HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Water Resources Master Plan; Master Plan Updates; 1997-12-01Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Master Plan Updates
VOLUME II
WATER RESOURCES MASTER PLAN
December 1997
4 tarouo < en~inccrs
,- CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MASTERPLANUPDATES
VOLUME II
WATER RESOURCES MASTER PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page - No .
CHAPTER 1 . INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1-1
1.1 introduction ........................................................ 1-1 1.2 Background ........................................................ 1-1
1.3 Current Water Supply ................................................ 1-2
1.4 Purposeandscope .................................................. 1-2
2.1 Background ........................................................ 2-1
2.2 Water Resource Opportunities ......................................... 2-1
Recycled Water ..................................................... 2-3
Surface Water Sources ............................................... 2-4
Seawater Desalination ................................................ 2-4
Joint Agency Opportunities ............................................ 2-5
2.3 Candidate Resources ................................................ 2-6
Seawater Desalination ................................................ 2-7
Recycled Water ..................................................... 2-8
Potential Resource Summary .......................................... 2-8
2.4 Recommendations .................................................. 2-13
3.1 Imported .......................................................... 3-1
3.2 Local Groundwater Basins ............................................. 3-1
Stratigraphy ........................................................ 3-2
Hydrological Features ................................................ 3-6
3.3 Reclamation ....................................................... 3-9
Recycled Municipal Wastewater ........................................ 3-9
Existing Reclamation Program ........................................ 3-10
3.4 Conservation ...................................................... 3-11
The Legal Authority to Limit the Use of Water ............................. 3-11
Water Conservation Planning ......................................... 3-13
Conservation ...................................................... 3-15
3.5 WaterRights ...................................................... 3-15
Basic Water Rights Concepts ......................................... 3-15
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water Rights ........................... 3-16
CHAPTER 2 . SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 2-1
Groundwater ....................................................... 2-3
Conservation ....................................................... 2-6
Mission Basin ...................................................... 2-6
Mount Israel ....................................................... 2-7
Conservation ....................................................... 2-7
costs ............................................................ 2-13
CHAPTER 3 . EXISTING WATER RESOURCES ................................. 3-1
Soils ............................................................. 3-2
KiCMWDU332AOXVOKTOC.RPT i
r
..
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MASTERPLANUPDATES
.-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
4.1 Demands .......................................................... 4-1
4.2 Imported Water ..................................................... 4-3
MWD Programs ..................................................... 4-3
Statewater Project ................................................. 4-11
Colorado River .................................................... 4-11
Imported Water Supply Reliability ...................................... 4-19
Near Term Reliability ................................................ 4-19
Long Term Reliability ................................................ 4-21
Summary of MWDISDCWA Reliability ................................... 4-22
CMWDReliabili ty ................................................... 4-22
4.4 Future Imported Water Costs ......................................... 4-24
5.1 Groundwater ...................................................... 5-1
Objectives ......................................................... 5-1
5.2 Ground Water Basins ................................................ 5-4
San Luis Rey Hydrologic Unit .......................................... 5-4
Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit .............................................. 5-9
5.3 Evaluation of Published Information .................................... 5-12
Conclusions and Recommendations .................................... 5-14
5.4 Desalination ....................................................... 5-17
Introduction ....................................................... 5-17
Desalination Overview ............................................... 5-17
Desalination Summary .............................................. 5-35
5.5 Surfacewater ..................................................... 5-36
San MarcosCreek .................................................. 5-36
BuenaVistaLagoon ................................................ 5-38
LakeCalavera ..................................................... 5-39
Olivenhain Mt . Israel Project .......................................... 5-40
6.1 Existing Sources .................................................... 6-1
6.2 Future Capacity ..................................................... 6-1
6.3 Alternative Summary ................................................. 6-2
ResourceSumma ry .................................................. 6-2
Potential Uses ...................................................... 6-3
6.4 CostCompaflson .................................................... 6-3
Alternative No . 1 Mission Basin ......................................... 6-4
Alternative No . 2 Cannon Road Well Field ................................. 6-4
Alternative No . 3 Thermal Desalination ................................... 6-4
Alternative No . 4 Reverse Osmosis ...................................... 6-4
Alternative No . 5 San Marcos Creek ..................................... 6-5
Alternative No . 6 Mount Israel .......................................... 6-5
6.5 Reliability .......................................................... 6-5
\\Sdo\DATA\WP\CMWDU33Z/\W\VolZ,~.,~ ii
CHAPTER 4 . FUTURE WATER CONDITIONS .................................. 4-1
4.3
CHAPTER 5 - WATER RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES ............................ 5-1
CHAPTER 6 - ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON .................................. 6-1
. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MASTERPLANUPDATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Alternative No . 1 Mission Basin ......................................... 6-5
Alternative No . 2 Cannon Road Well Field ................................. 6-5
Alternative No . 3 Thermal ............................................. 6-6
Alternative No . 4 Reverse Osmosis ...................................... 6-6
Alternative No . 5 San Marcos Creek ..................................... 6-6
Alternative No . 6 Mount Israel .......................................... 6-6
7.1 Mission Basin ...................................................... 7-1
7.2 Mount Israel Project ................................................. 7-2
7.3 Seawater Desalination ................................................ 7-3
7.4 Reclaimed Water .................................................... 7-4
7.5 Conservation ....................................................... 7-4
7.6 ResourceSumma ry .................................................. 7-4
7.7 costs ............................................................. 7-5
CHAPTER 8 - JOINT FACILITY OPPORTUNITIES .............................. 8-1
CHAPTER 7 - CANDIDATE WATER RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES ............... 7-1
.
.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
6.1
City ofvista ........................................................ 8-1
Vista Irrigation District ................................................ 8-1
City ofoceanside ................................................... 8-2
Leucadia County Water District ......................................... 8-3
Olivenhain Municipal Water District ...................................... 8-3
Vallecitos Water District ............................................... 8-3
LIST OF TABLES
Candidate Water Supplies ............................................. 2-9
Estimated Capital Costs ............................................. 2-13
City of Carlsbad Watersheds ........................................... 3-6
Historical Reclaimed Water Use ....................................... 3-10
Projected Water Demands (mgd) ....................................... 4-1
Seasonal Water Demand ............................................ 4-23
Reliability Conditions at Year 2015 ..................................... 4-24
Projected Metropolitan Water District Rates .............................. 4-25
Projected San Diego County Water Authority Rates ........................ 4-25
Ground Water Quality Criteria .......................................... 5-4
Published Groundwater Resource Parameters ............................ 5-13
Conjunctive Use Cost Estimate ........................................ 5-16
Typical Energy Consumption. kWh per 1. 000 Gallons of Product Water ......... 5-32
Order of Magnitude Water Cost Estimates. $ per ac-ft of Desalter Water FOB Plant 5-33
Alternatives ....................................................... 5-38
Olivenhain Joint Treatment Alternative .................................. 5-41
Water Resource Opportunity Cost Comparison ............................. 6-4
Colorado River Water Rights. Seven Party Agreement Priorities ............... 4-16
K:!CMWh4332AmVOL2TOC.RPT iii
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MASTER PLAN UPDATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Water Resource Opportunity Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
Water Resource Mix Recycling Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 0
Water Resource Mix Phase II Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 1
Water Resource Mix Maximum Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2
Stratigraphic Column City of Carlsbad and Mission Hydrologic Subarea . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Geologic Map of Carlsbad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Geologic Map of Carlsbad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Geologic Map of Mission Hydrologic Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
San Luis Rey Hydrologic Unit and Mission Hydrologic Sub-Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Projected Water Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Location of Potential Local Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Elementary Flow Diagram of Waste-Heat VTFE, with Isolation Valves . . . . . . . . . . 5-26
Block Diagram of Hybrid Power/MED/RO Cogeneration Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Agency Meeting Notes
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in
California
Ordinance No. 30 and 31
San Luis Rey Water Rights
iv
1 .I Introduction I
Southern California's challenge in managing its water resources is driven by one of the most
fundamental realities of the West -- it is an arid region subject to drought. In this setting, the
responsibility for providing a growing population with a safe and reliable water supply is no easy
task, especially given the many diverse and competing interests for the region's water resources.
The Metropolitan Water District has indicated that if there are no further investments or
improvements in the region's firm water supplies, the reliability of water delivery under critical
drought conditions may fall to 50 percent by the year 2000. They further concluded, that without
action, shortages in meeting full service demands are expected to occur every other year on a
region wide basis.
In 1997, the water aqueducts supplying imported water to San Diego County were at capacity, and
no increase in capacity is expected to be constructed until 2005. New approaches that take a
broader perspective and involve the public in the decision-makkg process are being pursued by
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) to solve the problems of supply shortages and water
quality.
1.2 Background 1
In June 1996, the CMWD began updating their water, sewer, and reclaimed water master plans. The
previous plans were completed approximately 5 years ago. Another element of this work is an
inventory of the potential water resources available to the CMWD. Carollo Engineers with Morris
Water Resource Consultants and ASL Consulting Engineers, Inc. were retained by the CMWD to
update the plans and assist in screening the water resources necessary to meet growth in CMWD's
service area.
Five master plan volumes have been prepared as follows:
Volume Element
I Environmental Setting
II Water Resources Master Plan
111 Water System
IV Reclaimed Water
V Sewer
This is Volume II of the master plan updates. It discusses the current programs that might affect the
reliability and cost of imported water, the only source of potable water used by the CMWD. In
addition, the potential for developing local sources is discussed. -
1-1
L Reclaimed water refers to wastewater that has been highly treated to meet the requirements of
Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. More recently, there has been a trend to refer to this
water as "recycled" water. This term will likely be the accepted definition in the future. For this report
the terms reclamation, reclaimed water, and recycled water will be used synonymously.
1.3 Current Water
SUPPly
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District was formed in 1954 to obtain and retail imported Colorado
River Water into the Carlsbad area. The imported water was being supplied by the San Diego
County Water Authority through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. This source
of water was needed to support the growlh occurring in the City Carlsbad and surrounding
unincorporated areas.
Historically, in addition to the CMWD, there existed the Carlsbad Mutual Water Company which
distributed local groundwater to residential and commercial customers. Their source of supply were
wells in the Mission Basin of the San Luis Rey River. The company owned 200 miner inches of
rights that date back to 1913.
Another historical supplier in Carlsbad was the Terramar Water Company. This company was
incorporated to support development south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Its source of water were
wells located east of El Camino Real near the future intersection with Cannon Road. This well site is
referred to as the Cannon Road Well Field.
In the late 1950s the City of Carlsbad completed purchase of the assets of both the Carlsbad Mutual
Water Company and the Terramar Water Company. The CMWD continued to provide the imported
water into the area as well as construct, own, and operate major reservoirs and transmission lines.
During this period, use of the local groundwater supplies was discontinued due to increased levels of
total dissolved solids. Finally on January 1, 1990, the CMWD became a subsidiary district of the City
of Carlsbad.
The CMWD currently delivers over 13 million gallons per day of potable water on an annual average
basis. In addition, the CMWD has implemented a program to recycle treated wastewater purchased
from neighboring agency reclamation plants. The recycled effluent is used to irrigate golf courses,
parks, landscaped medians, and other uses. During the peak irrigation season, 2.75 million gallons
per day is recycled. This program reduces the CMWD's dependency on imported supplies.
1.4 PurposeandScope
The purpose of this volume is to identify the opportunity for development of local water resources.
These might include seawater desalination, groundwater, surface water, conservation and
conjunctive use in the San Luis Rey River. Estimated costs. quality, and feasibility issues are
presented on each resource.
K1CMWDU332AW\VOL2CHl .RPT 1-2
,-- This volume also includes a detailed summary of the reliability of imported water, based on current
programs of the San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California.
Various desalination technologies are summarized in terms of their current development, proven
performance, and relative cost.
A discussion of candidate water resources is presented for further consideration by the CMWD.
1-3
2.1 Background 1
Currently, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) relies on imported water exclusively to
meet potable water demands for domestic, commercial, and industrial uses. The water is imported
by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and treated at their Skinner
Filtration Plant in Riverside County near Temecula. The treated water is conveyed to the CMWD
through the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) aqueducts. Recycled wastewater is also
available to CMWD and is used to irrigate two golf courses, city parks, schools, and roadway
landscaping. Recycled water is purchased from the Vallecitos Water District and the Leucadia
County Water District.
In 1996, total water consumption averaged just over 13 million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual
average basis using "Best Management Practices" for conservation. It is estimated that without
conservation, the demand could be 15 percent higher. Of the 13 mgd, annual recycled water
deliveries average 1.27 mgd or just under 10 percent of current needs. The ultimate water demand
is projected at 25.4 mgd or 28,500 acre feet per year (AF/yr). This figure could be reduced by 5 to
10 percent if more aggressive long-term water conservation measures than are currently being
practiced were implemented by the customers of the CMWD.
Based on the SDCWA Water Resources Plan of 1997, the imported water supplies available to
CMWD could be reduced to a 75 percent level of reliability. To increase the water supply reliability
the future water demand for the CMWD could be made up from a mix of imported, recycled water,
and local potable water resources. The mix of resources selected is dependent on the reliability of
imported sources weighed against the cost to develop local sources to achieve a desired higher
level of reliability.
The purpose of this Volume II of the master plan updates is to identify various local resources
available to the CMWD and to develop the proper mix of water resources to meet a given reliability
level.
r
The resources available to the CMWD include recycled water, groundwater, surface water,
seawater desalination, conservation and joint projects with adjacent agencies. These water resource
opportunities were analyzed and compared with respect to relative cost, potential resource size,
water quality with respect to total dissolved solids (TDS), environmental impacts, and reliability.
Each resource is discussed in later sections of this volume. Following is a summary of the findings.
Refer to Figure 2.1 for their location. -
2-1
Recycled Water
Recycled Water is discussed in Volume IV, Reclaimed Water. Ten recycled water alternatives were
developed and analyzed with respect to cost. Alternative No. 9 was recommended as the Phase II
Program. Alternative No. 9 would increase reclaimed water deliveries from a current production of
1,500 AF/yr to 4,480 AF/yr. Alternative No. 9 includes developing three sources of recycled water.
These include the existing 2.25 mgd Meadowlark Water Reclamation Plant owned by the Vallecitos
Water District, the 0.75 mgd Gafner Water Reclamation Plant owned by Leucadia County Water
District and a new advanced treatment plant adjacent to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility.
