler 1992–1995
Bob Zemel 1995–1996
Irv Pickler President
2nd Vice President
1998–2000
1997–1998
1996–2002
Richard Chavez 2002–2007
Irv Pickler 2007–2012
Harry S. Sidhu 2012–2015
Jordan Brandman 2015–2017
James Vanderbilt 2017–2018
Jordan Brandman 2018–2021
Harry S. Sidhu 2021–2022
Gloria Ma’ae 2022–2022
Natalie Meeks 2022–
present
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 9, CITY OF ANAHEIM
81
Cecil Crew 1953–1961
Howard M. Cornwall 1961–1968
Robert L. Clark President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1979–1981
1975–1979
1974–1975
1968–1988
George Osborne President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
1995–1996
1995–1995
1994–1995
1988–1999
Jan M. Flory 1999–2002
Shawn Nelson 2002–2009
Don Bankhead 2nd Vice President 2011–2012 2009–2012
Bruce Whitaker 2012–2014
Jan M. Flory 2014–2017
Bruce Whitaker 2017–2019
Ahmad Zahra 2019–2021
Bruce Whitaker 2021–
present
DIRECTORS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DIVISION 10, CITY OF FULLERTON
82
“A”
Accumulated overdra. e amount of water necessary to be replaced
into the groundwater basin to prevent the landward movement of ocean
water into the fresh groundwater body.
AF. Acre–foot. e amount of water needed to cover an acre
(approximately a football eld) one foot deep, or approximately 326,000
gallons. One acre–foot can support the annual indoor and outdoor
needs of between one and two households per year.
AFY. Acre–foot per year.
Alamitos Barrier. Joint project between OCWD, Los Angeles County
Dept. of Public Works, and the Water Replenishment District (WRD)
for injection of imported water into a geologic gap at the Orange
County–Los Angeles County boundaries subject to seawater intrusion.
Alluvium. A stratied bed of sand, gravel, silt, and clay deposited by
owing water.
AMP. Allen McColloch pipeline. A pipeline operated by the Metropolitan
Water District to transport imported water within Orange County.
Annexation. e inclusion of land within a government agency’s
jurisdiction.
Annual overdra. e quantity by which the production of water from
the groundwater supplies during the water year exceeds the natural
replenishment of such groundwater supplies from the same water year.
Aqueduct. A structure for transporting water from one place to another by
means of a pipeline, canal, conduit, tunnel, or a combination of these features.
Aquifer. A geologic formation of sand, rock, and gravel through which
water can pass and which can store, transmit, and yield signicant
quantities of water to wells and springs.
Artesian. An aquifer in which the water is under sucient pressure to
cause it to rise above the bottom of the overlying conning bed.
Articial recharge. e addition of surface water to a groundwater
reservoir by human activity, such as putting surface water into recharge
basins. (See also: groundwater recharge and recharge basin.)
“B”
Base ow. River surface ow, not counting storm ow and/or purchased
imported water.
BCD. Basin cleaning device. Patented by OCWD, a continuous clean–
out system for removing the clogging layer that accumulates on the
bottoms and sides of deep recharge basins and inhibits percolation.
BEA. Basin equity assessment. e additional fee charged by OCWD
on water pumped that exceeds the basin production percentage, which
makes the cost of that water equal to the cost of imported water.
Biofouling. e formation of bacterial lm (biolm) on fragile reverse
osmosis membrane surfaces.
BMP. Best management practice. An urban water conservation measure
that the California Urban Practice Water Conservation Coalition agrees
to implement among member agencies.
Glossary
83
B P P. Basin production percentage. e percentage of an OCWD
member agency’s total potable water demand that can be produced
from the basin without subjecting that member agency to the BEA.
Brackish water. Water containing dissolved minerals in amounts that
exceed normally acceptable standards for municipal, domestic, and
irrigation uses. Brackish water is considerably less saline than seawater.
Brown Act. Ralph M. Brown Act. Enacted by the State legislature, a
protocol that governs all meetings of legislative bodies. Also known as
the Open Meeting requirements.
“C”
CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act. A California statute
passed in 1970 that requires public agencies and local governments to
evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of development or
other major land use decisions.
cfs. Cubic feet per second. e rate of ow or discharge equivalent to
one cubic foot of water per second.
