1

AV IRWMP DAC Outreach – Lake Los Angeles

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Minutes taken by: Los Angeles Rural Town Council

The DAC Outreach meeting at Lake Los Angeles was held on August 28, 2012 during the Lake

Los Angles Rural Town Council (LLARTC) meeting at Vista San Gabriel Elementary School.

1. Welcome and Introductions

a. The LLARTC meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm by council President Kristi

Kennedy

b. Various Council agenda items were discussed prior to DAC Outreach

Presentation by RMC Water and Environment

2. DAC Outreach Presentation

a. Brian Dietrick (RMC) was introduced as the guest speaker and gave a

presentation on the AV IRWMP outreach effort (DAC) to include Lake Los

Angeles in the plan update process (presentation materials are attached at the

end of these meeting notes)

3. Questions from Attendees

a. Robin Nute asked about flooding issues, as most of the flood control ditches are

on private property and people fill them in. Robin remarked that the county

doesn't do anything about this problem. Recently her home was flooded and the

flood did $30k worth of damage. She asked what can be done about people

filling in the ditches.

i. Brian Dietrick replied that she should find out who the property owner is

and see if there is a project going on. RMC’s work doesn't include

addressing legal issues, but they do need to know where the flooding is

happening and how bad is it.

b. Norm Hickling asked if anyone from Public Works talked about flooding from last

year, the people who actually dealt with it.

i. Brian replied that he became aware of the issues not from the County but

from Yvonne Malikowski (Lake Los Angeles Park Association) and Kristi

Kennedy (Lake Los Angles Town Council).

ii. Norm Hickling recommends that the appropriate County people contact

Brian Dietrick. Need to find out if there are any planning studies, then

prepare grant applications.

c. A community member asked how IRWM efforts affect private well water use. For

example, will there be no digging of new wells allowed in the AV?

2

i. Brian replied that it is a different process that runs parallel to this IRWM

effort. It is the adjudication process, which is a legal judicial process. It

allocates water pumping rights to those who have rights in the AV. This

IRWM Plan acknowledges the adjudication process but does not play a

role in the outcome. He (Brian) has not seen any effort to close wells as

part of the IRWM planning effort.

d. A community member asked if RMC has looked into the small private water

agencies that are substandard. They can't provide fire hydrant service, they

provide undrinkable water, and this has been going on for years.

i. Brian replied that RMC is at the meeting to learn more about these

issues. These types of problems can be addressed by projects that can be

funded by state grant programs.

ii. The questioner clarified that this is an issue about how these companies

cannot provide water in an emergency situation. These are small mutual

water companies with ground water rights.

iii. Brian commented that a tank would be an example of a project that

could be funded to be available for emergency situations.

iv. Brian stated that public safety is part of the objectives of the IRWM Plan

for the AV Region.

v. Brian clarified that RMC is not thinking about public safety from a fire

perspective, but from a health perspective. The questioner commented

that RMC needs to consider that issue and upgrade the projects for fire

protection, if possible.

e. Scott Lezak asked: There's a good deal of water during any storm that goes through the flood areas. If we can divert it into the lakebed, we have a lake and can use that as a water injection site. Why not take that and divert it into a lake? It can be fire control and flood control.

i. Brian replied that it could be an integrated concept that can be all of these at once.

f. Kristi Kennedy asked: Is it true that we can no longer restore the lake? Was the property donated and sold?

i. Norm Hickling response: has not heard that it was. g. Glenn Allen comment: There is treated water, at Avenue L & 120th Street East,

and at Avenue E & 110th Street East. He commented that we have a lot of water. What is the timeline to get this accomplished? Could this take up to 20 years?

i. Brian replied that it would not actually take that long and could take only a few years, as previous projects have.

4. Contact information for Brian Dietrick was made available for additional questions a. Email: bdietrick@rmwcwater.com

3

5. LLARTC Meeting was adjourned at 8:39pm

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Brian Dietrick and Norm Hickling to exchange information about potential projects in

the Lake Los Angeles area.