The Meadowlark capacity would be increased from 2 to 3 mgd (production capacity). The Gafner
Water Reclamation Plant would remain at its current level of 0.75 mgd. Finally a new 4.25 mgd
water reclamation plant would be constructed on a parcel just south of the Encina Water Pollution
Control Facility (EWPCF). This site is owned by the member agencies of the Encina Wastewater
Authority, including the City of Carlsbad. The source of the secondary effluent would be the EWPCF.
Groundwater
Until the 195Os, local groundwater was the only source of water for the City of Carlsbad. The
groundwater was pumped from wells drawing from the Mission Basin of the San Luis Rey River. The
wells were initially developed in 191 3. The CMWD has rights to 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) of
pre-1914 appropriative rights and an additional 750 AF/yr, up to 5 cfs that was permitted in 1938.
The CMWD has until 1999 to develop these permitted rights. The 1913 rights are not subject to loss
through non-use. Over the years, the TDS content of the groundwater in the Mission Basin
increased to the point where the use was discontinued. The current condition of the wells and piping
system is beyond repair and are being abandoned.
The CMWD also owns wells originally developed by the Terramar Water Company in the early
1950s. These wells, referred to as the Cannon Well Field, were purchased from Terramar Water
Company in 1958 and used from 1958 to 1962. The largest extraction was only 238 AF/yr. These
wells are located in the Agua Hedionda Creek subunit.
Other potential groundwater basins include Buena Vista Creek Basin, Encinas Creek Basin, and the
Batiquitos Hydrologic Subarea. The other potential resources have low potential yields, poor quality,
or no available data to substantiate their use in the public water supply. Generally speaking, these
basins do not have the geological characteristics or size comparable to the Mission Basin. The
limitations of the other basins are shown below:
7
-
Resource Yield Limitation
Buena Vista Creek 340 High nitrates and TDS
Agua Hedionda Creek 51 0 High TDS
Encinas Creek 70 Low Potential Yield
Batiquitos Subarea 81 0 No existing yield or quality data
Cannon Road Well Field 320 High TDS. Relative low yield
- None of the above groundwater alternatives would supply even 3 percent of CMWD’s ultimate need
of 28,500 AF/yr.
2-3
Of the groundwater basins reviewed, only the Mission Basin of the San Luis Rey River has the
potential for a viable water resource. This basin has a large drainage area of 565 square miles and
consists of alluvium and river channel deposits averaging 150 feet in depth. The quality is mildly
brackish with TDS concentrations ranging from 1,000 to 1,500 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The water
could be treated by a low pressure membrane, reverse osmosis process, to achieve treated water
quality in the range of 500 mg/L. The City of Oceanside is currently doing this at their Mission Basin
Desalting Facility.
The total safe yield of the Basin is on the order of 10,000 AF/yr. Both the Oceanside and CMWD
own water rights in the basin of approximately the same age and priority. The City of Oceanside is
currently designing an expansion to the Mission Basin Desalting Facility that could increase their
extraction up to 8,600 AF/yr. In order for CMWD to obtain water from this location, a joint project
with the City of Oceanside should be considered. This includes sharing in the cost of their
desalination plant and wheeling water through Oceanside’s pipeline distribution system to CMWD.
Surface Water Sources
The surface water sources include the creeks that run through the CMWD service area discharging
to the Pacific Ocean. These sources include Buena Vista Creek, Lake Calavera, and San Marcos
Creek. Little hydrologic information has been developed with respect to flows and yield. Following is
a summary of each surface water source.
Buena Vista Creek has a potential of 2,400 AF/yr. To capture this water requires construction of a
new weir structure/dam to raise the level of the Buena Vista Lagoon by up to 2 feet. The State
Department of Fish and Game has indicated that this would affect nesting areas and woukl not be
environmentally acceptable. Therefore, Buena Vista Creek is not a potential source due to potential
impacts to wildlife habitat.
Lake Calavera would have a potential yield of only 100 to 300 AF/yr. The source of the water is
basically runoff from adjacent residential development. There is little data on the quality or quantity
of this source. Because of low volume and potential water quality concerns from street runoff, this
source is recommended for storage and use in the recycled water system only. To maintain the
quality of the recycled water, an artificial wetlands could be developed in the upstream area of Lake
Calavera. The wetlands could be designed to remove nutrients from the water.
Finally, development of San Marcos Creek would require an investment of up to $12,000,000 to
construct a 175 foot high dam, treatment facilities, and transmission main. Approximately
1,500 AF/yr could be produced and used for irrigation purposes only. The equivalent water cost is
$866/AF. However, there is not sufficient quality or hydrological data to justify this expenditure by
CMWD at this time.
Seawater Desalination
Being adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, the CMWD has the potential to develop seawater desalination.
There are two potential sites for a desalination plant. One would be the site south of the EWPCF.
There would be room for both a desalination facility and a reclamation treatment plant. Based on a
-
-
-
2-4
- Based on a preliminary screening discussed in this repon, a reverse osmosis process would be best
suited for this site. The concentrated brine might be discharged through the EWPCF ocean outfall.
Another potential site is the San Diego Gas and Electric Company’s Encina power plant. A thermal
process might be more suitable at this site using “waste” heat from the power plant as part of the
energy supply. However, power deregulation and the future ownership of the plant by SDG&E put
this site in doubt.
For either site, the desalinated water would need to be pumped eastward to a point where demands
meet production. This requires a pipeline supplying water to the 550 pressure zone for distribution.
Though seawater desalination is technically proven and opportunities exist, the cost is still much
higher than for imported sources or for recycled water. At a capacity of 5 cfs the construction cbst
would range from $18 million to $24 million depending on feed water intake and brine disposal
system alternatives utilized. Based on American Water Works studies, either reverse osmosis or
thermal processes would cost an estimated $1,370 per AF. This cost is high compared to imported
water at $51 1 per AF. This estimated cost could be lowered by the $250 MWD Local Projects
rebate. By comparison recycled water currently costs the CMWD $570 per AF after deducting MWD
rebates.
Seawater desalination should be considered as part of a local reliability strategy as a future
development. Immediate near term activities to pursue include developing engineering data for
beach area wells or intake pipelines, brine disposal facilities participating in innovative technology
research, determining site requirements, and completing environmental and regulatory permitting.
Joint Agency Opportunities
A joint agency opportunity could be the Mount Israel treatment plant planned by the Olivenhain
Municipal Water District. The SDCWA is planning to construct a dam and reservoir at Mount Israel
as part of the Emergency Storage Project. The reservoir is expected to store 24,000 AF, with
Olivenhain Municipal Water District owning between 3,600 to 4,600 AF/yr of operational storage.
Olivenhain Municipal Water District plans on constructing an 85 mgd water treatment plant at this
site to supply treated water for their service area. The plant design includes membranes that would
lower the TDS of the treated water.
The CMWD could participate in up-sizing the water treatment plant for an alternative imported water
supply to CMWD. This project requires the CMWD to buy un-treated water from the SDCWA year
round, and process the water at the treatment plant. The treated water would be conveyed in shared
pipelines to Olivenhain Municipal Water District‘s Gaty Reservoir. From there, the CMWD would
construct a dedicated 21 -inch diameter pipeline to the CMWDs La Costa High Reservoir for further
distribution in CMWD’s pipeline system.
The potential advantages to CMWD include access to emergency supplies from a large reservoir at
Mount Israel, a product water with reduced TDS, an additional connection point for reliability, and
potentially an increase in future reservoir capacity for emergency storage.
-
-
2-5
,-- A joint project with Olivenhain Municipal Water District is estimated to have a capital cost of
$1 1,274,000 to construct a 290 foot high dam for the SDCWA Project, ultra low pressure reverse
osmosis treatment facilities, and transmission main. This water would be used for potable water
purposes and have an equivalent cost of water of $952 per AF. This is based on a treatment
capacity of 5 cfs that would deliver 3,250 AF per year. The exact project size would need to be
refined during preliminary design.
One additional advantage of this supply is that it provides additional storage. The additional storage
eliminates the need to construct an additional 41 million gallons of emergency storage to meet
CMWD’s 10 day’s average annual demand at ultimate conditions. Although the cost for this water
source is high, some of the cost could be offset by deducting the cost of constructing the additional
41 MG of emergency storage in the future.
Conservation
The CMWD has been committed to water conservation. This has been demonstrated by a decrease
in per capita consumption of approximately 15 percent since 1989. As outlined in the CMWD’s
Urban Water Management Plan, dated April, 1997, the five major components of the program are:
1) Participation in the regional conservation programs being implemented by the MWD and the
SDCWA.
c 2) Implementation of conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Economic and financial incentives to encourage efficient use of water.
Water use regulation through City ordinances.
Public relations and education programs.
3)
4)
5)
The five candidate resources include groundwater from the Mission Basin, imported water from the
Mount Israel project, seawater desalination, conservation. and recycling. These water resources
were selected based on relative resource size, reliability, and cost. To implement each resource
requires resolving several issues presented below.
Mission Basin
Due to the location of the Mission Basin along Highway 76 in Oceanside, it is not practical for the
CMWD to construct new wells and pipelines from the Basin nor construct and operate a separate
desalting facility. The rights would probably be developed best through a cooperative agreement
with the City of Oceanside. Oceanside would obtain complete operational control over the basin and
expand the Mission Basin Desalting Facility to the maximum allowable yield. The CMWD would then
obtain a quantity of water from Oceanside relative to the water rights of each agency. The water
-
K\CMWD”I33Z/\OO\VOLHZ,RPT 2-6
would probably be delivered through Oceanside's pipeline distribution system to CMWD under a
wheeling arrangement.
Alternately, the City of Oceanside could treat raw water at their Robert A. Weese Water Treatment
Plant. The treated water would be delivered through an inter-system connection to CMWD. The
advantage of this alternative to the CMWD would be reliability.
However, for this alternative approach, the City of Oceanside would have to agree to deliver the
water as the first priority in case of a curtailment of imported water. The cost of this alternative would
be similar to imported water.
Mount Israel
The joint agency project with Olivenhain Municipal Water District at Mount Israel is attractive in
terms of cost and reliability. However, factors to consider in final implementation include: . Completing successful cost negotiations with the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and
Developing an agreement with the SDCWA concerning the amount of water set aside for
The estimated cost of this alternative is high at $932 per AF. A large part of the cost would
possibly the SDCWA to obtain the lowest cost for treated water.
CMWD's use of the Mount Israel storage as part of the Authority's commitments to all
member agencies.
be the interconnectina pipeline between the two districts.
.
.
- . The net cost might be-rebuced if the storage in the Mount Israel Reservoir can count towards
the CMWDs 1Oday emergency storage. The avoidance cost of the reservoir would reduce
the net cost of the water to $609 per AF, similar to present imported water costs.
Seawater Desalination
Seawater desalination is not presently as cost effective as some of the other sources, but could
become an important element to maintain local reliability. The issues to resolve include first reducing
the high cost at $1370/AF. Second, the type of water intake from beach wells or intake structures
must be determined. Third, desalination technologies are rapidly changing and must be investigated
for operation and maintenance impacts. Finally environmental and regulatory permitting is extensive
and must be completed. The CMWD should consider setting aside a portion of the site south of the
EWPCF for this purpose. Until a desalination plant is constructed, some revenue might be secured
through lease of the property for non-permanent uses such as agriculture, landscape material
storage, etc.
Conservation
Some further reduction is possible through installation of new technologies such as horizontal-axis
clothes washing machines by residential customers. Future advances in dishwashers could also
reduce water consumption. Landscaping ordinances could be written to achieve lower water
demand through plant schemes or irrigation system. The maximum future reduction is on the order
of an additional 5 percent without extensive revisions to landscape irrigation systems. -
2-7
Recycled Water
Alternative No. 9 has been selected as the recommended Phase II program. This alternative has
been selected based on the size of the potential resource, projected annual costs versus revenue,
as well as the relative capital investment required.
The project includes:
c
. Construction of a new 4.25 mgd water reclamation plant on the parcel south of the EWPCF.
Expansion of the Meadowlark WRP by an additional 1 .O rngd.
Conversion of the existing Mahr and Lake Calavera Reservoirs for seasonal storage.
Conversion of the Santa Fe I reservoir into diurnal storage.
. . .
The program would provide for an annual resource of 4,480 AF. This would represent an increase of
just over 3,000 AF as compared to 1996 deliveries. This could represent 16 percent of the District's
total projected water demands for the year 2015.
The estimated capital cost for this alternative is $24,229,000. This is reported at a December 1996
cost level and includes 37.5 percent for engineering, administration, legal, and contingencies.
Considering existing and future costs, the unit cost of reclaimed water is 5917 per AF. This amount
is expected to be reduced by $250 through the Metropolitan Water Districts (MWWD) Local Projects
Program. The net cost of $667 per AF would provide expected annual revenues of $165,000 to the
District.
The District cost could be reduced by:
1)
-
Improvements in the total dissolved solids (TDS) content in the EWPCF secondary effluent.
By enforcement of source control standards the TDS could be reduced to a value just over
1,000 milligrams per liter. This could eliminate the need for reverse osmosis. This could
reduce the capital cost by an estimated 54 million.
Sharing of reservoir volume with the EWPCF for outfall equalization. This is described in a
report titled "Joint Use of South Parcel", April 1997 prepared for the Encina Wastewater
Authority.
2)
Reservoir Volume would be utilized in the winter for equalization of peak wet weather flows. This
would be an alternative to constructing a new ocean outfall. Part of the same volume would be used
for the reclamation plant in the summer for diurnal storage. This could reduce District costs by a
much as $1,765,000.
Potential Resource Summary
The candidate water resources are summarized on Table 2.1. This table lists the total projected
demand in the year 2015 and the relative contribution of each source. Also noted is whether the
potential resource provides emergency reliability (structural disruption of supply) or drought
reliability.
7
K\CMWW~~UW~YOLZCH~.RPT 2-8
Phase II Recamation 2.73 11 X X
Groundwater/Seawater 3.23 13 X X
Local Supply Subtotal 7.23 28 ____- __--
-_--- ___-- lmnnrtd 18.1 7 72
Figure 2.2 shows the historical demands from 1985 and takes into account the existing Phase I
reclamation program. It is estimated that conservation has reduced the actual water demand by
CMWD customers since 1989. A higher water demand may mur if conservation practices are not
maintained. The higher demand is represented by the dashed line on Figure 2.2. The future scenario
assumes that any new project would not be on-line until 2002. This allows approximately 2 years for
final planning and design and 2 years for construction.
