Orange County Water and Beyond! PRESENTATION TITLE Karl W. Seckel, P.E. Assistant General Manager Municipal Water District of Orange County April 3, 2018
Topics for Presentation Water Basics Water Conservation Climate Change Colorado River Over Allocation The Drought and how we survived Bay-Delta, California WaterFix History Being Made! Carson Regional Indirect Potable Supply (Carson IPR) OC Water Reliability Study Parting Thoughts 2
Drinking Water Cognition 24/7 + 365 3
Who we are and where our supplies originate 4
OC has 30 Retail and 2 Wholesale Water Agencies serving 3.1 million residents 5
Where OC Gets Its Water ~50% Import ~50% Local Bay Delta Area 25% State Water Project Entitlement (1972) Transfers & Storage 25% Colorado River Aqueduct (1941) Local Supplies Groundwater & Recycling Ocean Desalination (future) 50% Conservation (Water Use Efficiency) 6
How Much Water Do We Use? Southern California = 3.6 Million Acre Feet (MAF) Southern California Imported = 1.8 MAF Orange County Total = 0.5 MAF Indoor usage = 50 gallons per person per day Outdoor usage = depends on size of yard, type of planting, type of irrigation, # of residents, but somewhere around 100 gallons per person per day average 1 Acre-Foot = 1 Football Field 1 foot deep (also 326,000 Gallons) 7
Wholesale Water Club Metropolitan Water District Of Southern California (MET) (MWD) (Metropolitan) (Imported Regional) (MWDOC) Municipal Water District of Orange County (Imported Orange County) Orange County Water District (OCWD) (Groundwater Orange County) Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) (Wastewater North Orange County) 8 South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) South Orange County 8
OC Study Areas based on Local Resources 90% Local Water 1. Brea/La Habra 2. OCWD 3. Non-OCWD South County 75% Local Water 1+2+3 =Total OC 5-10% Local Water 9
MWDOC has 7 Directors elected by divisions 10 10
MWDOC what we do MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY (MWDOC) We are part of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) - we appoint 4 of 37 directors to the MET Board 19 million residents within 26 MET Member Agencies 11
MWDOC what we do PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES Imported Water Supply Water Supply Development Water Reliability Emergency Response Water Use Efficiency School Program Public Information and Water Education Legislative Advocacy 12
Water Conservation 13
O.C. Water Conservation Mandates how have we done? Subject Introduction 14
Percent of AF Savings O.C. Water Savings Reported to SWRCB 30% 25% Average Monthly Water Savings for Orange County Compared to CY 2013 28.45% 25.12% 23.47% Cumulative Savings for O.C. 22.05% 22.56% 22.55% 22.31% 22.90% 20% 15% 15.58% 17.67% 18.00% 18.59% 10% 9.11% 5% 0% Orange County Voluntary Savings Goal 10% Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 15
Water Conservation Reduce Over-Watering Too much water applied! System inefficiencies! Too much runoff! Lack of maintenance! Lack of management! Lack of communication! 16
Water Conservation The Solution 17
Comparison of Plant Water Needs Inches of Water / Year * 60 50 40 30 60% Water Savings 20 10 0 Cool Season Turf Warm Season Turf High Water Use Plants Medimum Water Use Plants Low Water Use Plants - California Friendly California Native Plants Average Orange County Rainfall 18
onservation Tips 1. Understand how much water is being applied and adjust appropriately (typically, we over-water) 2. Modify the irrigation system to use MP rotator nozzles or drip irrigation & separate out plant hydrozones 3. Reduce turf areas and add California Friendly plantings. Provide the appropriate type of irrigation system for the California Friendly plants 4. You may need to hire an irrigation/landscape specialist 19
Key Websites for WUE WWW.ocfriendlylandscapes.com/ WWW.OCWATERSMART.COM WWW.MWDOC.COM 20
Climate Change 22