10/23/2012

1

Integrated Regional Water Management PlanAntelope Valley

2007 Update2007 Update

Lake Los Angeles Outreach

Innovative Solutions for Innovative Solutions for Water and the EnvironmentWater and the Environment

August 28, 2012August 28, 2012

Brian Dietrick, P.E.Brian Dietrick, P.E.

Meeting Objectives

Importance of IRWMP Program

P 84 IRWMP B k d Prop. 84 IRWMP Background Funding

AV IRWMP Region

Prop. 84 DAC Information DAC Funding – Lahontan IRWMP Region

Solicit Information from Community

AV IRWMP and Grant Funding Schedule

Call to Action

2

10/23/2012

2

IRWMP Developed out of a Need for Collaboration to Solve Water Problems

Integrated Regional Waterg gManagement Plan

SB1672 - Integrated Regional Water Management Act

September 2002 Objective: encourage local

agencies to work cooperatively to manage local and imported water supplies to improvewater supplies to improve quality, quantity, and reliability

Followed by grant programs: Prop 50, Prop 84, and Prop 1E

3

Integrated Planning has Benefits

Water Purveyor

PROJECT

Supply

Flood Water Quality

County/City Public Health Dept.

Habitat

Conservancy

10/23/2012

3

Propositions have Provided Funding Several Times

$1 200 000 000

$1,400,000,000

Prop 84 - $1,000,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

Fu

nd

ing

Prop 50 - $500,000,000

p , , ,Round 1Round 2Round 3

Round 1

$0

$200,000,000

2002 2004 2006 2008Time

Prop 1E - $300,000,000Round 1Round 2

Round 1Round 2

Flood

5

After Prop. 50, DWR Divided the State into Funding Areas

Lahontan Funding AreaFunding Area

570 miles long and 33,131 square miles

$27M

6

10/23/2012

4

The Antelope Valley IRWM Started with an MOU

11 Signatories

Signed in 2007 Signed in 2007

Purpose:

1. create RWMG

2. invite stakeholders

3. develop IRWMP

4. apply for grant funding

7

The Antelope Valley Region was Defined

8

10/23/2012

5

The Stakeholder Process is Key

The Stakeholder Process is Key(a partial list)

Antelope Valley Board of Trade Antelope Valley Conservancy Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency Antelope Valley State Water Contractors Association

A t l V ll R C ti Di t i t

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Watershed Management Division

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Los Angeles County Farm Bureau

L A l C t S it ti Di t i t #14 & #20 Antelope Valley Resource Conservation District Antelope Valley United Water Purveyors Building Industry Association - Antelope Valley Chapter California Department of Fish & Game California Department of Health Services California Department of Water Resources California Regional Water Quality Control Board California State Parks City of Boron City of California City City of Lancaster City of Palmdale County Sanitation District Nos. 14 and 20 of Los Angeles

County Edwards Air Force Base

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts #14 & #20

Los Angeles County Waterworks District #40, Antelope Valley

Mojave Desert Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Council

Mutual Water Companies

National Education Association, Antelope Valley

National Resources Conservation Service

Natural Resources at Edwards Air Force Base

Palmdale Water District

Quartz Hill Water District

Rosamond Community Services District Kern County Board of Supervisors, District 2 Kern County Farm Bureau Kern County Planning Department Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Lake Los Angeles Town Council Lake Los Angeles Park Association Leona Valley Town Council Littlerock Creek Irrigation District Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Office, District 5

Roosevelt Town Council

Sierra Club Sundale Mutual Water Town Councils Tybrin Corporation at Edwards Air Force Base U.S. Department of Agriculture Westside Park Mutual Water Company White Fence Farms Mutual Water Company

10

10/23/2012

6

Objectives were Developed Using Stakeholder Collaboration

• Ensure reliable supply• Establish supply contingency plan • Stabilize groundwater levels

Water Supply Water Supply

• Meet drinking water standards • Protect aquifer from contamination • Protect streams and recharge areas• Maximize beneficial use of RW