From this summary, 5 percent of future demands are expected to be met by existing reclamation
and conservation programs. However, if the Phase II Reclamation Program and the Mission Basin
groundwater or seawater desalination were implemented, they could supply 24 percent of ultimate
requirements. See Figure 2.3. Finally, if the maximum amount of recycled water was implemented at
9.8 mgd, the local supply would increase to 52 percent of ultimate requirements. This is shown on
Figure 2.4. Mount Israel could increase emergency reliability, but the source is technically imported,
and long-term drought reliability would not be provided.
If planned MWD and SDCWA programs are fully implemented, the SDCWA expects to be able to
deliver 75 percent of normal deliveries during drought conditions. Implementation of local sources
can improve reliability above 75 percent. It is estimated that at least 55 percent of normal deliveries
must be made for basic health and safety needs.
Implementation of the Phase II reclamation program and the Mission Basin groundwater or seawater
desalination would be expected to improve reliability as follows:
-
rn Flow fmaa
Base Demand 25.40
Existing Reclamation -1.27
Phase II Reclamation -2.73
Conservation -1.27
Mission Basin or Seawater
Net Imported Demand 16.90
Drought Cut Back 4.22
Net Supply 21.1
Reliability 83%
-
K~CMWD\W3UOO\VOLXH2.RPT 2-9
u)
0 cy
r
0
0 cy
r
u) 0 0 cy
0 0 0 cy
10 a, a, r
0 a, a, ’
u)
p! a
' 0 cy
0
0 cy
'
u) 0 0 cy
0 0 0 cy
u) m m r
0 0) 0) '
u) 00 m
p!
w > a
L
In
In cy
-. 0'
- Under this scenario, the local resource candidates would help offset a 25 percent cut back in
imported water resulting in a system that could supply 83 percent of the water demand. For a higher
supply level more local supply is needed or an increase in the recycled water supply.
costs
Expected capital costs, including engineering, legal, administration, and contingencies for the
candidate resources are given in Table 2.2.
~ ~ ~~
Phase II Recycling $24,229,000
Mount Israel $1 1,943,000
Imported Water __-- $51 1 /AF
Mission Basin $9.589.000 $51 IIAF
I I
$089/AF
$932!AF
Seawater Desalination $1 8 million to
$24 million
$1 37OlAF
It is recommended that the CMWD consider local water resource opportunities to increase water
supply reliability from the present level of 75 percent to approximately 85 percent. This can be
accomplished by the following recommendations.
1) Begin negotiations with the City of Oceanside for joint use of the Mission Basin. The
advantages include a local supply of potable water and utilization of existing water rights.
Begin negotiations with the Olivenhain Municipal Water District for joint development of the
Mount Israel Imported Water Treatment Plant and Storage project. If the costs and
advantages outweigh MWD treated water, then implement. The advantages would include
avoidance of the need to construct additional emergency storage by the CMWD and possibly
a water supply with a lower TDS content.
Plan for the long-term potential for seawater desalination. It appears that the parcel south of
the EWPCF has advantages in terms of availability, access to the ocean, and access to the
EWPCF ocean outfall for brine disposal.
Incorporate Lake Calavera into recycled water storage. Make needed improvements to
maintain the recycled water quality while being stored which may include development of an
artificial wetlands.
Continue conservation using the “Best Management Practices” as a minimum to reduce
overall demand.
2)
3)
4)
5)
K1CMWDU332AW\VOLX“LRPT 2-1 3
6)
7)
Implement Alternative No. 9 of the Recycled Water Project as recommended in Volume IV.
Monitor the imported water negotiations occurring with State Project Water, Colorado River
water, Imperial Irrigation District Transfer, MWD's Preferential Rights Distribution of Supply,
and Drought Management Plan. These imported water supply sources and distribution plans
will establish the long term reliability of imported water for CMWD.
Secure long-term commitments for the MWD's Local Projects Program. This is an important
element in the financial viability of the Phase II Recycled Project.
Set aside 15 acres of the 32 acre parcel south of the EWPCF for reclaimed water.
Consider Alternative No. 7 as the ultimate, Phase 111 recycled water program.
7
8)
9)
10)
,-
2-14
As with many communities in southern California, the Cadsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)
has relied on both local and imported water sources. When the coastal plain of northern San Diego
County originally started to develop in the 18OOs, the local resources, predominantly the San Luis
Rey River, were tapped to provide the water resources necessary for the growing population and
agriculture. The Carlsbad Mutual Water Company (originally the Oceanside Mutual Water
Company-See Volume I) initially developed facilities to use San Luis Rey/Mission Basin in 1913.
Groundwater was the next significant contributor to the region’s developed water supply. However,
State Water Rights decisions of the 1930s ruled that groundwater in the Mission Basin was
equivalent to subsurface flow of the San Luis Rey River. These decisions curtailed claims on
groundwater rights and efforts to significantly expand its use. The City of Carlsbad acquired the
Cannon Well Field facilities to expand its groundwater production capability in the 1950s. Neither of
these wellfields is in operation today.
With the end of World War II in the mid 194Os, population in San Diego County began to grow
rapidly as it did throughout southern California. The United States Navy also had plans to expand its
presence in San Diego and was concerned about the reliability of the local water supply. While the
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) did have certain rights to the Colorado River, they had
yet to make any long term commitments to transport their entitlement to San Diego. Under pressure
from the U.S. Navy, SDCWA joined the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) for
the purpose of obtaining supplemental water from the Colorado River. As a Condition of joining
MWD, SDCWA had to forego their independent rights to Colorado River water.
In 1951, realizing that they were using the bulk of their local water resources, CMWD applied to join
the SDCWA. Not only were they reaching the limit of the local resources in terms of quantity, the
water quality (high in TDS) was becoming detrimental to agricultural which represented a significant
portion of the delivered water supply.
.-
The following section provides general descriptions of the geologic formations, stratigraphy, geologic
structures, soils and hydrogeologic features of the Carlsbad region and the Mission Hydrologic
Subarea of the San Luis Rey River Valley region.
Geology plays an important role in the understanding of groundwater hydrology. Groundwater
storage, recharge, well yields and other flow characteristics are intricately tied to the physical
properties of the surrounding geologic environment. Grain size distribution, permeability and porosity
along with corresponding heterogeneities and structural features help define the movement and
accumulation of groundwater.
.-
3-1
- Stratigraphy
The Carlsbad and San Luis Rey River Valley areas contain rocks which range in age from the
Jurassic Period, approximately 139 to 190 million years ago, to the present. Rock types in these
areas, from oldest to youngest, include fractured igneous and metamorphic rock, well indurated
marine claystone, nonmarine deposits of boulders, cobbles and sand, and marine deposits of poorly
to well cemented sandstone, siltstone, and claystone (Figure 3.1).
The Carlsbad and San Luis Rey River region are underlain by granitic rocks of the Cretaceous
Period, approximately 100 to 139 million years old, which are intruded into the overlying
metamorphic rocks. The metamorphic rocks consist of metavolcanics and metasediments. These
rocks are the oldest geologic units in this region and were formed during the Jurassic Period.
Overlying the metamorphic rocks are sedimentary rocks of the Cretaceous Period (Figure 3.1).
A distinct unconformity exists between the sediments of the Cretaceous Period and the sediments of
the younger Tertiary Period. An unconformity is a gap or break in the geologic record represented by
an older rock unit that is directly overlain by a younger rock unit that is not next in the stratigraphic
time succession. This gap may represent a period of non-deposition or a period of increased erosion
that leaves no record of sediments that may have been deposited during that period of time.
The Tertiary Period began about 65 million years ago and ended about 1.6 million years ago. In
Carlsbad and the Mission Hydrologic Subarea, sediments during this period were deposited
beginning about 45 million years ago (Figure 3.1). Tertiary sedimentary rocks are widespread
throughout the Carlsbad area and generally consist of varying amounts of sandstones, siltstones
and claystones (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). They are predominantly the result of near shore marine and
non-marine deposits that occurred during transgressional and regressional sequences. A
transgressional sequence represents sea advancement into the continental land mass due to any
change which causes a rise in sea level or subsidence of the land mass. A regressional sequence
represents sea withdrawal from the continental land mass due to any change which causes a drop in
sea level or uplift of the land mass.
Most drainages in Carlsbad contain surficial unconsolidated alluvium and/or colluvium deposited
during the Quaternary Period, approximately 1.9 million years ago to the present. However, the San
Luis Rey River Valley, a major drainage area north of Carlsbad in Oceanside, has much thicker
sequences of alluvium capable of storing economically significant quantities of groundwater. This
area is of importance to Carlsbad because of the City's water rights to this basin.
Cretaceous and Jurassic igneous and metamorphic rocks are exposed along the eastern portion of
the study area. Tertiary sedimentary rocks are exposed along the north and south central portion of
the study area. Quaternary rocks are exposed in the western coastal regions and drainages of the
study area.
Soils
Soils in Carlsbad and the Mission Hydrologic Subarea generally range from low permeability clays
and clayey loams to high permeability coarse sandy loams (Figure 3.4). In Carlsbad, very
permeable soils are located near the coast along the Quaternary Terrace deposits and along the
-
7
K\CMWDU332MMVOLXH3.RPT 3-2
Geoloeic Time
Qmtemy. (Q) (Present - 1.6 mi lion years)
Te*iy. cr) (1.6 to 65 mi lion years)
Cretaceous (K) and Jurassic (J) (65 to 190 million yem)
Kt
Geoloeic Formatiom
Qt- Terrace Deposits (sand and gravel)
Tso- San Onoh Breccia (sand and gravel)
Friars Formation Tf- (Veenish ay claystone and minor san % tone)
Tsc- Scrip 4 s Formation san tone with thin beds E? of siltstone and claystone) 2 (9 T~- Santiago Formation e (sandstone, siltstone and claystone)
2 (ofiiite sandstone)
d 0 c, Tt- Torre Sandstone
Td- Del Mar Formation (greenish gray claystone)
Point Loma Formation Q- (siltstone, sandstone and claystone)
Lusardi Formation u- (con lomerate with boulders, cobbfes and sand)
Jsp- Santiago Peaks Volcanics (metasediments and metavolcanics)
& Kgr- Basement Complex (igneous Intrusives)
WATER, SEWER, RECLAIMED WATER
MASTER PLANS AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PLAN
STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN
CITY OF CARLSBAD AND
MISSION HYDROLOGIC SUBAREA ~LSA
FIGURE 3.1
en~ineers CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,
SanMagoPesks Metavo I ca n l c s
Cerm de la Calavera
WATER, SEWER, RECLAIMED WATER MASTER PLANS AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GEOLOGIC MAP OF CARLSBAD
FIGURE 3.2
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER
carouo en~ineers
drainage areas to the east of Batiquitos Lagoon. In the San Luis Rey River Valley the very
permeable soils are located along the sides of the river valley.
Hydrological Features
The City of Carlsbad lies within the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, as described in the Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. There are no major groundwater basins within the Carlsbad
City boundaries, although there are a few minor basins associated with the following watershed
regions (Table 3.1).
t '' Table 3.3 City of Msbad Watersheds
Carisbad Municipal Water Djstrict
WaterStled I Drainage Area
~~ ~ ~__
Encinas Creek Watershed
Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed (San Marcos and
Encinitas Creeks)
I Buena Vista Creek Watershed I Drains 19 square miles I
Drains 3.9 square miles
Drains 46 square miles
I Aaua Hedionda Creek Watershed I Drains 29 sauare miles I
Note: City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1994
The San Luis Rey River Basin is described as the San Luis Rey Hydrologic Unit and drains
appioximately 565 square miles (Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 1994). The
Mission Hydrologic Subarea comprises the western portion of the San Luis Rey Hydrologic Unit
(Figure 3.5). Alluvial thickness generally exceeds 200 feet in this basin.'
The Mission Hydrologic Subarea (Mission) covers approximately 29,800 acres. The Mission
groundwater basin is contained within the central portion of the hydrologic subarea, where the
alluvial thickness is greatest, and covers about 5,500 acres. As of 1983, there were 20 active wells
operating in the basin. This is considerably less than was active prior to the advent of imported
water during the mid-1960s. Groundwater elevations reached a low of approximately 20 feet below
sea level during the late-1950s and have recovered to elevations of approximately 10 to 60 feet
above sea level since 1983. Current depths to groundwater have remained fairly constant since the
1980s and are typically five to ten feet below the ground surface. The estimated total groundwater
capacity of the Mission groundwater basin is 90,000 acre-feet. Pumping well discharge from the
basin was estimated to be approximately 6,000 acre-feet per year during the 1950s. After water
started being imported in the 196Os, discharge due to pumping within the basin had reduced to only
500 acre-feet per year by the 1990s.
In 1957, total dissolved solids (TDS), concentrations were often less than 1000 mg/L. In 1983,TDS
concentrations ranged from 960 to 3000 mg/L and have remained in excess of 1000 mg/L since the
' See References, Izbicki, 7985.
K3CMWM133UOnVOUCH3.RPT 3-6
I I
n-
L Iw
-:+
1980s. Increases in salinity are largely attributable to recharge of irrigation water and, according to
NBS/Lowry, to a lesser extent the landward intrusion of seawater induced by groundwater pumping.
-
Recycled Municipal Wastewater
The "Water Recycling Act of 1991" establishes a statewide goal of recycling 700,000 acre feet of
water annually by the year 2000 and one million acre feet by 2010. Approximately 380,000 acre feet
of municipal wastewater are being recycled. A little less than one-half of this amount was recycled
for groundwater recharge. In descending order, the balance went to agricultural irrigation, landscape
irrigation, industrial, and environmental uses. Most of the reclamation occurred in Southern
California and in the Tulare Lake region.
About 2 million acre feet of wastewater is discharged annually into the ocean from California's
coastal cities. Most of this wastewater receives secondary treatment and would be the primary
source of increased future reclamation. However, large capital and operating expenses are
necessary in order to recycle this water. Most uses of wastewater require that tertiary, not only
secondary, treatment be provided at the sewage treatment plant. Moreover, separate distribution
systems must be constructed to deliver reclaimed wastewater to areas of potential reuse, since
recycled water cannot be put into potable water pipelines. Generally the reuse areas are distant from
the plant, and the wastewater must also be pumped from coastal to higher elevations. However, cost
is not the only constraint to the reclamation of municipal wastewater.
Uses of reclaimed wastewater for crops and for recreational uses involving bodily contact (for
example, parks, school yards) are also tightly controlled by the Department of Health Services.