Chloramines. A mixture of ammonia and chlorine used to disinfect
water.
Closed basin. A groundwater basin whose topography and geology
prevent a subsurface outow of water.
Colored water. Groundwater that is unsuitable for domestic use
without treatment due to high color and odor that exceeds drinking
water standards.
Conned aquifer. A water–bearing subsurface stratum that is
bounded above and below by formations of impermeable, or relatively
impermeable soil or rock.
Conjunctive use. e planned use of groundwater in conjunction with
surface water in overall management to optimize total water resources.
“D”
Deep percolation. e percolation of surface water through the ground
beyond the lower limit of the root zone of plants into a groundwater aquifer.
Degraded water. Water within the groundwater basin that, in one
characteristic or another, does not meet primary drinking water standards.
Denitrication. e physical process of removing nitrate from water
through reverse osmosis or other means.
Desalting (or desalination). Specic treatment processes, such as
reverse osmosis or multi–stage ash distillation, that demineralize
seawater or brackish (saline) waters for reuse. Also sometimes used in
wastewater treatment to remove salts and other pollutants.
Desilting. The physical process of removing suspended particles
from water.
Direct Potable Reuse. e injection of recycled water directly into
the potable water supply distribution system downstream of a water
treatment plant, or into the raw water supply immediately upstream
of a water treatment plant. Unlike indirect potable reuse, there is no
temporal or spatial separation between the recycled water introduction
and its distribution to consumers.
Disinfection. Water treatment which destroys potentially harmful bacteria.
Drainage basin. Also called catchment area, watershed, or river basin,
the area of land from which water drains into a particular river.
“E”
East Side Reservoir Project. A Metropolitan Water District project in
Riverside County for the storage of imported water.
Euent. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated or
in its natural state, owing from a treatment plant.
84
Evapotransporation. e quantity of water transpired (given o),
retained in plant tissues, and evaporated from plant tissues and the
surrounding soil surface. Quantitatively, it is expressed in terms of
depth of water per unit area during a specied period of time.
“F”
Flocculation. A chemical process involving the addition of a coagulant
to assist in the removal of turbidity in water.
Forebay. A portion of a groundwater basin where large quantities of
surface water can recharge the basin through inltration; also a reservoir
or pond situated at the intake of a pumping plant or power plant that is
used to stabilize the water level.
“G”
GAP. Green Acres Project. A 7.5 million gallons per day (mgd)
water reclamation project that serves tertiary treated recycled water
to irrigation and industrial users in Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley,
Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana.
gpm. Gallons per minute. Also known as ow rate, gpm is a measure of
the gallons of water or other uid that move per minute.
Gray water reuse. Reuse, generally without treatment, of domestic–type
wastewater for toilet ushing, garden irrigation, and other nonpotable
uses. is excludes water from toilets, kitchen sinks, dishwashers, and
basins used for washing diapers.
Groundwater. Water that occurs beneath the land surface and lls
partially or wholly pore spaces of the alluvium, soil, or rock formation
in which it is situated. It does not include water which is being produced
with oil in the production of oil and gas or in a bona de mining operation.
Groundwater basin. A groundwater reservoir dened by all the
overlying land surface and the underlying aquifers that contain water
stored in the reservoir. Boundaries of successively deeper aquifers may
dier and make it dicult to dene the limits of the basin.
Groundwater mining. e withdrawal of water from an aquifer in
excess of recharge over a period of time. If continued, the underground
supply eventually becomes exhausted or the water table drops below
economically feasible pumping lis.
Groundwater overdra. e condition of a groundwater basin in
which the amount of water withdrawn by pumping exceeds the amount
of water that recharges the basin over a period of years during which
water supply conditions approximate average.
Groundwater recharge. e action of increasing groundwater storage
by natural conditions or by human activity. See also: Articial recharge.
Groundwater table. e upper surface of the zone of saturation (all
pores of subsoil lled with water), except where the surface is formed
by an impermeable body.
GWRS. Groundwater Replenishment System. An OCWD/OC San joint
project that can produce up to 130 million gallons of high–quality water
each day for groundwater replenishment.
