Los Angeles Basin Study The Future of Stormwater Conservation: Task 6 – Trade-Off Analysis & Opportunities

The Los Angeles Basin Study (LA Basin Study) is a collaborative partnership between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The purpose of the LA Basin Study is to investigate long-range water conservation and flood risk impacts caused by projected changes in climate and population in the Los Angeles region. The LA Basin Study highlights opportunities for potential modifications and changes to both the existing regional stormwater capture system as well as for the development of new facilities and practices, which could help to resolve future water supply and flood risk issues. The stormwater capture concepts and alternatives developed in the Task 5 – Infrastructure & Operations Concepts report are evaluated in the trade-off analysis and opportunities highlighted in this report. 

The primary purpose of Task 6 – Trade-Off Analysis & Opportunities is to evaluate the quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits and costs of the stormwater concepts identified in the Task 5 report and to provide an analysis of the trade-offs among concepts. In most cases, various project concepts would generate benefits for some impact categories but not others, and would also impose various types of costs. The trade-off analysis provides a methodology for comparing different types of benefits and costs that cannot all be quantified in monetary terms. These trade-offs include economic, financial, environmental, and social effects. Economic effects include the benefits associated with different types of goods and services supported by the concepts, the costs of the different concepts, the impacts of the different concepts on the regional economy through changes in the amount and type of spending, and the cost effectiveness of different project concepts. Financial effects reflect the impacts of paying for a project, such as paying off capital debt and covering operation and maintenance expenses. Environmental effects reflect the type and quality of environmental and natural resources that would be potentially influenced by a concept. Environmental effects include items such as water quality, energy consumption, impacts on habitat, and ecosystem function. Social effects reflect how the concepts may alter the social characteristics of a community or region such as impacts to education, environmental justice, and quality of life. 

Benefits are quantified for three categories of resource impacts. The first category is additional stormwater conserved or stored, which is measured in terms of acre-feet per year. The second is recreation, which is measured in miles of new trails. The third is increased habitat acreage and additional acquisition of right-of-way acreage that would provide habitat benefits. Stormwater conservation benefits are valued as improved water supply reliability, recreation is valued as a type of general recreation activity similar to outdoor activities at a local park, and habitat acreage is evaluated as an ecosystem improvement. In the case of the Regional Impact Programs concept, right-of-way acreage also produces some ecosystem benefits. Quantified benefits and costs as well as categories of qualitative benefits are summarized in Table ES-1. All benefits and costs are present valued over a 50-year planning period using the current Fiscal Year 2016 federal water project planning rate of 3.125%. 

The economic analysis of quantified benefits can be used to evaluate the magnitude of potential benefits of each project group, recognizing that many additional benefits may exist that are not accounted for in a traditional benefit and cost analysis. It is important to note that quantified benefits could only be developed for a subset of the total beneficial effects associated with the concepts identified in the Task 5 report. There are many potential benefits associated with environmental and social improvements, flood risk mitigation, environmental justice, and other effects that could be large but cannot be evaluated quantitatively for this level of analysis. These unquantified benefits may be larger than quantified benefits in some cases and smaller in other cases. The intent of the qualitative assessment is to provide an indication of the potential magnitude of unquantified benefits.