Specific treatment standards are set for various kinds of crops, depending on whether the crop is
consumed by humans or will be used as fodder for animals.
The legislature has prohibited the use of potable domestic supplies to irrigate cemeteries, golf
courses, parks, highway landscaping, or for industrial use if suitable reclaimed water is available as
determined by the State Board. The State Board, after notice and hearing, must find that the
reclaimed water supply is of adequate quality and is available at reasonable cost, and the
Department of Health Services (DHS) must agree that such use will not be detrimental to public
health. Local agencies may also require the use of reclaimed water for residential landscaping,
subject to the same findings by the State Board.
The City of San Diego now has plans to mix reclaimed water into a domestic water supply reservoir.
The DHS has given preliminary approval to a project that would pipe "repurified" water into the San
Vicente Reservoir where it would mix with water from the Colorado River and the State Water
Project. The repurified water would receive conventional tertiary treatment and then be put through
an even more advanced treatment system using microfiltration, reverse osmosis, ozone disinfection,
and ion exchange. The water would be stored in the resetvoir for about a year, and then further
disinfected through normal drinking water processes before being delivered for domestic use. Costs
of the project are estimated at $924 an acre-foot, or about twice the cost of buying imported water. If
all goes well, the project is expected to be on line by 2000.
-
Existing Reclamation Program
The CMWD has implemented two reclaimed water projects over the past 5 years. They include the
Encina Basin Project-Phase I and irrigation of the La Costa Spa and Resort. The first project was
developed through loans from the State revolving fund loan program.
For the La Costa Spa and Resort, the Leucadia County Water District added tertiary treatment to
their Gafner Water Reclamation Plant. By an agreement, the CMWD purchases this water and it is
used on the south golf course at La Costa Spa and Resort.
Details of the existing reclamation program are contained in Volume IV.
Encina Basin Phase I Proiect
The CMWD completed implementation of the Encina Basin Project-Phase I as the first step in
meeting the goals set forth in the District's ordinance. Construction of the major elements funded by
the State Revolving Fund Loan were completed early 1995.
Historical Use
The reclaimed water use from 1991 through 1996 is reported in Table 3.2. This lists the total use by
year and by month. Delivery started in October 1991, and the total annual use has increased each
year. Over 1,418 AF was used in 1996.
3-10
The Legal Authority to Limit the Use of Water
California Constitution, Article X, Section 2, sets the benchmark against which the use of all water in
California is measured. Article X, Section 2 states as follows:
"It is hereby declared that because of the conditions prevailing in this State the
general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial
use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or
unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that
the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with the view to the reasonable
and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. The
right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water
course in this state is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably
required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not and shall not
extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or
unreasonable method of diversion of water. This section shall be self-executing, and
the Legislature may also enact laws in the furtherance of the policy in this section
contained. " California Constitution. Art. X. 6 2.
Despite the investment of billions of dollars in water storage and distribution facilities, the 1987-1992
drought demonstrated that California remains susceptible to the impacts of a sustained drought.
Even in normal rainfall periods, California's ability to meet future water demands without additional
development has now become questionable. A growing population, water-intensive agriculture, and
the needs of the environment all place increased demands upon California's developed water
supply. California's population now exceeds the projections made in the 1980s. and growth
continues despite the recent economic recession.
With the political and legal constraints that have blocked additional water development in recent
times, conservation has come to play an increasingly important role in the management of the
state's water resources. Virtually all water purveyors have some type of conservation program in
place. The legislature has provided water purveyors the legal authority to ration and allocate
supplies in times of shortage.
The California Water Code authorizes local water suppliers to deciare a water shortage emergency
and to take appropriate steps to meet that emergency, including the denial of applications for new or
additional service connections for its duration.
During "emergency conditions," water suppliers can exercise the powers granted to them.
Section 350 of the Water Code provides:
'The governing body of a distributor of a public water supply, whether publicly or
privately owned and including a mutual water company, may declare a water
shortage emergency condition to prevail within the area served by such distributor
whenever it finds and determines that the ordinary demands and requirements of
K1CMWMU324AmVOL20(3.RPT 3-1 1
,-- water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting the water supply of the
distributor to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human
consumption, sanitation, and fire protection."
A water supplier may adopt such regulations and restrictions on the delivery and consumption of
water "as will in the sound discretion of such governing body conserve the water supply for the
greatest public benefit with particular regard to domestic use, sanitation, and fire protection."
Water suppliers, other than cities and counties, cannot use water in shortage emergencies as a
pretext to implement a "no- or limited-growth" land use policy. Land use decisions are within the
legislative purview of cities and counties, not special districts such as municipal water districts.
The enabling statutes of municipal and county water districts also contain specific provisions for the
imposition of conservation measures. Water Code 6 71640 states that municipal water districts may
restrict water services:
"During any emergency caused by drought, or other threatened or existing water
shortage, and may prohibit the wastage of district water or the use of district water
during such periods. A district may also prohibit use of district water during such
periods for specific uses which it finds to be non-essential."
This Section also provides an alternate basis for a municipal water district to enact water
conservation measures during periods of threatened or existing water shortages. A municipal water
district is not required to enact water conservation measures and to implement prohibitions on
non-essential uses of water until there is an existing, actual water shortage.
In short, a water district may enact new service moratoria and other conservation measures as a
result of an existing or threatened water shortage, but it may not do so as a tool to implement a land
use (limited-growth) policy.
Following the severe 1976-77 drought, the legislature enacted new sections of the Water Code
-
entitled 'Water Conservation Proorams. " Policy provisions of the 1993 amendments to the statute
declare that water conservation "is an important component of California's water policy for the
future," and that all reasonable efforts to conserve water "should continue to be a high priority of
California's water policy." This section enables any public entity which supplies water at either retail
or wholesale to adopt a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used. The public
entity may specifically require (except for agricultural uses) the installation of water-saving devices,
such as low flow showerheads or water-saving toilets. Since the 1993 amendment, water
conservation may also be encouraged through "rate structure design," that is, higher unit charges for
higher usage.
The Water Code also authorizes water conservation programs. It provides that any public or private
supplier of water for municipal uses may undertake a water conservation program and may require
as a condition of new service that reasonable water saving devices and water reclamation devices
be installed. This applies to both public and private suppliers of water but is limited in its application
to water supplied for municipal uses.
3-1 2
Water Conservation Planning
The Urban Water Manaaement Plannina Act
In 1983, the legislature enacted the "Urban Water Manaaement Plannina Ad. " The Act is limited in
its application to any publicly or privately owned water supplier providing water for municipal
purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre feet of water annually.
Both retail and wholesale water suppliers are included. As part of the policy provisions of the Act, the
legislature has declared that the conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies "are of
statewide concern," and "shall be a guiding criterion in public decisions." The legislature also found
that "the planning for that use and implementation of those plans can best be accomplished at the
local level."
The Act calls for the preparation of an urban water management plan which describes and evaluates
the reasonable, practical, and efficient uses of the entity's supplies, including reclamation and
conservation activities. The first plans were required in 1985, and more than 95 percent of the
affected agencies submitted plans. Although the statute provides that the components of the plan
may vary according to individual community needs and characteristics, at a minimum the plan must
address measures for residential, commercial, governmental, and industrial water management.
The plan must also include a strategy and timetable for implementation.
The plan must meet a number of specific requirements, must be updated at least once every five
years, and must be filed with the Department of Water Resources. Required elements in the plan
include:
-
. . An estimate of not only projected potable water use, but also of reclaimed water use.
A description of alternative conservation measures, including, but not limited to,
consumer education, metering, water saving fixtures and appliances, pool covers,
lawn and garden irrigation techniques, and low water use landscaping, together with an evaluation of their costs and environmental impacts.
water supply available at the end of 12, 24, and 36 months, assuming the worst case
water supply shortages, and the action to be undertaken in response to such
shortages.
in water allotments, per capita allocations, and increasing block rate schedule for
high usage of water with incentives for conservation, or restrictions on specific uses.
detection and repair, increase in the use of reclaimed water, dual water systems in
new construction permitting the use of reclaimed water for flushing toilets,
landscaping, golf courses, and irrigation, and the elimination of once-through cooling
systems and non-recirculating water systems.
. An urban water shortage contingency plan that includes an estimate of the minimum
. Consumption limits in the most restrictive stage; for example, percentage reductions
Planning and implementation steps related to such matters as water use audits, leak .
The 1992 Urban Water Conservation MOU
In 1992, more than 100 water agencies and 50 public interest and environmental groups signed a
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU). (See
Appendix 8.) This MOU arose out of the Bay-Delta hearing proceedings and was the result of a
three-year negotiating effort by water interests, environmentalists, and state agencies. The MOU
-
K1CMWCM33UWIVOLZCH3.RPT 3-1 3
identifies 16 Best Management Practices (BMPs) for urban water use and commits the signatories
to certain implementation efforts over the period 1991 to 2001. These include interior and exterior
water audits and incentive programs, new and retrofit plumbing, leak detection and repair, metering
and commodity rates for all new connections, landscape conservation requirements, and programs
of public information and school education.
The MOU also established the California Urban Water Conservation Council to monitor progress
under the MOU, and to research the feasibility of other potential BMPs. It is estimated that
reductions in use due to full implementation of these BMPs will range between 7 and 10 percent of
forecasted per capita use.
The Water Conservation in LandscaDina Acl
Pursuant to legislative direction in the Water Conservation in LandscaDina Act., the State Department
of Water Resources has prepared a model local water efficient landscape ordinance for areas
having similar climactic, geological, or topographical conditions. The Act provides that if a local
agency (defined as a city or county) has not adopted its own water-efficient landscape ordinance, or
has not adopted findings based upon local climactic, geological, or topographical conditions which
state that a water-efficient landscape ordinance is unnecessary, the model ordinance developed by
the department shall automatically take effect and must be enforced by the local agency. By
January 31, 1993, each local agency was required to file with the Department a copy of its
water-efficient landscape ordinance. (See Appendix C for Carlsbad's Ordinances.)
Mandatorv Conservation Ordinances
While some communities during the 1987-1 992 drought relied upon public education and voluntary
conservation, many water suppliers adopted ordinances legally restricting water use. One common
technique is the establishment of a reduced percentage allocation of the customer's prior historical
use. Charges for use over the allotted amounts are then set at rates designed to discourage excess
use. While simple to administer, this approach penalizes those who have been careful in their past
usage of water and rewards the previously profligate. A variation of this approach is to determine a
specific amount of water deemed reasonable for a specific connection, such as a residence. Any
excess use is then subject to much higher charges, and perhaps ultimately prohibited. However, this
solution also has inequities. It may not take into account the size of the family or property, or
different landscaping requirements. These ordinances usually provide for variances, but that
safeguard is generally not sufficient to prevent community discontent when water usage is restricted.
Drought ordinances also typically prohibit certain kinds of water uses: for example, using water to
hose down sidewalks and driveways, to wash cars, or for construction grading and dust control.
Landscape watering may be limited to certain hours and days of the week, or prohibited under
severe conditions. And, of course, a moratorium may be imposed upon any new connections.
Because reasonable savings can be achieved most easily in the residential sector, and because of
the potential economic impacts of curtailing water deliveries to industry and business, special rules
are generally tailored for nonresidential uses. -
3-14
.-- Conservation
The CMWD has been committed to water conservation. This has been demonstrated by a decrease
in per capita consumption of approximately 15 percent over the past decade. As outline in the
CMWD's Urban Water Manaaement Plan, dated April, 1997, the five major components of the
program are:
1) Participation in the regional conservation programs being implemented by the MWD and the
SDCWA. ~~
2)
3)
4) 5)
Some further reduction is possible through installation of new technologies such as horizontal-axis
clothes washing machines. Future advances in dishwashers could also reduce water consumption.
The maximum future reduction is on the order of 5 percent without extensive revisions to landscape
irrigation systems.
Implementation of conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Economic and financial incentives to encourage efficient use of water.
Water use regulation through Ci ordinances.
Public relations and education programs.
Bask Water Rights Concepts
California's Hvbrid Water Riahts Svst em
In California both riparian and appropriative rights coexist. In addition to these direct water rights,
many entities have contract rights to water service from suppliers with direct water rights. As
described in the following paragraphs, under the traditional water rights scheme a relatively rigid
priority to the use of water was based on the type of right and the time of establishment of the right.
However, over the last several decades the courts and State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) have evolved a more flexible system in which traditional priorities may be adjusted where
appropriate to insure reasonable use and protect the public interest and public trust.
Riparian Water Rights
All owners of land riparian to a stream have a correlative share of the waters of the stream. The
water right arises merely from ownership of the land and no permission from the state is required to
put the water to use. Consequently, the SWRCB has no direct jurisdiction over the exercise of the
right. In times of shortage, all riparians on the stream share equally in any shortages, without regard
to the temporal pri0r.i of the riparian right. The quantification of riparian water rights obviously is
very difficult. Most of the major riparian water rights have been subsumed in (but not necessarily
replaced by) the water service contracts, discussed below.
Pre-1914 Appropriative Rights
Along with the riparian right, California recognizes appropriative water rights. Prior to 1914, an
appropriative water right was perfected simply by posting notice of the appropriation and putting the
water to a beneficial use in a timely manner. As with the riparian right, pre-1914 appropriators need
KZCMWO'd332PiCOVOL2CH3,RPl 3-1 5
no permission from the state to divert and use the water, and the SWRCB has no direct jurisdiction
over the use of that water but does exercise certain regulatory authority which is discussed later.
Since these appropriations were done so informally, and because many appropriators have not
recently, or never, used the full amount of water they purport to have appropriated, quantification of
these rights is difficult. According to the classical water rights system, the rights of appropriators are
subordinate to riparian rights and, in times of shortage, riparian right holders are entitled to
completely fulfill their needs from the natural stream flow before appropriators are entitled to any use
of the water. As between appropriators, the appropriator with the right that is earlier in time is
entitled to completely fulfill his reasonable needs before a junior appropriator is entitled to use any
water.
Post-1914 Appropriative Rights
Since enactment of the Water Commission Act in 1914, all appropriations are subject to permission
from the state and are obtained through a permit or license from the SWRCB after satisfaction of a
number of requirements contained in the Water Code. Post-1914 appropriators are subject to direct
regulation through SWRCBs continuing jurisdiction over their permits and licenses. The water rights
of the Department of Water Resources, for the State Water Project, and the Bureau of Reclamation,
for the Central Valley Project, are post-1914 appropriative rights. Under the traditional view of water
rights, since the rights of the two project are junior to those of pre-1914 appropriators and some
post-1 914 appropriators, the projects would be required to bear all shortages before senior
appropriators and riparian right holders had to bear any shortages.