Water Quality Water Quality

• Reduce negative impacts of SW, urban runoff, and nuisance water

Flood Management

Flood Management

• Preserve open space and natural habitats

Environmental Resources

Environmental Resources

• Maintain Agricultural land use • Meet demand for recreational space • Improve integrated land use planning

Regional Land Use

Regional Land Use

11

Projects were Identified and Prioritized

Projects

Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant Stage V Pl t E iV Plant Expansion

Lancaster Water Reclamation Plant Stage V Plant Expansion, Phase 1

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project: Injection Well Development

Upper Amargosa Creek Recharge, Flood Control and Riparian Habitat Restoration Project

Littlerock Dam Sediment Removal ProjectLittlerock Dam Sediment Removal Project

Groundwater Recharge Recycled Water Pilot Project

Comprehensive Water Conservation/Water Use Efficiency Program

12

10/23/2012

7

$1 200 000 000

$1,400,000,000

Prop 84 - $1,000,000,000

The Antelope Valley was Ultimately Successful in Obtaining Grant Funding

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

Fu

nd

ing

Prop 50 - $500,000,000

p , , ,Round 1 – $5.4 M, $0.5M

Round 2 - ??Round 3 - ??

Round 1 - $0

$0

$200,000,000

2002 2004 2006 2008Time

Prop 1E - $300,000,000Round 1 - $6.5MRound 2 - ??

Round 1 $0Round 2 - $0

Flood

13

Now the IWRM Plan is Being Updated

New water supply projectionsprojections

Salt/Nutrient Management

Integrated Flood Management

Disadvantaged C itiCommunities

14

10/23/2012

8

Prop. 84 DAC Information

Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) – communities with median household income less than 80 percent with median household income less than 80 percent of statewide median ($48,706)

DAC water benefits must be part of project review process for IRWMP update

DACs must be included in mandatory public outreach process

DAC benefits allow applicants to expand the list of DAC benefits allow applicants to expand the list of eligible projects (for implementation grants) to include feasibility studies, design, needs assessments

15

DACs Defined from Census Data (2006-2012)

North Edwards – 8/10 meeting w/GMEdgemont Acres MWC - pendingNorth Edwards – 8/10 meeting w/GMEdgemont Acres MWC - pending

Desert Lake CSD –8/10 meeting w/GMDesert Lake CSD –8/10 meeting w/GM

Boron CSD – GM to present at August Board mtg

Boron CSD – GM to present at August Board mtg

Mojave PUD – GM to present at August Board mtgMojave PUD – GM to present at August Board mtg

gg

16

Lake Los Angeles – Brian to present at 8/28 Town CouncilLake Los Angeles – Brian to present at 8/28 Town Council

10/23/2012

9

Prop. 84 Allocates Specific Funding for DACs

No less than 10% of available funds will be used to support projects that address critical water supply or support projects that address critical water supply or water quality needs for DACs

Statewide $25 million to fund critical DAC projects: After Round 1, only $8,498,210 was awarded to DACs For Round 2, $16,501,790 is available to be awarded to

DACs For Lahontan Funding Area, almost $4 million anticipated

for Round 2

Funding Match is waived for DAC projects

17

Information Needed from DACs

o Water supply issues/data

o Water quality issues/datao Water quality issues/data

o Flooding issues/data

o Maps, figures, tables to summarize (if any)

o Recommended monitoring studies

o Recommended implementation of future projects

18

10/23/2012

10

The IRWM Updates will be Completed in Time for Grant Funding

2012 2013

Tasks

IRWM Plan Update

DACs

2012 2013

Integrated Flood Management Plan

Funding Prop 84 Imp. Grant Round 2

Prop1e StormwaterPlanning Grant, Round 2

19

Call to Action

AV Water Plan Site: http://www.avwaterplan.org/

M ili Li t Mailing List

Special Committees

Stakeholder Meetings: October 17, 2012, Chimbole Cultural Center

Contact Information:Brian Dietrick

RMC Water and Environment

(310) 566-6479

bdietrick@rmcwater.com

20

10/23/2012

11

Open Discussion/Q&A

Courtesy of Richard Caulkins