Climate Change Basics Climate change occurs when the factors that influence it changes. Changing climate on a global scale can only occur when the amount of heat in the Earth s system changes by either being added or released. Climate change is happening and has always happened. Currently, our Earth is warming. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.5 F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 0.5 to 8.6 F over the next hundred years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large shifts in climate and weather. To some extent, global warming is a natural event. On the scale of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years the climate has gone through many changes. What makes this so complex is that everything is connected in some way. 23
Earth s Temperature Changes Following are a series of graphics indicating the variation of temperature over many periods of time: 24
1 o C 25
1 o C 26
1 o C 27
1 o C 28
1 o C 29
Sea Level Rise 30
Global Temperature Increases 31
Climate vs Weather Weather = state of the atmosphere at a given time and place Climate = patterns of weather over a decade or more Which is more difficult to predict? Typically, climate change is not an absolute prediction of the future, but a plausible implication or trend of what might occur. 32
Climate Influences vs Range of Outcomes Sun & radiative output Earth s orbit, tilt & wobble Surface reflectivity (albedo) Human induced changes in greenhouse gases Atmospheric aerosols (volcanic sulfates, industrial output) Oceans, sea level & currents Ice caps growing and melting Various Cycles 100k, 41k, 23k, 11k, etc. Which influences come first and which follow? 33
Why Do So Many Reasonable People Doubt Science We face risks we can t easily analyze We have to decide what to believe o We have built in naïve beliefs, personal experience and anecdotes o Confirmation bias look for what we believe o Never left High School; we belong to a tribe and our beliefs come from the tribe, made up of the believers we trust o Some believe because they fear the outcome government interference, taxes, fees o Science is rational but our beliefs are emotional Science (and truth) will prevail in the end Genetically modified organisms Fluoridation Vaccines Evolution Diet claims Fake News ETC 34
Gallup Polling Is it happening and is it important?
Cape Town Reservoir 1 in 400 year drought 36
Climate or Weather or Both? Atmospheric Rivers Hit California Mega storms about every 200 years Smaller storms can bring 30 to 50% of California s water supply in 8 to 10 storms >8 over 3 days = Cat 1 >12 over 3 days = Cat 2 Etc. Prediction capabilities are improving 37
Water Planning & Climate Change Fundamental Questions: 1. Where will the water be? 2. When are we going to get it? 3. How much are we going to get? 4. How much do we need? 5. Where do we need it? 6. What is the quality? 7. What will it cost? Key is estimating the inputs & outputs Rainfall/runoff Water demand Desired water quality 38
Water Demands Utilities faced w/ large range of future climate projections & how to address uncertainties in planning. Traditional water planning methods fail to treat uncertainties, emerging methods being developed 39
Basis of Projections into the Future Units Intentionally Eliminated Source: USEPA, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureslc_fig1.html 40
Climate Implications for Water in California Warmer more evaporation, sublimation and higher demands Runoff occurs earlier California loses the effective storage of snow in the mountains of somewhere between 10 and 20 million acre-feet (maf) California now has approximately 1,400 regulated reservoirs, with a total storage capacity of about 42 maf The largest 10% of these reservoirs have 95% of this capacity; Oroville has a capacity of about 3.5 maf Depending on the watershed, precipitation may be about the same, a little bit less or a little bit more 41
Water Demands Plan for contingency demand (difficult for the environmental community & SWRCB) Demand management strategies Implement indoor and outdoor conservation measures Reduce unaccounted for water Reduce urban heat retaining surfaces Modify/test modeling assumptions Conduct Scenario Planning Minimize impacts of uncertainties Climate models do not provide absolute predictions our take-away is what trends could occur and to what degree! 42