“H”
Hydrologic balance. An accounting of all water inow to, water outow
from, and changes in water storage within a hydrologic unit over a
specied period.
Hydrologic cycle. e process by which water constantly circulates
from the ocean to the atmosphere, falling to the earth in some form of
precipitation, and nally returning to the ocean.
85
“I”
Imported water. Water that originates from one hydrologic region and
is transferred to another hydrologic region. For example, Metropolitan
Water District imports water from the Colorado River and northern
California.
Indirect Potable Reuse. e planned use of recycled water for
replenishment of a groundwater basin or an aquifer that has been
designated as a source of water supply for a public water system.
Indirect Potable Reuse (Unplanned). e entry of wastewater into a
natural water system (creek, river, lake, or aquifer) which is eventually
extracted from that system for drinking water.
Inatable rubber dams. A tube–shaped fabric that, when inated, acts
as a dam that raises the upstream water level. OCWD’s rubber dams are
designed to replace temporary sand levees on the Santa Ana River that
wash out during heavy storm ow. ey hold back high–volume river
ows and divert the water into the o–river system for percolation.
In–lieu program. A program oered by OCWD in conjunction
with the MWD seasonal storage program that nancially encourages
groundwater producers to turn o their pumping facilities and use
MWD imported water to meet their demands, thereby indirectly
replenishing the groundwater basin.
Interruptible water. Water from MWD that is subject to being shut o
at any time, thus available at a discounted rate.
“L”
LIMS. Laboratory Information Management System. A soware
program that allows water samples to be logged into a computer and
the analytical results to be automatically posted to the Water Resources
Management System database.
“M”
maf. Million acre–feet. A unit of measurement typically applied to very
large bodies of water. See acre–foot.
MCL. Maximum contaminant level. A drinking water standard set by
EPA for a regulated substance in drinking water.
mgd. Million gallons per day. A ow rate expressed in millions of
gallons per day.
mg/L. Milligrams per liter. A ow rate expressed in milligrams per liter.
Microltration. A physical separation process the involves the use of
tiny, hollow straw–like membranes that separate particles from water. It
is used very eectively as a pre–treatment for reverse osmosis.
“N”
Natural ows. Flows, such as those in the Santa Ana River, that are not
placed into the system by human activities.
Non–interruptible. Water from MWD that is not subject to any
interruption.
Non–point source pollution. Contamination of water that comes
from diuse sources rather than a single discrete source. See also: point
source pollution.
NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. A federal
permit authorized by the Clean Water Act, Title IV that is required
for the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States.
ese waters include lakes, streams, rivers, bays, wetlands, storm sewers,
tributaries to any surface water body, and the ocean.
86
“O”
OCCP. Orange County Coastal Project. e original name of the
seawater barrier project at the Fountain Valley site, eventually renamed
Water Factory 21.
OCWD Annual Engineer’s Report. An annual report on the
groundwater conditions, water supply, and basin utilization that is
delivered in writing to the Secretary of OCWD on the second Wednesday
in February of each year.
Operator or owner. Any person or group to whom a water–producing
facility (well) is assessed by the county assessor or the person who owns
the land on which the water–producing facility is located.
Overdra. See: groundwater overdra.
“P”
Perched groundwater. Groundwater located above an area of low
permeability below which an unconnected groundwater basin exists.
Percolation. e downward movement of water through the soil or
alluvium to the groundwater table.
Permeability. e capability of soil or other geologic formations to
transmit water.
Point source pollution. Contamination of water that comes from a
single discrete source. See also: non–point source pollution.
Potable water. Water that is suitable and safe for drinking.
ppb. Parts per billion. A unit of measurement used interchangeably
with ug/L (micrograms per liter).
ppm. Parts per million. A unit of measurement used interchangeably
with mg/L (milligrams per liter).
ppt. Parts per trillion. A unit of measurement used interchangeably
with ng/L (nanograms per liter).
Primary treated water. Wastewater that has undergone the rst major
treatment in a wastewater treatment facility, usually sedimentation but
not biological oxidation.
Prior appropriation doctrine. A policy that allocates water rights to the
rst party who diverts water from its natural source and applies the water
to benecial use. If at some point the rst appropriator fails to use the water
benecially, another person may appropriate the water and gain rights to
the water. e central principle is benecial use, not land ownership.