Regulation of Water Rights
As previously stated, the SWRCB has no direct jurisdiction over riparian and pre-1914 appropriative
rights, in the sense that no permission is required to exercise those rights. Some of these older
water rights holders have asserted that the lack of direct SWRCB authority, together with the junior
priority status of the two projects, limits the SWRCBs authority to impose Bay/Delta standards to the
two projects only. However, the SWRCB does have police power authority to regulate all water
rights to prohibit waste and unreasonable use, to protect the public interest and to protect the public
trust. A number of cases over the last few years have allowed courts or the SWRCB to impose
conditions and/or costs on nominally higher priority water uses which benefit the environment or
other water users. Perhaps most significantly, the "Racanelli" case held, at least in the context of
Bay/Delta protection proceedings, that the SWRCB could impose environmental conditions on
senior water rights, irrespective of the traditional priority scheme which would require junior rights
holders to bear the total impact of reductions in water use.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water Rlghts
The CMWD's rights to these various sources of supply can best be described through a brief
ovetview of California water rights practices. The basic California water rights "rules" can be
summarized as follows: . All water belongs to the state. Rights for the use can be obtained, but not ownership
of the water.
3-1 6
. If you own land contiguous to a stream within the stream's watershed, you have a
If you are not riparian, you must have a permit to use surface water. These
If you own land, you have a right to use groundwater underlying that land.
No use can be wasteful or unreasonable (Article 10, Section 2 of the State
riparian right to use water from the stream.
appropriative permits are issued by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB).
.
. .
Constitution).
There have been a number of clarifications of or refinements to these 'rules" over the years. Some
of these are as follows:
. . . . . .
.
Riparians have priority over appropriators.
Senior appropriators have priority over junior appropriators (first in time, first in right).
Riparians and groundwater users share shortages; appropriators do not.
Appropriators who do not use water for three years lose the right to that use.
Riparians cannot lose their right by non-use unless the stream is adjudicated; then,
the court can cause dormant riparians to be junior to all other rights.
Riparian land, once 'severed", can never be riparian again.
Pre-1914 appropriators (year the appropriative law was implemented) have better
rights than post-1 914 appropriators.
Some watersheds and groundwater basins have been adjudicated by the courts (not
in Carlsbad). Adjudicated rights supersede all others.
The SWRCB can fine unauthorized diverters and issue cease and desist orders
against violators of water rights conditions.
The SWRCB can temporarily grant water rights and change those already granted
(especially useful during droughts).
The federal government, which owns about 50 percent of the land in California, has
riparian rights for water for the primary purposes for that land, but must apply to the
SWRCB when it intends to exercise such right so the SWRCB can determine if the
right is consistent with efficient, beneficial use of the state's waters, and must apply
for appropriative rights for water for secondary purposes.
Appropriative rights have certain conditions attached: . Amount . Type of use . Area of Use . Season of use . Diligence . . Conditions to protect the public interest
First, get a 'permit", then, after use is accomplished. get a 'license". The
priority is the date of application for the permit.
The foregoing is just a brief summary of some of the water rights issues that may affect Carlsbads
rights to its various water sources.
Mission Basin Groundwater Riahts
The following section provides general descriptions of the water rights held by the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District in the Mission Basin and on the San Luis Rey River. Interest in obtaining
water rights and developing the water resources of the San Luis Rey River has existed for over
3-1 7
100 years. The 1888 Report of the State Engineer of California on Irrigation and the Irrigation
Question provided the following discussion:
"Steps were taken in 1886 by several San Diego land operators looking to the
systematic utilization of the San Luis Rey river, and the irrigation of the coast mesa
in the vicinity of Oceanside near its mouth, on the south side. An organization was
effected, and surveys for a canal or flume line were made, and water-rights were
filed upon at the second narrows, some five miles below Pala, where the elevation is
about three hundred and seventy-five feet. A submerged dam extending from bluff to
bluff, seven hundred feet, to raise the underflow to the surface was contemplated,
but the cost of the work, the long line of conduit required, and the uncertainty of the
water-supply available at the point of diversion selected, led to the expansion of the
project and the formation of the San Luis Rey Flume Company, with a larger capital
and embracing a more comprehensive scheme. The new company set to work to
acquire all water rights on the river that might in any way conflict with their proposed
appropriations, as well as riparian rights along the stream.
An outline of the main project is, briefly, the construction of a mammoth reservoir
dam on Warner's ranch, a canal from the canyon of the river some miles below the
dam, extending about twenty miles along the mountain and rolling hillsides south and
west of the river, and a secondary storage reservoir at the terminus of the canal in
Bear valley at an elevation of one thousand three hundred feet. From this
commanding elevation, but twenty miles from the sea at the nearest point, and
thirty-five miles from the city of San Diego, the territory that may be served is only
limited by the supply of water available. Pipelines are projected in various directions.
The main conduit drops into this secondary reservoir with a direct fall of seven
hundred feet, and the utilization of this water power and transmission by electricity to
points of use are contemplated.
The company has brought actions to condemn the land on Warner's ranch required
for purposes of the reservoir Until the possession of these lands is acquired, the
work will necessarily be confined to the construction of the conduit and lower
reservoir dam where the lands have already been acquired The first pipeline to be
laid from the Bear valley reservoir will probably be through Escondido and San
Marcos valleys to Oceanside. San Pasqual, Bernardo. and Poway valleys are also
readily commanded, and the coast mesa between Oceanside and San Diego and
north of Oceanside. The full development of this scheme would take several years to
accomplish, and the total cost of works to fully avail of its possibilities would no doubt
exceed a million dollars."
It was also noted that as of October, 1888, the San Luis Rey Canal Company had secured $500,000
with the indication of as much more, from New York capitalists on the basis of the Company's bonds
and land and water rights contracts.
3-1 8
Pre 191 4 Right
By a contract dated August 13,1913 with the City of Oceanside, the South Coast Land Company
became the owner of the right, by grants, to divert 200 miner's inches (5 cfs) of water for use on
non-riparian lands and the right to construct pumping plants, pipelines, etc. These same rights were
deeded to the Carlsbad Mutual Water Company on March 14,1915 and reconfirmed by a repeat
deed issuance on October 19, 1934. Diversion and use of this water commenced prior to
December 19, 1914, the effective date of the State Water Commission Act.
Application No. 008205
Application No. 008205 was also for 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) with the application being filed on
January 1,1935. Permit No. 005228 was issued on October 7,1938 allowing for the diversion of
750 acre-feet per year from the San Luis Rey wells to Calavera Lake plus additional flows which
might othelwise flow to the Pacific Ocean. Both of these rights were subject to the stipulation that
static water level in the San Luis Rey Basin must remain above 10 feet Mean Sea Level. The
allowed diversion period was from January l'through December 31". This permit was issued
concurrently with Permit No. 005229 which granted similar rights to the City of Oceanside for
12.5 cfs from the San Luis Rey Basin (Application No. 008418, filed in 1935). Both of these permits
were issued concurrently with State Division of Water Resources Decision 432 which granted both
agencies until December 31, 1999 to complete the planned use or to apply for an extension.
Decision 432 further held that the underground water in the Mission Basin was deemed to be
underground flow of the San Luis Rey River.
Application No. 01 0081
Application No. 010081 resulted in the grant of License No. 002842 on December 9,1940 to the
Carlsbad Mutual Water Company which allowed for the diversion and storage of up to 5 cfs on
Calavera Creek from November 1 through May 31. The total annual amount was limited to
150 acre-feet.
Application No. 020499
Application No. 020499 was filed by the CMWD on November 16,1961 for a seasonal collection and
storage right on an unnamed stream.
Other Groundwater Resource Water Riahts
In addition To the San Luis Rey/Mission Basin groundwater resources, the City of Carlsbad holds
certain rights to property identified as the Cannon Well Field. This well field is located on the
northerly side of El Camino Real and to the east of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
The Cannon Well Field was developed in the early 1950s by W. D. Cannon' and included four
groundwater supply wells. Cannon had obtained the right to develop and use these wells by an
agreement with the land owner, Ellen K. Hall, by an agreement dated October 11, 1950. This well -
See References, Barren Consulting Group, 1991
K3CMWCM332ACUWW3,RPl 3-19
supply was the original supply for the Terramar Water Company, which was subsequently acquired
by the City of Carlsbad in 1958. The original agreement between Cannon and Hall was merged with
an agreement by and between the City of Carlsbad and Carroll R. Kelly, et ux., on June 1,1964 and
revised again on November 5, 1984. Neither of these changes had any material bearing on the basic
rights obtained by the City.
The City of Carlsbad used these wells for water supply from 1958 to 1962 with the largest extraction
being 238 acre-feet in 1960-61. The long term available safe yield of the well field is presumed to be
no more than approximately 400 acre-feet per yea?.
The groundwater quality in the Agua Hedionda subunit is considered poor, characterized by high
TDS.
None of the pre-existing wells appear worthy of reconstruction based on previous inspections.
L
-
See References, Kubota and WN, 1966 3
KXMWD\4332AW\VOLZCH3,RPT 3-20
4.1 Demands I
Baseline
Low
High
The total required water supply for CMWD was identified in the Water Master Plan, (Volume 11) as
13.13 mgd at present and 25.4 mgd at ultimate. These figures are annual averages and do not
consider seasonal variations. Both values include the baseline usage of 1,500 acre-feet per year of
reclaimed water to meet a portion of the demands. The Reclaimed Water Master Plan, (Volume IV)
identified future scenarios with a low reclaimed water usage of 2,000 acre-feet per year (1.79 mgd)
and a high usage of 11,020 acre-feet per year (9.84 mgd). All of these values are presented in
Table 4.1.
The future required water resources are planned to be met with a combination of reclaimed water
and potable water. A portion of the additional potable water needs are also planned to be met
through increased water conservation. For this analysis, the baseline conservation is assumed to be
what exists at present which includes the continued use of the Best Management Practices (BMPs)
implemented by the CMWD. This has resulted in a 15 percent reduction in per use compared to
historical values since 1990. Future additional BMPs might result in an additional five percent of
conservation which is presented as the 'Low Conservation" case and aggressive implementation of
landscape irrigation modifications could result in an additional five percent reduction in total water
demand. This latter case is represented as the "High Conservation" case. Even the "Low
Conservation" case could be considered aggressive, depending how much opportunity for
conservation still exists through plumbing retrofits. Figure 4.1 presents the resulting water resource
needs in a graphical format. With the different degrees of reclamation and conservation, the ultimate
potable water need ranges from 13.02 mgd to 24.13 mgd and the mid-range at 22.34 mgd.
1.27 1.27
1.27 1.79
1.27 9.84
Table 4.1 proleared W8mf D6lnands (mgd) carisbad Munidpd weter DiSW I 1996 I 2015
Total Need 1313 I 25 40
Baseline
Low
High
(included in actual 1996 need) 0.00
1.27
2.54
(included in actual 1996 need)
(included in actual 1996 need)
Low
Medium
High
11 .E6 13.02
11 .E6 22.34
11 .E6 24.13
Ill
\
\
\
\
\
0 I (u ,
v)
W W z
W
n
a
L n
G
ti
5
w
W
a n
L.
4.2 Imported Water 1
MWD Programs
Water in Southern California is provided through a complex system of infrastructure controlled by
many different institutional entities. More than 350 public agencies and private companies provide
water to approximately 16 million people living in a 5,200 square mile area. The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD) is the primary wholesale provider of imported water for the
region. MWD serves 27 member agencies comprising 14 cities, 12 municipal water districts, and
1 county water authority. MWDs member agencies, in turn, serve customers in more than 145 cities
and 95 unincorporated communities.
MWDs service area includes the Southern California coastal plain. It extends about 200 miles along
the Pacific Ocean from the City of Oxnard on the north to the Mexican border on the south, and it
reaches 70 miles inland from the coast. The service area includes portions of Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties. Although it comprises only 13 percent
of the land area of these counties, over 90 percent of their population resides within MWDs
boundaries.
The water that is used by the residents of Southern California originates from many sources. About
1.36 million acre-feet per year (34 percent) of the region's average supply is developed locally using
groundwater basins, surface reservoirs and surface diversions to capture natural runoff. Another
0.15 million acre-feet per year (4 percent) of supply is attributed to local water recycling projects that
reclaim wastewater for groundwater recharge, irrigation, and direct industrial uses. Finally, about
2.39 million acre-feet per year (62 percent) is imported from three major supply systems. The first of
these imported systems, the Los Angeles Aqueducts, is operated by the City of Los Angeles and
transports water from the Mono Basin and Owens Valley down to Southern California. The second
system, the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), was constructed by MWD and transports water from
the Colorado River. The third major system, the State Water Project (SWP), moves water from the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta via the California Aqueduct to the region.
lntearated Resources Plan
The Need For An Integrated Resources Plan
About one out of every two Californians live in MWDs service area. During the 1980s more than
300,000 people were added to the service area each year, as a result of a strong economy. And
despite the severity of the recent economic recession, regional growth management plans project
that Southern California's population will continue to grow by more than 200,000 people each year
over the next 25 years increasing from the current 15.7 million to over 21.5 million by year 2020.
As a result of this population growth, water demands are expected to increase from the current
3.5 million acre-feet to about 4.9 million acre-feet by the year 2020 (under normal weather
conditions). To help forecast water demands, MWD uses an econometrics model that relates water
use to independent variables such as population, housing, employment, income, price, weather, and
conservation. Demographic projections are based on the Growth Management Element of the 1993
Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) adopted by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) and the Preliminary Series 8 forecasts issued by the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG).
In addition, the forecast of water demands incorporates projections of water savings resulting from
long-term conservation measures called for in the state-wide "best management practices" (BMPs).
The full implementation of these BMPs are expected to save about 730,000 acre-feet per year by
201 0 and 880,000 acre-feet per year by 2020.
An important factor affecting future water demand is the year to year variability that is caused by
weather. In any given year, the region's water demands can vary by 7 percent due to fluctuations in
rainfall and temperature alone.