Water Supplies Diversify supply mix = recycling, water transfers, underground storage, desalination, storm water capture, groundwater cleanup Build in supply buffers Build storage to manage lean years Educate/communicate w/ the public they are the ones funding the investments! Synergize efforts w/ others (wastewater is our new supply) Consider & mitigate effects on rates (rates will continue increasing) Monitor trends Expand groundwater spreading capability to capture higher flows Minimize impacts of uncertainties 43
The Colorado River as an Example 44
Colorado River Supplies 45
Colorado River Supplies The period 1905-1922, which was used to estimate water production allocated under the Colorado River Compact, had the highest long-term annual flow volume in the 20th century, averaging 16.1 MAF at Lee s Ferry. The time series of flow indicates the average annual volume was 12.4 million acre-feet (MAF) from 1895 through 2003 46
Colorado River Supplies for 1255 Years 9 droughts lasting 15-20 years 4 droughts lasting >20 years Year 762 Today 47
Colorado River Supplies Over allocated basic apportionment system - 20 th Century was very wet Tree Ring studies show long periods of droughts Temperature studies indicate that Colorado River snowpack will be heavily influenced as temperatures increase water flow yield will be reduced! 7 States depend on the water from the Colorado Heavy Duty Negotiations! 48
Colorado River Apportionments (Million acre-feet) Upper Basin States Lower Basin States 1.04.3 1.71 3.86 4.4 2.8..05 Apportionments.84 1.5 Mexico 49
1922 Colorado River Compact and 1944 Treaty Allocations Upper Basin Lower Basin Mexico Total 7.5 mafy 7.5 mafy + 1.0 mafy 1.5 mafy 17.5 mafy 50
Lake Mead Normal Water Budget Lake Mead Imbalance Upper Basin Compact Release Tributary Flows Total Inflow Lower Basin Water Use Mexico Delivery Lake Mead Evap/River Losses Total Outflow Imbalance 8.25 MAF 2.75 MAF 11.0 MAF -9.5 MAF -1.5 MAF -1.2 MAF -12.2 MAF -1.2 MAF 51
x 1000 acre-feet 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 Lake Mead Storage 2000 2016, Actual and Projected Shortage Surplus Elevation 1145 Elevation 1075 52
Thousand Acre-feet Proposed Total State Reductions Under Discussion 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 California Reduction Nevada Reduction Arizona Reduction Nevada Shortage Arizona Shortage 200 0 1,090 1,075 1,050 1,045 1,040 1,035 1,030 <1,025 Lake Mead Elevation (feet) 53
Colorado River Look for Multi- State Settlement for a Drought Contingency Plan An era of hope - communication, cooperation, and collaboration 54
The Great Drought and How We Survived 2012-2016 55
The Great (?) Drought 5 years? 11 years? 17 years? The New Normal? Lake Mead has dropped over 120 feet 56
Rainfall (Inches) Santa Ana Precipitation Santa Ana Precipitation 30 25 13 of last 19 years below average 29.06 Average Rainfall 21.39 5 years, 28 of deficit - largest deficit in Local precipitation since records began in 1908 20.66 20 15 14.87 14.57 16.82 10 5 0 8.06 3.82 8.41 8.51 2.19 9.46 9.88 8.27 6.36 4.37 8.83 8.15 3.62
Upper Colorado River Runoff Santa Ana Precipitation Runoff (MAF) 18 16 14 14 of last 19 years below average Lake Powell Unregulated Historical Inflow 16.17 12 12.79 11.90 10.71 MAF 11.90 10 8 6 4 6.77 6.69 6.21 6.42 9.53 7.61 10.08 8.77 4.15 5.80 10.61 9.85 9.62 6.36 2 0 2.80 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Runoff MAF Average
Northern California Runoff Santa Ana Precipitation Runoff (MAF) 40 35 30 13 of last 19 years below average 4 River Index Historical Runoff 32.09 38 25 25.13 20 15 10 5 18.9 9.81 14.6 19.31 16.04 18.55 10.28 10.28 13.02 15.94 18.3 MAF 11.8 12.2 7.5 9.3 17.4 9.5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Runoff MAF Average
Million Acre Feet MWD 2018 Estimated Water Storage 3.0 MWD Historical Demand VS Supplies Almost 2 million acrefeet of storage used in recent drought Preliminary Estimate 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.2 0.9 1.3 0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total MWD EOY Storage Total MWD Supplies Total MWD Sales