Production, producing. e act of extracting groundwater by pumping
or otherwise.
psi. Pounds per square inch. A measurement of the pound–force of a
gas or liquid applied to an area of one square inch.
Purveyor. Another name for groundwater producer or pumper.
“R”
RA. Replenishment assessment. A fee to pump groundwater based on
a charge on each acre–foot of groundwater extracted from the basin.
Income from the RA nances the replenishment of the basin and
projects for water recycling and water quality improvements.
Recharge. e physical process by which water naturally percolates or
sinks into a groundwater basin.
Recharge basin. A surface facility, oen a large pond, used to increase
the inltration of surface water into a groundwater basin.
Reclaimed wastewater. Wastewater that becomes suitable for a specic
benecial use as a result of treatment. See also: wastewater reclamation.
Reclamation project. A project involving water obtained from a
sanitary district or system that undergoes additional treatment for a
87
variety of uses, including landscape irrigation, industrial applications,
and groundwater recharge.
Recycling. A type of reuse, usually involving running a supply of water
through a closed system again and again. Legislation in 1991 legally
equates the term “recycled water” to reclaimed water.
Riparian. Pertaining to the banks of a stream, river, or other body of water.
RO. Reverse osmosis. A method of removing salts or other ions from
water by forcing water through a semi–permeable membrane.
“S”
Safe yield. e maximum quantity of water that can be withdrawn from
a groundwater basin over a long period of time without developing a
condition of overdra. Sometimes referred to as sustained yield.
Salinity. Generally, the concentration of mineral salts dissolved in
water. Salinity may be measured by weight (total dissolved solids –
TDS), electrical conductivity, or osmotic pressure. Where seawater is
known to be the major source of salt, salinity is oen used to refer to the
concentration of chlorides in the water.
SARI. Santa Ana Regional Interceptor. A used water discharge line that
runs from the Inland Empire to OC San.
SARWQHS. Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study. An
OCWD study to verify the safety of existing recharge operations using
Santa Ana River water and to satisfy regulatory concerns with the
Groundwater Replenishment System.
SB 1201. Senate Bill 1201. An Act that passed in June 1933, authorizing
the formation of the Orange County Water District as a political sub–
division of the State of California.
Seasonal storage. A three–part program oered by MWD.
Seawater barrier. A physical facility or method of operation designed
to prevent the intrusion of salt water into a body of freshwater, such as
OCWD’s Talbert Barrier or Alamitos Barrier.
Seawater intrusion. e movement of salt water into a body of fresh
water. It can occur in either surface water or groundwater basins.
Secondary treatment. A level of treatment that produces 85 percent
removal eciencies for biological oxygen demand and suspended
solids. Usually carried out through the use of trickling lters or by the
activated sludge process.
Spreading basin; spreading grounds. See: recharge basin.
Storm ow. Surface ow originating from precipitation and run–o
which has not percolated to an underground basin.
Subsidence. Sinking of the land surface due to a number of factors,
including groundwater extraction.
Supplemental sources. Sources of water outside the watershed of the
Santa Ana River purchased for the replenishment of the groundwater
basin or used by an OCWD member agency to meet water demands.
Sustained yield. See safe yield.
SWP. State Water Project. An aqueduct system that delivers water from
northern California to central and southern California.
“T”
Talbert Barrier. A series of multipoint injection wells through which
OCWD injects water to maintain a seawater barrier. Water from this
project is obtained from GWRS and deep–aquifer wells.
TDS. Total dissolved solids. A quantitative measure of the residual
minerals dissolved in water that remain aer evaporation of a solution.
Usually expressed in milligrams per liter.
88
Tertiary treatment. e treatment of wastewater beyond the secondary
or biological stage. Normally implies the removal of nutrients, such as
phosphorous and nitrogen, and a high percentage of suspended solids.
THM. Trihalomethanes. Any of several synthetic organic compounds
formed when chlorine or bromine combine with organic materials in water.
Transpiration. A process that occurs when plants take up water in a
liquid state from the soil and release water vapor into the atmosphere
through their leaves.
Turbidity. ick or opaque with matter in suspension; muddy water.