Increasing Competition for Existing Water Supplies
To determine the amount of additional water needed in the future, it is necessary to establish the
region's existing firm supplies available during dry years. The dry-year supply from existing locally
developed resources (including the Los Angeles Aqueduct supplies) is expected to be 1.88 million
acre-feet in year 201 0 and increase to 1.91 million acre-feet in year 2020, The ongoing competition
for imported water to serve the urban, agricultural, and environmental needs of the western states
has resulted in significant uncertainties in the future deliveries of firm water supply available from the
Colorado River and the State Water Project. Without additional commitments and investments, firm
imported supplies available during a dry year are expected to range from 1.3 to 1.8 million acre-feet
per year.
Consequences of No Action
Comparing the firm existing supplies for the region with projected demands under hot and dry
weather conditions results in water Supply-ShOrtageS of 1 .I million acre-feet by the year 2000 and
2.2 million acre-feet by the year 2020. In fact, the comparison of existing supplies and projected
demands during wet and normal years indicates that supply shortages could occur every other year
by the year 2010, a level of service that would be devastating to Southern California's $450 billion
economy.
Cost of Redundant Investments
Given the circumstances, many Southern California water providers, including MWD, have been
planning investments in projects and programs within the service area to address future water
reliability needs. Without a coordinated and balanced regional response to growing demands, the
region could run the risk of overspending on its water infrastructure -- potentially leading to high
water rates.
The lntearated Resources Plannina Process
With this realization, MWD and its member agencies embarked on a 2 year IRP process. The focus
of this process was to collectively examine the available resource options, both local and imported,
together with conservation -- developing a least-cost plan that meets the reliability need of the region
and, just as importantly, avoids redundant investments. The product of this intensive effort is a
25-year resources plan that offers a realistic means of achieving a reliable and affordable water
supply for Southern California into the next century.
The IRP process asked several basic questions. What level of reliability does the region require?
What is the preferred means of achieving the level of reliability, given the range of potential water
supply options? Can the region afford the desired level of reliability? And finally, what needs to
happen in order to implement the preferred resource strategy?
The IRP Process Participants
The IRP process was designed to include a wide range of resource options in the development of a
strategy for meeting regional supply goals. Many of the options considered are outside the direct
control of MWD and its member agencies. Nevertheless, they represent practical and cost-effective
means of achieving regional goals. To realize these benefits, a high level of consensus and
cooperation must be achieved among all participants -- MWD, its member agencies, groundwater
basin agencies, other resource agencies, and the public. The IRP process reached out to water
managers, decision makers, interest groups, and individuals to obtain valuable input and guidance
regarding the preferred water resource strategy, to review the technical analyses supporting the
decision-making process, and to secure a commitment to action from all those responsible for
implementing the "Preferred Resource Mix."
IRP Workgroup
Much of the technical guidance and direction for the IRP was provided by the IRP Workgroup, which
included representatives from MWD's staff, member agency and sub-agency managers, and
groundwater basin managers. This group served as the de facto technical steering committee for the
IRP, providing crucial direction, establishing needed criteria, and reviewing evaluations. During the
entire process, this group met over 35 times and spent hundreds of hours evaluating detailed
analyses
Regional Assemblies
The major milestones in the process were established by a series of three regional assemblies held
in October 1993, June 1994, and March 1995. Modeled after the American Assembly Process
developed by Dwight Eisenhower at Columbia University in the 1950s and used to gain consensus
on difficult policy issues, these regional assemblies represented the first time ever that MWD senior
management, Board of Directors, member agency managers, and other water providers convened
to discuss regional water management. Participants also included general managers from
groundwater basin agencies, local retail water providers (sub-agencies), and invited public
representatives. In total, over 150 assembly participants provided input to the IRP. Each assembly
produced a written Assembly Statement documenting areas of consensus, as well as identifying
those areas where divergent views remained unresolved and further analysis and evaluation were
required.
4-5
Public Forums and Member Agency-Sponsored Workshops
In addition to the IRP Workgroup and the three regional assemblies, broader public input to the
planning process was obtained at six public forums and several member agency workshops
addressing water resource issues and concerns. Public forum attendees were invited from business
environmental, community, agricultural and water interests, both inside and outside the region. In
total, about 450 individuals participated in these forums and workshops.
c
Evaluatina Alternative Resource Strateaies
The IRP process relied upon detailed analyses of water supply options, alternative resource
development strategies, and the operational performance of the preferred resource mix in achieving
regional reliability goals. The methodology employed least-cost planning principles, operating within
constraints. Potential resource options identified to meet the overall IRP resource target included:
Water Conservation
Water Recycling
Groundwater Recovery
Colorado River Aqueduct Supply Improvements
State Water Project Supply Improvements
Regional Storage (both groundwater storage and surface reservoirs)
Voluntary Water Transfers
Ocean Desalination
The evaluation proceeded in two distinct phases. Phase 1 examined the broadest possible range of
alternative resource strategies capable of meeting the region's reliability goal. Phase 2 narrowed in
on the resource strategy selected during Phase 1 and identified a least-cost resource mix that
achieved regional reliability goals within prescribed constraints.
Phase 1
The first phase of the IRP consisted of broad analyses of alternative combinations of resource
options for meeting the region's goals and objectives. The October 1993 Assembly produced
evaluation criteria used as the basis for comparing several alternative resource strategies available
to the region. These criteria included: (1) reliability, (2) cost, (3) risk, (4) flexibility, (5) environmental
impact, and (6) impacts to the local economy. Phase 1 offered a coarse screening of possible
strategies that ranged from a heavy emphasis on local resource development on one hand, to a
heavy emphasis on additional imported supplies on the other. The detailed refinement of a preferred
strategic direction was left untii Phase 2.
Following the decision at the June 1994 Assembly to Pursue a balanced approach to the
development of imported and local resources, MWD staff, working with the IRP Workgroup,
undertook a more detailed least-cost plan for achieving the region's reliability goal. The primary
objective of Phase 2 was to find the right combination of additional local water resources, imported
supplies, and demand-side management investments to meet the region's reliability goal in a
cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. The analysis proceeded from three important
premises: (1) maximize the operational utility of all of the surface and groundwater storage available
within the region; (2) add additional supplies in order of ascending costs; and (3) constrain
dependence on specific options to reflect water quality requirements, flexibility, and institutional and
environmental issues. Figure F-7 illustrates the resource options that were identified to meet the gap
between existing firm water supplies and future demand. The resource options were ranked in terms
of their total unit costs and how much water they could provide.
The Preferred Resource Mix
The participants in the IRP process concluded that, in the aggregate, Southern California is better off
pursuing the Preferred Resource Mix than any other combination of water resource development
strategies. The consensus arrived at regarding the establishment of the Preferred Resource Mix
reflects the most comprehensive strategy on how the region should achieve an affordable level
water supply reliability to date.
Resource Targets
The strategy reflected in the Preferred Resource Mix is based on five fundamental objectives:
(1) maximize the availability of low cost water delivered by the Colorado River Aqueduct, (2) provide
adequate State Water Project supplies to meet reliability and water quality required (3) fully utilize
the existing potential for local groundwater conjunctive use and surface storage (4) implement
cost-effective water recycling and groundwater recovery projects identified by member agencies and
other water providers, and (5) utilize voluntary water transfers needed for a few years and storage
replenishment. Specifically, the resource targets included in the Preferred Resource Mix are:
1) Conservation Conservation measures implemented since 1980 are currently saving about
370,000 acre-feet. The New Preferred Resource Mix depends on an additional
130,000 acre-feet of conservation savings by the year 2000 (representing a 35 percent
increase over current levels), of which about 89,000 acre-feet results from the
implementation of new plumbing codes and ordinances. By 2020, about 512,000 acre-feet of
additional conservation savings is needed (representing a 138 percent increase over current
levels), of which about 235,000 acre-feet results from the implementation of plumbing codes
and ordinances.
Water Recvclinq Existing water recycling is providing the region with about
160,000 acre-feet per year of supply. These existing local projects are expected to increase
their supply yield to aboui 220,000 acre-feet by 2020. The Preferred Resource Mix depends
on an additional 100,000 acre-feet of new supply from water recycling by the year 2000
(representing a 63 percent increase from current levels). By the year 2020, about
230,000 acre-feet of additional supply is needed (representing a 180 percent increase over
current levels).
Groundwater Recovery Currently, about 10,000 acre-feet of net groundwater supply is
produced from groundwater recovery projects. The Preferred Resource Mix depends on an
additional 30,000 acre-feet of net groundwater production as a resuli of groundwater
recovery projects by year 2000 (representing 150 percent increase over current levels). By
2020, about 40,000 acre-feet of net production is needed (representing a 233 percent
increase over current levels).
2)
3)
4-7
4) Reaional Surface Reservoir Storaae Existing surface reservoirs used by MWD for seasonal
and regulatory purposes include Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner. In addition, the region can
use a portion of the storage in DWR's terminal reservoirs during an emergency. As a result
of the recently negotiated Monterey Agreement, about 220,000 acre-feet of storage in these
DWR terminal reservoirs can now be used by MWD during dry years (carryover supply).
While this agreement provides the region with more dry-year supplies during droughts and
added flexibility, it does not change the total storage requirements for the region. MWDs
800,000 acre-foot Eastside Reservoir Project will be used to meet Southern California's
remaining storage requirements, with 400,000 acre-feet dedicated to emergency purposes
and 400,000 acre-feet dedicated to drought carryover.
Groundwater Coniunctive Use Storaae As a result of MWDs Seasonal Storage Service
pricing program, local agencies are currently storing available imported water in order to
increase groundwater production during the summer season and dry years. It is estimated
that an average of 100,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater supply is produced as a result
of MWDs existing discount pricing for winter season deliveries. The Preferred Resource Mix
identifies the potential for 200,000 acre-feet of additional groundwater production during dry
years. To accomplish this additional dry year production, about one million acre-feet of
dedicated storage capacity within the local basins is required.
State Water Proiect Existing SWP supply available to MWD during a dry year is estimated
to be about 650,000 acre-feet. The Preferred Resource Mix calls for an increased utilization
of SWP supplies of about 700,000 acre-feet during dry years by year 2020. Progress
towards achieving this SWP resource target has already been made. The recently
negotiated Bay-Delta Accord provides additional flexibility in the system and calls for
identification of a permanent solution within three years. Reliance on SWP supplies is critical
to achieving the region's reliability goals and to provide water quality adequate to carry out
local resource programs.
Colorado River Aaueduct The CRA represents the region's least-cost imported supply and
should be maximized in order to ensure reliability for all of MWDs member agencies. To
ensure that deliveries from the CRA are fully maximized at about 1. 3 million acre-feet per
year, MWD has a strategy that includes reliability improvements such as river re-operations,
banking conserved and surplus water, land fallowing agreements, and potential conservation
efforts.
Central Vallev Water Transfers About 300,000 acre-feet of voluntary water transfers will be
developed through option agreements storage programs, and purchases of water through
the drought bank or other similar spot markets. These agreements will allow MWD to use
this water only when needed, estimated to be about 25 percent of the time.
5)
6)
7)
8)
The Strenath Of A Balanced And Flexible Plan
For many participants, the decision to support the water resources p!an developed through the IRP
process was based on the strengths and benefits it offered over other alternative strategies. The
benefits that the Preferred Resource Mix provides are:
Achievement of 100 Percent Reliabilitv at the Retail Level The most important feature of the
plan is the assurance that retail-level demands can be satisfied under all foreseeable
hydrologic conditions. The ability to achieve this level of service for Southern California's
retail water customers provides a solid foundation for a strong and healthy economy.
Least-Cost Armroach to Sustainable Reliability The Preferred Resource Mix represents the
least-cost approach to meeting the region's reliability goal, given the external forces and
constraints affecting imported supplies. From a narrow financial perspective, the
development of local resources, in some cases, may appear more costly than securing
incremental supplies from imported sources or from agricultural water transfers. During the
past decade, however, a new water management ethic has emerged in Southern California
that has provided the foundation for consensus solutions among urban, environmental, and
agricultural interests throughout the state. This demonstrated commitment to stewardship
will be an essential element in securing the statewide agreements necessary for long-term
reliable imported supplies. In this context, this plan is the least-cost, sustainable approach to
long-term regional reliability.
Achievement of Reoional Water Qualitv ObiectiveS A significant consideration that emerged
during the planning process was the importance of SWP deliveries in managing the region's
imported water quality. While MWD and its member agencies are committed to meet or
exceed all state and federal water quality requirements, the two major sources of imported
water have different water quality characteristics. Compared with SWP water, Colorado
River water has much higher concentrations of TDS or salinity. The Preferred Resource Mix
includes sufficient SWP supplies to allow for blending with Colorado River water throughout
the service area.
Reduced Risks Throuah Diversification The IRP process identified many risks associated
with additional local and imported supply development. The diversification of investments
offered in the plan reduces the region's exposure to the of a given investment not performing
up to expectations, in terms of cost, quality, or supply availability. It also reduces the
potential impact of an emergency such as a major earthquake. The Preferred Resources Mix
avoids the pitfalls of "putting all your eggs in one basket."
Flexibilitv to Adiust to Future Chanaes Besides reducing the exposure to risk through a
diversification strategy, the plan offers flexibility in response to uncertain future demands.
Specifically, the plan's reliance on voluntary water transfer option agreements and many
local resource projects allows the region to adapt more easily than possible with a program
of fewer, large capital and core resource investments. With the balanced approach called for
in the Preferred Resource Mix, as circumstances change, the pace of additional investments
can change as well. This flexibility will help provide financial security for MWD and its
member agencies. And while MWD is committed to following through with its financial
commitments to any given local project. The plan provides the ability to adjust overall
program commitments based on revised projections of need.
During the last three years, MWD, its member agencies, groundwater basin management agencies,
and other water providers have participated in the development of an Integrated Resources Plan
(IRP). This plan represents a dramatic shift in the way we look at water management now and into
the future. It replaces exclusive dependence on MWD for supplemental water with coordinated
approaches developed in conjunction with local resources. It implements water conservation
measures together with new supplies. And it searches for solutions that offer long-term reliability at
the lowest possible cost to the region as a whole.
This change did not occur overnight. Since the 1980s, MWD has gradually shifted from an exclusive
supplier of imported water to becoming a regional water manager -- providing not only imported
water. but also supporting local resource development, conservation and seasonal storage. The IRP
represents the fulfillment of this new role for MWD and the recognition that meeting Southern
California's future water needs is a shared responsibility among many water providers.