The Great California Drought How did Southern California withstand the Drought? 1. Prior Investments 2. Demand Management (Conservation) 3. Supply Management (Projects) 61
Supplies & Demands in OC Population Growth 1990 to 2015 2015 to 2040 750,000 317,000 31% 10% MET Purchases MET or Future Projects Surface Water Non-OCWD GW Recycled GWRS Groundwater 62
Past Water Supply was an Essential Component 63
Past Water Supply was an Essential Component Population (Millions) LA AQUEDUCT 1908-1913 $24.5 Million 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 - LA-City LA-County 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010 64
Past Water Supply was an Essential Component Population (Millions) COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT 1928-1941 $220 Million 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 LA-City LA-County 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0-1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010 65
Past Water Supply was an Essential Component Population (Millions) STATE WATER PROJECT 1960-1972 $1.75 Billion 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 LA-City LA-County 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0-1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010 66
Population (Millions) Past Water Supply was an Essential Component DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE 1995-2003 $1.9 Billion 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 - LA-City LA-County 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010 67
ontinuous Proactive Investment 15 Billion over 20 Years Population (Millions) Water Use Efficiency Local Projects Treatment Upgrades Colorado River Supplies 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 - LA-City LA-County 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010 68
MET Storage Investments Increased Capacity for WET year Storage to be used during DRY Years: Diamond Valley Reservoir State Water Project Storage in Southern California Central Valley Groundwater Storage Lake Mead Storage of Colorado River Water 1991 = Major Drought DVL Completed = 800,000 AF 69
MET s Storage Programs Central Valley/SWP Storage San Luis Carryover Semitropic Arvin-Edison Kern Delta Mojave Local Storage Diamond Valley Lake Mathews Lake Skinner Conjunctive Use Programs DWR State Project Reservoirs CRA Storage DWCV Advance Delivery Lake Mead ICS 70
Use of MET Storage (Living Off Past Investments) Almost 2 million acrefeet of storage used in recent drought More storage than we had 20 years ago 71
California WaterFix History Being Made! 72
Many Related Names Peripheral Canal Calfed BDCP Bay Delta Conservation Plan WaterFix Twin Tunnels EcoRestore Habitat Conservation Plan Natural Communities Conservation Plan State Water Project Entitlement (1972) 25% Local Supplies Groundwater & Recycling Ocean Desalination (future) Bay Delta Area Transfers & Storage 25% Colorado River Aqueduct (1941) Conservation (Water Use Efficiency) Co-Equal Goals 73 50%
State s New Proposal Announced April 2015 Protects State s water supplies through Delta system upgrades Mitigation Includes ~15,600 acres of habitat Water contractor funded Twin tunnel facilities and mitigation Supports long-term health of native fish and wildlife Habitat restoration ~ 30,000 acres in 5 years Includes broader public funding 74
San Francisco Bay Bay Delta RELIABILITY - $17 Billion Sacramento River Additional Intakes Tunnels Habitat Restoration SWP Pumps CVP Pumps San Joaquin River 75
76
EcoRestore 48 of Sea Level Rise Sustainable Delta (PPIC) 77 77
SWP-CVP Exports (million AF) California WaterFix Impact SoCal Loss of 440,000 Acre Feet without the project 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 4.7 Existing Regulations (No Action) 3.5 1.2 MAF Less BDCP Regulations without Tunnels 1.5 Earthquake Scenario 4.7-5.3 NEW BDCP/CA Water Fix 78
40 diameter Water History How many Tunnels? How much MET participation? 4,500 to 6,000 cfs each Options under Discussion 1 = MET share in Two Tunnels 2 = MET larger share in 1 Tunnel 3 = MET larger share in 2 Tunnel 1 2 3 Capital Cost (billions) $4.3 $5.3 $10.8 NEW Supply (thousands of AF) 337 410 840 Cost of NEW Supply (per AF treated in So. Calif.) $840 $840 $840 Household Cost per month $1.90 $2.40 $4.80 79