“U”
Ultraviolet light disinfection. Oen used as an alternative to
chlorination, a disinfection method for water that has received either
secondary or tertiary treatment.
“V”
VOC. Volatile organic compound. A chemical compound that
evaporates readily at room temperature and contains carbon.
“W”
Wastewater. Water that has been previously used by a municipality,
industry, or agriculture and has suered a loss of quality as a result of use.
Wastewater reclamation. Treatment and management of municipal,
industrial, or agricultural wastewater to produce water of suitable
quality for additional benecial uses.
Water Factory 21 (WF–21). Orange County Water District’s advanced
wastewater purication plant (1975–2004).
Water rights. A legally protected right to take possession of water
occurring in a natural waterway and to divert that water for benecial use.
Water year (OCWD). e period between July 1 of one calendar year to
June 30 of the following calendar year.
Water year (USGS). e period between October 1 of one calendar year
to September 30 of the following calendar year.
Watermaster. A court–appointed person(s) that has specic
responsibilities to carry out court decisions pertaining to a river system
or watershed.
Watershed. e total land area from which water drains or ows to a
particular river, stream, lake, or other body of water.
Weir box. A device to measure and/or control surface water ows in
streams or between a series of ponds.
Wellhead treatment. Water quality treatment of water being produced
at the well site.
WPF. Water–producing facility. Any device or method, mechanical
or otherwise, used for the production of water from the groundwater
supplies within the District; a water well.
WRMS. Water Resources Management System. A custom computer
application rst launched in 1990 to assist District sta with the
management and analysis of water resources data. is data includes
well information, water quality, water levels, production, and recharge.
e system is based on a set of integrated soware programs consisting
of a relational database (Oracle), computer–aided design (AutoCAD),
geographic information system (GIS), and groundwater ow model
(MODFLOW).
89
Documents/Publications/Minutes
Anaheim Gazette, 12 March 1931.
Anaheim Gazette, 14 September 1933.
Anaheim Gazette, 19 October 1933.
Bailey, P. Report to the Board of Supervisors of the Orange County
Flood Control District Upon a Plan for e Control of Floods and
Conservation of Water, April 1929.
Baker, R. J. e Progressive Reform of the Santa Ana Watershed.
MastersField Report. U of Calif., Riverside, 1983.
Blomquist, W. Dividing the Waters: Governing Groundwater in
Southern California. San Francisco: ICS Press, 1992.
Blomquist, W. Orange County. Bloomington, IN.: Workshop in Political
eory and Policy Analysis, 1988. Vol. 5 of e Performance of
Institutions for Groundwater Management. 7 vols.
Brigandi, Phil. Orange: e City Round the Plaza. Encinitas, CA:
Heritage Media Corp., 1997.
California Codes. e Orange County Water District Act, as amended.
Deerings California Codes, Uncodied Acts, Act 5683.
California State Senate. Journal 47th Session, 1927. Report of State
Mineralogist. Sacramento: DNR, 1927.
Crooke, H. Planning and Providing an Adequate Supply of Water for
Orange County, California. LTD. Professional Symposium on Salt
Water Encroachment of Aquifers. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 1967.
Environmental Coalition of Orange County, Inc. Water Quality
Report. 1, no. 4 (August 1975).
Gleason, Present Overdra. Statement Regarding the Present
Condition of the Underground Water Basin of Orange County.
August 1945.
Hall, W. H. Irrigation in California [Southern]: e Second Part of
the Report of the State Engineer of California of Irrigation and the
Irrigation Question. Sacramento, 1888.
Hundley, N., Jr. e Great irst: Californians and Water,1770s–1990s.
Berkeley: U of Calif. Press, 1992.
Huntington Beach Independent Review, 25 October 1975.
Lenain, A. e Orange County Water District. Typescript. 1983.
Lenain, A. e Saga of Water into Southern Calif. Typescript. 1983.
Lippincott, J. B. Report of Water Conservation and Flood Control on
the Santa Ana River. Orange County, California, 1925.
Los Angeles Times, 1 September 1934.
Los Angeles Times, 23 April 1976.
Orange County Department of Agriculture. Report of the Agricultural
Commissioner, Orange County, California. Anaheim, CA:, 1911, 1927.