The IRP represents both a process and a plan. As a process, it broke new ground in communication
among the many water agencies and providers in the region. Most importantly, the process
achieved the coordination of hundreds of important initiatives and projects that were being
undertaken throughout Southern California. As a plan, it explicitly linked future supply reliability with
the necessary resource and capital investments.
In January of 1996, MWDs Board of Directors approved the IRP as a planning guideline to be used
for resources and capital facility investments. We expect that adjustments to this plan will be
necessary. In fact, the only certainty with long-range planning is that the future is often unpredictable
and never exactly what was projected.
Emeraencv Storaae Proiect
There is a real and important purpose and need for a project to meet the emergency water storage
demands for the San Diego Region for the short, medium, and long-term. As documented in the
project reports and as discussed in the EIWEIS, an earthquake or other calamity could significantly
disrupt service to the region. This risk has been identified in the studies as not insignificant. The
region, could be without water for drinking and domestic uses, fire suppression, agriculture, hospital
use, transmission of sewage, and other key health and safety programs. In addition, In the absence
of emergency water, the regional economy would be devastated, with a projected worst case loss of
408,000 jobs and $24.1 billion in lost sales, with the region reduced to a 40 percent of normal level
of water service if there were a month interruption in the water supply. The Board finds that these
risks are unacceptable and that the emergency water needs of the region must be met. In this
context, the purpose of the project is to increase regional reliability during emergency conditions.
The Board further finds that the approval does not result in disproportionate environmental
degradation or other Impacts to low income/minority communities within the San Diego region.
The Emergency Water Storage Project would develop approximately 90,100 acre feet of reservoir
storage and supporting distribution facilities (pipelines end pump stations) to supplement emergency
water supplies available to the region in case of a prolonged interruption of the imported water
supply. Staff has recommended the Olivenhain\Hodges\San Vicente Alternative (OMIS) as the
preferred alternative in the Final Environmental Impact ReporVEnvironmental impact Statement
(FEIWEIS) (pending). The OlHlS project has been identified as the environmentally superior and
4-1 0
overall preferred alternative The final decision selecting the alternative to be constructed rests with
the Authority Board and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
The proposed project, the Olivenhain/Hodges/San Vicente alternative, is estimated to cost
$530 million (1994 dollars). This could result in the Authority’s portion of the water rate increasing to
a maximum of $165 per acre-foot in the year 2008 (2008 dollars).
The Emergency Storage Project is included in the 1996-97 CIP budget at $3.5 million. These funds
are expected to cover completion of planning, permitting and initiation of design of the project. The
actions described here have no fiscal impact. Future approvals by the Board will be required to
formally adopt the project for funding and construction, establish future water rates, and approve the
allocation of funds for procurement actions (e.9. acquisition of mitigation lands, ROW acquisition,
consultant contracts, construction contracts, etc.). The $530 million cost estimate includes
construction, design, right-of-way acquisition, environmental mitigation, Authority staff administration
and contingencies.
State Water Project
Most of the entities with State Water Project Contract rights are located south of the Delta in the San
Francisco Bay, Central Coast, south San Joaquin Valley and Southern Coastal areas. Napa and
Solano counties are north of the Delta. None of these entities had prior rights to the use of the
waters of the BayIDelta watershed. (Three small entities in the Feather River watershed of the SWP
receive pre-existing water rights via the SWP, as well as a small amount of SWP water). Each SWP
contract specifies a maximum “entitlement“ for SWP water; a total of 4,217,786 acre-feet of
entitlement water is called for under all contracts. The SWP currently can not meet anywhere near
the total contractual entitlement. In years of short supply, shortages are shared proportionately,
based on the contractor‘s share of total entitlement.
Colorado River
The Colorado River is the second longest river in the continental United States. Its characteristics
were eloquently summarized by Justice Black in his opinion in Arizona vs. California.
“The Colorado River itself rises in the mountains of Colorado and flows generally in
a southwesterly direction for about 1,300 miles through Colorado, Utah, and Arizona
and along the Arizona-Nevada and Arizona-California boundaries, after which it
passes into Mexico and empties into the Mexican waters of the Gulf of it receives
tributary waters from California. On its way to the sea Wyoming, Colorado, Utah,
Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. The river and its tributaries flow in a natural
basin almost surrounded by large mountain ranges and drain 242,000 square miles,
an area about 900 miles long from north to south and 300 to 500 miles wide from
east to west -- practically one-twelfth the area of the continental United States
excluding Alaska. Much of this large basin is so arid that it is, as it always has been,
largely dependent upon managed use of the waters of the Colorado River System to
make it productive and inhabitable”.
4-1 1
The Colorado River Basin is divided into two regions, the: upper and lower basins. This division
came about as a result of a proposal by Herbert Hoover. The federal representative at the Colorado
River Compact negotiations. This proposal was developed because the states in what became the
upper basin were concerned that the lower basin states would put Colorado River water to beneficial
use before the upper basin and thus develop a priority:
The major legal dispute lies between the upper and lower basin. Indeed all the
problems very naturally divided themselves into two parts -- that is into the two
basins of the river separated by the canyon. The character of agriculture, industry,
and the engineering problems in the two basins are of widely different nature, and it
became the natural and logical thing to divide the Colorado River into two parts at
the canyon, and to assign to each part a certain portion of the flow of the river
permanently, and to develop the two basins as two separate principalities.
The Upper Basin consists of the Colorado River and its tributaries north of Lee Ferry, Arizona, and
encompasses the states of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. The river and its tributaries drain
approximately 110,000 square miles within the upper basin. The three primary tributary rivers of the
Colorado River in the upper basin are the Green, Gunnison, and San Juan rivers. The lower basin
consists principally of two rivers, the Colorado River and the Gila River, and encompasses portions
of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Most of the water supply of the lower basin comes
from the waters of the upper basin.
The waters of the Colorado River are governed by various treaties, acts of Congress, compacts,
agreements, and contracts, which collectively are known as the "Law of the River". This chapter will
summarize the Law of the River as it affects California and will give the reader an understanding of
how and why the waters of the Colorado River are allocated as they are.
The Colorado River ComDact
The compact was signed on November 22, 1924, and its provisions are described below. The
compact was the first one ever to be approved by Congress, and the first time the federal
government had ever subjected the exercise of federal powers to the terms of an interstate compact.
Article I outlines the purposes of the compact:
The major purposes of this compact are to provide for the equitable division and
apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to establish
the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water; to promote interstate
comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the
expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin, the
storage of its waters, and the protection of life and property from floods. To these
ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two Basins, and an apportionment of
the use of part of the water of the Colorado River System is made to each of them
with the provision that further equitable apportionments may be made."
Article II is the definitional section. Article II (a) defines the "Colorado River System" to include the
portion of the river and its tributaries in the United States. Article II (b) defines the "Colorado River
Basin" to include all of the drainage area of the Colorado River System and all other territory in the
United States where the waters of the Colorado River System are beneficially applied. Article II (f)
defines the "upper basin" to include the portions of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River System above Lee Ferry,
Arizona. The upper basin also includes all parts of these states located outside the Colorado River
System drainage which are beneficially served by waters diverted from the system above Lee Ferry.
According to Article II (g), the "Lower Basin" consists of the portions of Arizona, California, Nevada,
New Mexico, and Utah from which waters drain into the Colorado River System below Lee Ferry.
The lower basin also includes all parts of those states located outside the Colorado River System
drainage which are beneficially served by waters diverted from the system below Lee Ferry.
Article Ill apportions the waters of the Colorado River. Article 111 (a) allocates in perpetuity to both the
upper basin and the lower basin the right to a beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of
water each year. Additionally, Article 111 (b) gives the lower basin the right to increase its beneficial
consumptive use by up to 1 million acre-feet per year. Article 111 (d) requires the upper basin to
release 75 million acre-feet of water during each ten-year period at Lee Ferry, Arizona. Water to
satisfy the requirements of a Mexican water treaty would come from the surplus waters, and if no
surplus waters existed, the two basins would have their rights equally reduced. Article Ill (c).
In 1944, the United States and Mexico negotiated a water treaty concerning the Colorado River. The
treaty obligated the United States to deliver to Mexico 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year and up
to 1.7 million acre-feet of water in surplus years.
The Boulder Canvon Proiect Act
The Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA) sought to balance the interests of the lower basin in the
construction of the All-American Canal and a storage reservoir, with those in the upper basin
securing an inter-state agreement to protect against a lower basin water grab. The goals of the lower
basin states were satisfied in the purposes of the BCPA, which were set forth in Section 1 as being
for:
Controlling the floods, improving navigation and regulating the flow of the Colorado River, providing
for storage and for the delivery of the stored waters thereof for reclamation of public lands and other
beneficial uses exclusively within the United States, and for the generation of electrical energy as a
means of making the project herein authorized a self-supporting and financially solvent undertaking,
the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the terms of the Colorado River compact hereinafter
mentioned, is hereby authorized to construct, operate, and maintain a dam and incidental works in
the main stream of the Colorado River at Black Canyon or Boulder Canyon adequate to create a
storage reservoir of a capacity of not less than twenty million acre feet of water and a main canal
and appurtenant structures located entirely within the United States connecting the Laguna Dam, or
other suitable diversion dam, which the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to construct if
deemed necessary or advisable by him upon engineering or economic considerations, with the
Imperial and Coachella Valleys in California.
4-1 3
The Seven Partv Aoreement
Neither the Boulder Canyon Project Act nor the Colorado River compact allocated the Colorado
River water to users within the individual states. Therefore, the next step in utilizing California's
Colorado River entitlement was to allocate the water among California water users. By 1928, plans
were under consideration to use 6 million acre-feet of the Colorado River each year on 1.5 million
acres. The two primary competing interests were the Los Angeles and San Diego areas versus the
regions' agricultural interests. On February 21, 1930, the cities and agricultural interests entered into
a preliminary agreement allocating 3.85 million acre-feet of water each year to agriculture and
550,000 acre-feet of water to the MWD of Southern California. This agreement accounted for
4.4 million acre-feet of water. The next 550,000 acre-feet of water per year was allocated to the MW,
and all water available in the river for California use above 4.95 million acre-feet per year was
allocated to agriculture. This preliminary agreement did not allocate priorities internally within each
group.
When the Secretary of the Interior attempted to negotiate a contract for the All-American Canal with
the Imperial Irrigation District, it became clear that a more precise intrastate allocation of water was
needed. Although the agricultural allocation included the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella
Valley Water District, and the Palo Verde Irrigation District, there was no method to apportion the
water among them. Furthermore, a dispute had arisen between the MWD and the agricultural
interests involving the priority of use of the 4.4 million acre-feet of water. In November 1930, the
Secretary of the Interior requested that California make a recommendation as to the allocation and
priorities of parties to be given water contracts.
Consensus on priorities and allocation, the Seven Party Agreement, was reached on
August 18, 1931.20 Article I of this agreement apportioned the Colorado River water available to
California as follows:
Section 1. a first priority to Pale Verde Irrigation. District for beneficial use exclusively upon lands in said district as it now exists and upon lands between said district and
the Colorado River, aggregating (within and without said district) a gross area of
104,500 acres, such waters as may be required by said lands.
Section 2. a second priority to Yuma project of the United States Bureau of
Reclamation for beneficial use upon not exceeding a gross area of 25,000 acres of
land located in said proiect in California, such waters as may be required by said .. lands.
Section 3. a third priority (a) to Imperial Irrigation District and other lands under or
that will be served from the All-American Canal in Imperial and Coachella Valleys,
and (b) to Pale Verde Irrigation District for use exclusively on 16,000 acres in that
area known as the "Lower Pale Verde Mesa," adjacent to Pale Verde Irrigation
District for beneficial consumptive use, 3,850,000 acre feet of water per annum less
the beneficial consumptive use under the priorities designated in sections 1 and 2
above. The rights designated (a) and (b) in this section are equal in priority. The total
beneficial consumptive use under priorities stated in sections 1, 2, and 3 of this
article shall not exceed 3,850,000 acre feet of water per annum.
4-14
L
Section 4. a fourth priority to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
and/or the City of Los Angeles, for beneficial consumptive use, by themselves and/or
others, on the coastal plain of Southern California, 550,000 acre feet of water per
annum.
Section 5. a fifth priority (a) to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
and/or the City of Los Angeles, for beneficial consumptive use, by themselves and/or others, on the coastal plain of southern California, 550,000 acre feet of water per
annum and (b) to the City of San Diego and/or County of San Diego, for beneficial
consumptive use, 212,000 acre feet of water per annum. The rights designated (a)
and (b) in this section are equal in priority.
Section 6. a sixth priority (a) to Imperial Irrigation District and other lands under or
that will be served from the All-American Canal in Imperial and Coachella Valleys,
and (b) to Palo Verde Irrigation District for use exclusively on 16,000 acres in that
area known as the 'Lower Pale Verde Mesa,' adjacent to Palo Verde Irrigation
District, for beneficial consumptive use, 300,000 acre feet of water per annum. The
rights designated (a) and (b) in this section are equal in priority.
Section 7. a seventh priority of all remaining water available for use within California,
for agricultural use in the Colorado River Basin in California, as said basin is
designated on map No. 23000 of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation.
These priorities, summarized in Table 4.1, remain in use today, although agreements in 1946 and
1947 between MWD, the United States, and the City of San Diego provided for the consolidation of
the MWD and San Diego water allocations as a result of the decision to include San Diego in the
MWD. No contract was entered into between the United States and the City of Los Angeles because
the contract between the United States and MWD comprehends the rights recognized jointly, but not
cumulatively, in Los Angeles and MWD in the Seven Party Agreement. Arizona refused to ratify the
Colorado River compact until 1944 because it feared that California would take all of the Colorado
River water. This long-simmering dispute between the two states ultimately resulted in the 1964
Supreme Court opinion given in Arizona v. California.
Arizona v. California
The dispute between Arizona and California over the use of Colorado River water extends at least
as far back as the negotiations over the Colorado River compact. The completion of the compact did
nothing to diminish this animosity. In 1930, Arizona sued the Secretary of the Interior and the other
six lower basin states to prevent the construction of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal, to
enjoin contracts for delivery of stored water, and to have the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the
Colorado River compact declared unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court found that the
compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act were constitutional and that the Secretary could
construct Hoover Dam. In 1934, Arizona filed another lawsuit to perpetuate the testimony of the
negotiators of the Colorado River compact for use in a future action. The defendants were the other
six states, several California public agencies, and the Secretary of the Interior. The United States
Supreme Court denied Arizona's claim. -
4-1 5
.-
In 1935, the United States sued Arizona to enjoin its interference with the construction of Parker
Dam. Arizona had threatened to use military force and had physically prevented continuance of the
construction. The court denied the injunction on the ground that the United States could not show
that the Secretary was authorized to construct the dam. Later in 1935, Congress specifically
authorized the construction of Parker Dam. In 1935, Arizona also filed suit against California,
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming for a judicial apportionment of the
unappropriated water of the Colorado River. The Supreme Court denied the petition on the basis
that the United States was required to be a party.