Carson Regional Recycling Project by MET Similar to Orange County Water District s Groundwater Replenishment Project 80
Carson Regional Recycling Project by MET 62-77 MGD 0-11 MGD 15 MGD 18-58 MGD 0-4 MGD 81
Carson IPR Project The Next Proactive Investment NEW local supply to groundwater basins in Southern California helps stretch other MET supplies Source Adds is treated another wastewater component from to LA MET s County Initial phase Water = Supply 100 mgd; Program ultimate up to 150 mgd of NEW drought 1. proof-supplies Colorado River On-line 2. 2025 State to Water 2027 Project 3. Transfers and Exchanges Estimated Cost ~$2-3 billion 4. Support of Local Supplies by Others Costs to 5. be Local spread Supplies across by the MET MET service area 82
Orange County Water Reliability Study 83
STATE ORANGE COUNTY MET/ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 84 END USERS Homeowner Business Water Bills Local Agency 84
Planning + Investment = Reliability Iterative Collaboration & Exchange at Many Levels: Information Data Analyses Tools/Modeling Results/Spin-offs Funding opportunities Project Implementation 85 85
Ingredients for the OC Water Reliability Study 2016 Demands - including population & job growth to 2040 93 historical hydrologies each for the State Water Project, Colorado River & Local Influence of climate change Local Projects all over Southern California Future Projects by MET Future Projects within OC With and Without the California WaterFix Competition for water Regulatory Actions impacting supplies Water Conservation/Water Use Efficiency Consumer Expectations Earthquakes Adaptive management! 86
Potential Projects to Eliminate Shortages MET Projects California WaterFix MET Carson Recycled Water Transfers & Exchanges Direct Potable Reuse Water Use Efficiency OC Projects OCWD basin storage/met purchases Water transfers and banking Additional Recycling Direct Potable Reuse Emergency Needs Supply of Emergency Water following Earthquakes Which of these are part of our NEXT investments and WHEN are they needed? Over versus Under Investment 87
OC Water Reliability Study Goal To develop common information regarding existing and future water demands, supplies, costs and potential risks to regional and Orange County water supply reliability under a wide range of possible scenarios and ultimately to improve OC s reliability Supply Reliability System Reliability (for emergencies) 88 88
Major Earthquake Faults in So. Cal. SWP East Branch West Branch Sierra Madre Cucamonga Fault San Andreas Fault Santa Susana Fault Whittier Fault Elsinore Fault San Jacinto Fault 89
Balancing of Issues Under Performing Over Investing 90 90
Two South County Projects Doheny Desal Led by South Coast Water District Ocean desalination using a slantwell intake facility at Doheny State Beach Phasing of project between 4 mgd and 15 mgd being considered. 91
Two South County Projects Led by Santa Margarita Water District The initial project involves rubber dams to capture low flows Expansion projects will add recycled recharge at the dams to increase groundwater in storage San Juan Watershed Project 92
What did OC learn? 93 1. Our future reliability is not entirely under our control; it depends on: Metropolitan s Integrated Resources Plan MET water supplies & water use efficiency; this includes the State Water Project & Colorado River Supplies MET Member Agency water supplies & water use efficiency What we do in OC 2. Without any NEW investments, water shortages will occur in 8 of 10 years by 2040 3. One single investment, the California WaterFix can cut shortages down to 3 in 10 years by 2030 Model GAPS Alternatives Evaluations Decisio 93
What did OC learn? 4. South Orange County needs to develop NEW supplies to improve supply (drought) and system (emergency) reliability NEW local projects will cost more than imported water, but overall melded costs to agencies remain competitive 5. Remaining water shortages in Brea/La Habra and OCWD Basin areas were manageable 6. Adaptive Management is key to ensure that OC maintains acceptable supply reliability without overinvesting at the local level 94 94