Orange County Water District. Annual Report 1991, 1995, 1996.
Fountain Valley, CA: OCWD.
Orange County Water District Board of Directors. Minutes,
1933–1994.
Orange County Water District. e Annual Report: 50th Anniversary
Edition. Fountain Valley, CA: OCWD, June 1983.
Orange County Water District. e District: A Perspective on the
Orange County Water District. 11 January 1994.
Bibliographic and Oral History Works Cited
90
Oshio, K. Urban Water Diplomacy: A Policy History of the
Metropolitan Water Supply in the Twentieth Century Southern
California. Diss., U of Calif., Santa Barbara, 1992.
Poland, J. F. Summary Statement of Groundwater Conditions and Saline
Contamination Along the Coast of Orange County, California.
Orange County, CA: OCWD, September 1947.
Scott, A. J. High Technology Industry and Territorial Development:
e Rise of the Orange County Complex, 1955–1984. Urban
Geography 7, no. 1 (1986): 3–45.
Scott, M. B. Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River
Basin, California, 1810–1968. U. S. Geological Survey Open–File
Report #77–398. Menlo Park, CA: U. S. Geological Survey, 1976.
Soja, E. W. Inside Exopolis: Scenes from Orange County. Variations on
a eme Park. Ed. Michael Sorkin. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992.
Superior Court of the State of California. Orange County Water District
v. City of Chino, et al. No. 117628, Settlement Documents (1969).
Talbert, T. My Sixty Years in California. Huntington Beach, CA: Ben
Franklin, 1982.
Weschler, L. F. Water Resources Management: e Orange County
Experience. California Government Series # 14. Davis, CA: U of
Calif., Davis, 1968.
Wesner, G. M. Historical Review of Water Factory 21: Orange County
Water District Wastewater Reclamation and Groundwater Recharge
Program, December 1987.
Wesner, G. M. Water Factory 21: Waste Water Reclamation and Sea
Water Barrier Facilities. Santa Ana, CA: OCWD, February 1973.
Works Progress Administration. A History of Irrigation in Orange
County. Orange County Project WPA #3105. Santa Ana, CA, 1936.
Oral History
Oral histories were conducted by Barbara A. Milkovich, Ph.D. Cassette
tapes are on deposit at the Orange County Water District.
Cline, N., Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority General Manager.
17 December 1997. Riverside, California.
Dunivin, W., OCWD Water Production Superintendent. 24
November, 1997. Fountain Valley, California.
Flowers, A., OCWD Forebay Operations Manager. 4 December 1997.
Anaheim, California.
Fonley, J., OCWD Director. 5 December 1997. Fountain Valley,
California.
Mills, W., OCWD General Manager. 8 December 1997. Fountain
Valley, California.
Osborne, G., OCWD Director. 30 October 1997 and 4 December
1997. Fullerton, California.
Owen, L., OCWD Director. 3 November 1997. Fountain Valley,
California.
Pearson, C., former OCWD Director. Interview conducted by Richard
D. Curtiss on 10, 18, 26 April 1968, and 7 May 1968. Transcript at
Anaheim Public Library, Anaheim History Room.
Shen, Y., OCWD Laboratory Director. 5 December 1997. Fountain
Valley, California.
Van Haun, J. OCWD Associate General Manager. 19 December 1997.
Fountain Valley, California.
91
is history of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) is
based in large part on a document prepared for OCWD by Joseph
J. Milkovich & Associates of Huntington Beach, California. e
document, entitled A History of the Orange County Water District
and the River It Runs, was primarily the work of Barbara A.
Milkovich, Ph.D.
at document was submitted to OCWD in March 1998
and subsequently updated and reorganized to reect the latest
information on water issues and OCWD programs. Renamed A
History of Orange County Water District, it was published in book
form in 2003. In 2013, e Acorn Group prepared the second
edition, and in 2023, this third edition which coincides with
the 90th anniversary of OCWD. e information stated in this
edition is current as of May 2023.
Attribution
92
18700 Ward Street | Fountain Valley, CA 92708
714-378-3200
www.ocwd.com
OCWD’s mission is to provide a
reliable, high quality water supply in
a cost-effective and environmentally
responsible manner.