OC Water Reliability Study Process Highly collaborative process Plausible planning scenarios were analyzed Growth Climate/hydrologic conditions Demands synthesized to drought decline plus bounce back MET & MET Member Agency IRP projects considered State Water Project supplies with and without the California WaterFix Colorado River Supplies & use of MET storage accounts Decision-making left to local agencies 95 95
Carson IPR 100,000 AF 168,000 AF Local Projects 162,000 AF 300,000 AF 96 Remaining Shortages Reliability Supplies
MET Reliability Under Different Portfolios 2040 Shortage (AFY) 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 Existing Port A Port B Port C Port F Port E Port D Portfolios D, E & F are Fully Reliable & are plotted on the bottom line Direction of MORE NEW Projects 200,000 Direction of Climate Impacts 97 Portfolio B - Selected for OC Modeling 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Probability of Shortage 97
2018 Update for Year 2040 for MET Service Area DRAFT Without NEW Investments 98
Upcoming High Impact Issues to Reliability 99 1. California WaterFix & Governor Brown s Remaining Term 2. MET s Carson IPR Project, Go/No go 3. MET Member Agency Projects, Go/No go 4. What happens if/when we reach the Lake Mead Trigger Elevation? 5. Policy issues at MET (water rates, LRP funding, groundwater replenishment, avoid stranding assets) 6. Revised or updated biological opinions on various specifies of fish could result in significant supply reductions, primarily on the SWP. High Impact Issues 99
Adaptive Management is Recommended Next several years are key Prepare as if WaterFix will NOT happen Monitor the high impact issues May require a change in course or redirection depending on outcome Adaptive Management is key 100 100
Outcomes from the Study Effort 101 1. Currently monitoring High Impact or Uncertainty Issues 2. Key OC projects: a. IRWD & four agencies - $100 M, 30 MGD Baker Treatment Plant b. OCWD proposed expansion of the Groundwater Replenishment System from 100 to 130 MGD c. Under Evaluation Doheny Ocean Desal Project Poseidon Ocean Desal Project San Juan Watershed Project Emergency supplies to South Orange County 101
Parting Water Observations We survived very tough years due to investments made - but the drought will be back! There are several paths to reliability California Water Fix & other MET investments Local Investments, including Direct Potable Reuse Demand management use less water for landscapes All of the above (diversification) Rates will increase to fund reliability investments Need to understand and educate consumer EXPECTATIONS Need support in the Governor s office Stay tuned and support the California WaterFix Reliability Resilience Sustainability 102
Observations for Southern Calif. Update and strengthen the Integrated Resources Planning process it provides a path to reliability The need for investments will continue No single silver bullet diversify supplies and use water efficiently Southern California has always done a good job at making the hard decisions we expect to continue this track record. 103 103
Observations for OC OCWD has a well managed basin Doheny Desal and the San Juan Watershed Projects are key local projects being considered in SOC; these provide both supply and system improvements. Continuing WUE and recycling investments is also key. An increase of the Emergency Services Program, which moves groundwater from the OCWD basin to SOC, is critical for SOC to deal with emergency outages of the MET system for up to 60 days 104 104
What you can do! Engage in water policy discussions Support the Bay-Delta WaterFix Support water use efficiency measures and new supply development efforts in your community Stress the value of water, not the price! Reliable water underpins our economy and way of life for you and future generations 105
Contact Us or Your Local Water Provider address 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley CA 92708 Karl W. Seckel Assistant Manager/District Engineer 714-593-5024 kseckel@mwdoc.com website www.mwdoc.com main office (714) 963-3058 106