Table 4.2 Colorado River Water Rlghts, Seven Party Agreement PriOrHles
Priority 1 Descriptlon I Acre Feet Annually
1
Carlsbad Municipal Water Master Pian, Water Resources Master Plan
I Palo Verde Irrigation District gross area 01 104,500 I Priorities 1, 2. and 3 shall
Priorities 1 2 and 3 shall
The Mexican Water Treaty
In 1944, the United States signed a treaty with Mexico concerning the Colorado River. The treaty
requires the United States to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year to Mexico and up to
1.7 million acre-feet of water in years when a surplus exists.
Pursuant to the terms of the Colorado River compact, this treaty obligation is to be met first out of
surplus waters. If there is no surplus, both the upper and lower basins must bear equal
responsibility.
Salinity is a major problem in the delivery of water to Mexico, although the Mexican water treaty did
not specifically mention the quality of water to be delivered at the Mexican border. Salinity control
efforts by states and the federal government date back to the early 1960s.
In 1972 and 1973, the United States entered into an additional agreement with Mexico to deliver
water to Mexico with a salinity not to exceed that of the water arriving at Imperial Dam by more than
115 milligrams per liter. Construction of the Yuma desalting plant was one measure undertaken to
deal with the salinity issue, as was the enaction of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of
1974.
Water Riahts of the ImDerial lrriaation Distrig
The Imperial Irrigation District has been involved in litigation on a number of key water rights issues.
The Bryant case in particular, involved the present perfected rights of Imperial, and the issue was
whether the use of Colorado River water delivered under contract with the Secretary of the Interior
was subject to the 160-acre limitation of reclamation law. In 1933, the Secretary of the Interior stated
that the 160-acre limitation did not apply. However, in 1964, the Department of the Interior took the
view that the limitation should apply to all Imperial Valley lands in private ownership. This later
position was rejected by the court, which held that the 160-acre limitation did not apply to Imperial
Valley lands that were under irrigation in 1929. Section 6 of the BCPA, which required the
satisfaction of present perfected rights, was held to override the acreage limitation. Thus Imperial's
present perfected rights could be satisfied without regard to the 160-acre issue.
The Colorado River Today
The Central Arizona Project
In 1968, Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Project Act. This authorization included the
Central Arizona Project (CAP), which Arizona had been seeking since prior to initiating the Arizona
vs. California litigation. Section 301 (b) of the Act subordinates deliveries of CAP water to the
deliveries of 4.4 million acre-feet in California, as well as to users in Arizona and Nevada who hold
present perfected rights or had diversion works as of the date the Act. Of Arizona's 2.8 million
acre-foot entitlement, approximately 1.5 million acre-feet is available to the CAP, it becomes more
evident that the long-term supply of the Colorado River has been over-estimated, and with the
increase in demands, Arizona has become increasingly concerned about this subordination
requirement. As the affected states negotiate possible changes in the present allocation of Colorado
River water, Arizona seeks relief from this provision. California has consistently taken more than its
4.4 million acre-foot entitlement by using the water that the CAP has not been taking. From 1987 to
1992, California's use averaged nearly 5 million acre-feet. In 1993, California used approximately
4.8 million acre-feet. In the early 1990s, the CAP was nearing completion and fears arose in
California that Arizona would soon begin taking its full share of the Colorado River. On
October 1, 1993, the Secretary of the Interior declared the CAP substantially complete. However,
CAP use remains considerably under its full share of Colorado River water. In 1987-1992, Arizona's
use averaged 2 million acre-feet, or 800,000 acre-feet less than its entitlement 35. Moreover, in
1992, it became clear that Arizona's agricultural CAP subcontractors were in serious financial
distress." Currently it appears unlikely that the subcontractors will be able to afford CAP water, and
the future of Arizona's use and its Colorado River entitlement are uncertain. In the meantime,
Nevada is growing rapidly and seeking additional water, and California seeks to maintain, if not
increase, the share it has been using.
Banking and Transfer of Entitlements
4-17
The Bureau of Reclamation has been seeking informal comments on certain draft regulations issued
In May of 1994. These regulations seek to inject some flexibility into the present allocation system
and to meet growing demands along the river. Both intra- and interstate leasing are permitted. The
water must have been previously used and made available either through conservation or land
fallowing. Such water may also be “banked in Lake Mead and later sold or used to offset excess
use. The regulations specifically permit Indian reservations to sell water for use off the reservation,
although they acknowledge that the authority for such use is questionable. Indeed, some experts
also question the Secretary’s authority to allow water banking and transfers generally without certain
changes in the Law of the River. The Bureau has asked the states to meet to see if some resolution
of the various issues can be worked out.
Quantification
The Bureau has also prepared a separate proposal to quantify the rights of the agricultural users.
Currently, these rights are fixed only in terms of the amount of water reasonably required for certain
lands or acreage. As a result, total agricultural use has at times exceeded the 3.85 MAF aggregate
entitlement. Clearly, the issue of such overruns and the program to bank and transfer water would
be facilitated if the agricultural rights of the individual districts were quantified. However, the
Bureau’s initial proposal received a hostile reception from most users, and its future remains
uncertain.
Endangered Species
The presence of endangered species on the Colorado River is another factor that may influence
water allocation and use. The federal government currently lists four species of fish that inhabit the
river as endangered: the razorback sucker, the Colorado squawfish, the humpback chub, and the
bonytail chub. Critical habitat has also been designated for these species. It is not yet clear how the
management of the Colorado River for the protection of these species will impact the availability of
water for consumptive uses.
Other Issues
Salinity is another problem that has not been rectified. The reverse-osmosis Yuma Desalting Plant
has been completed but is not in operation. The cost of operating the plant is nearly double the
amount originally anticipated, and alternative methods of salinity control are under evaluation. Latent
disputes on two issues between the upper and lower basin states also exist. The parties disagree as
to the burden of meeting the Mexican Treaty water obligation. They also disagree on whether the
upper basin must meet its Lee Ferry delivery obligations to the lower basin if doing so means that
the upper basin will not realize its 7.5 million acre-feet entitlement. Finally, under surplus conditions,
California is entitled to 50 percent of the surplus. However, a surplus in the lower basin has never
been declared, and specific criteria for determining surplus have never been adopted. The Bureau of
Reclamation is currently working on the development of such criteria.
In view of the changing needs for Colorado River water, it is likely that some modification in the
allocation of water will occur, achieved either by consensus or by the intervention of Congress or the -.
4-18
.-
courts. However, given the history of the river and the enormous interests at stake, one would not
expect changes to occur easily or soon.
The 1988 MWD-IID Agreement
A unique agreement reached between The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and
the Imperial Irrigation District represents a form of incentive conservation. Metropolitan and Imperial
both have rights to water from the Colorado River. Imperial has a higher priority to the Colorado
River supply than Metropolitan, but its conveyance facilities and unlined canals are older and involve
large losses. Faced with a State Board order requiring conservation of 100,000 acre feet annually,
Imperial finally reached an agreement with MWD. Under the agreement, MWD will pay a total cost
of about $222 million to finance both construction and operation costs within Imperial that are
designed to conserve approximately 106,000 acre feet of water annually. In return, MWD will receive
the water saved, diverted from the Colorado River through its own aqueduct system. This mutually
beneficial approach may serve as a model for other projects throughout the state.
4.3 Imported Water Supply
ReliaMllty
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District receives supplemental imported water from the San Diego
County Water Authority (SDCWA) which in turn purchases the imported water from the MWD. The
six-year drought of the late 1980s through the early 1990s has raised concerns throughout Southern
California as to the reliability of imported water in the event of another extended drought.
There are two aspects of water supply reliability to be considered. The first relates to immediate
service needs and is primarily a function of the availability and adequacy of facilities. This aspect
can be classified as emergency reliability. The second is driven by the availability of water which is
climate driven and can be classified as drought reliability. Both SDCWA and MWD are in the
prxess of implementing facilities to enhance emergency reliability. In addition, certain institutional
programs are either being developed or are being implemented which will address the resource
reliability in both the near term (present to 2010) and the long term (beyond 2010).
Near Term Reliability
For the near term, the relative reliability of imported water supply between SDCWA and the MWD is
virtually identical. The one issue that creates a difference is the Drought Management Plan of MWD.
The policies that drive this Plan have not been changed since the early 1990s. In effect the previous
Incremental and Interruptible Conservation Plan (IICP) can be considered as being the “official” plan
although it is very doubtful that MWD would implement it given the current political climate.
Implementation of the terms of the llCP under a water resource shortage situation would result in the
member agencies within SDCWA, and therefore CMWD, having to reduce their water consumption
by a greater percentage than the other member agencies within the MWD. This is because the
current allocation is based on equal shortage sharing of imported water by the 27 member agencies
of MWD rather than equal sharing by the end consumers. Each member agency’s deliveries would
4-19
be curtailed by the same percentage. For agencies with other sources such as groundwater, the
cut-backs to the end consumer could be less than for agencies relying heavily on imported water.
Some modifications to this program have been suggested by a few staff and MWD Board members.
However, it needs to be recognized that full conversion to equal shortage sharing at the consumer
level will be politically challenging to achieve at this time. One significant impediment to this
approach is the current Preferential Rights provision within the MWD Act which would require
legislative changes. The Preferential Rights refers to member agency capital contributions over the
years. The City of Los Angeles has greater preferential rights as compared to historical usage. This
could result in increased deliveries in times of droughts to such member agencies. The City of Los
Angeles feels very strongly about Preferential Rights. However, they have indicated a willingness to
discuss the issue with the MWD Board of Directors.
Without a change in the shortage provisions, the reliability of imported water supply is only impacted
by the degree to which various storage and alternative supply programs recommended in MWDs
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) have been implemented. Significant progress has been made over
the past three to four years with agreements with member agencies as well as with others for aquifer
storage programs as well as recycled water projects and groundwater recovery programs.
Implementation of these programs typically takes several years to design and construct facilities and
to place water in storage or bring it to use to replace imported water. As each of these facilities
develops, imported water is freed up for the benefit of the entire region thereby improving the
reliability.
With regard to near term reliability of the primary water resources, the Colorado River Aqueduct
(CRA) and the State Water Project (SWP), programs are under way which may improve reliability.
The Cal-Fed process is about to release their Environmental Impact RepotUEnvironmental Impact
Statement (EIWEIS) on the three alternatives for addressing the water supply and environmental
issues related to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It is anticipated that any of the alternatives
would improve the State Water Project reliability even if it does not increase the quantity of water
available. Adoption of the EIWEIS itself is liable to lead to greater near-term certainty as to the
operating rules for the SWP.
Recent studies on the Colorado River by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USER) have indicated
that the operating rules for the Lower Colorado River could result in an increase in the number of
years that MWD could continue to divert enough water to maintain a full (CRA) by adjusting the
percentage of probability for spill and for low water. These studies have not met with universal
acceptance, particularly among the other Basin States and the other California Parties.
Implementation of revised operating rules will require the development of a California Plan to
demonstrate how the State will live within its 4.4 million acre-feet entitlement in future years. David
Kennedy (Director of the Department of Water and Resources) is working with the Colorado River
Board and six California Agencies to develop such a plan which is acceptable to the California
Agencies and which results in a full CRA. No matter whether the water flowing in the aqueduct has
MWD's name or SDCWAs name on it, the Southern California imported water supply reliability will - be enhanced.
4-20
In addition to the proposed reoperation of the river, MWD is trying to obtain rights to bank water in
Lake Mead, a right which was intended to be granted in the 1931 Agreement which apportioned
California's Colorado River entitlement. Implementation of this banking right is also subject to the
resolution of the California Plan and approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
In conclusion, short term reliability is low because it is based on current policies. For example in a
drought, any percent reduction by MWD becomes the same reduction for the CMWD. This is
because the CMWD is 100 percent dependent on imported water.
Long Term Reliability
Regional long term reliability will be beneficially impacted by the implementation of major storage
facilities both by MWD and SDCWA. These facilities will provide emergency storage sufficient to
handle their respect service area needs with major aqueduct outages for as long as six months. In
addition, other facilities planned by each agency will add to the overall system reliability through
redundancy and system enhancements.
With regard to resource reliability, which is the primary issue during extended drought, continued
implementation of recycled water, groundwater recovery, conservation, groundwater storage and
conjunctive use programs by both MWD and SDCWA will enhance the region's ability to reduce
dependency on imported supplies during extended drought periods. Even with these local resource
and conjunctive use programs, additional resources are needed on a long term basis to meet the
projected increased in demands. The proposal by SDCWA to acquire conserved agricultural water
from the Imperial Irrigation District (ID) is exactly the type of core transfer program that the region
will need in the long term to ensure a full CRA. This program, plus the existing MWD/IID
conservation program and dry year transfers such as was demonstrated by the MWDlPalo Verde
Irrigation District land following program of a few years ago, will provide reliable Colorado River
supplies under future extended drought conditions. New environmental issues and demand with
other states makes CRW very uncertain.
The MWD's East side Reservoir will also improve resource reliability. This facility will allow storage
during good water years as well as allow for other beneficial programs such as conjunctive use.
The long term reliability of SWP supplies is more in question as of this writing due to status of the
Bay/Delta planning efforts. The long term quantity of water which can be relied on is unknown at this
time but can be assumed to be more reliable than in prior years. Additional reliable yield on the SWP
will require the construction of significant additional off-stream storage, such as Los Baiios Grande,
south of the Delta. Cost estimates for these facilities were last estimated at about $gOO/acre-foot of
new yield not including transport or treatment.
In order to reliably meet the total water resource needs of the region for the long term, new
resources will need to be developed. With the regulatory restrictions on both the Colorado River and
the SWP, as well as the significant costs of new yield on the SWP, local resources such as
expanded reclamation and even seawater desalination start to become more economically feasible.
MWD's current research and ongoing seawater desalination development still appears to be within
the range of $800/acre-foot when constructed on a scale of about 75 mgd per plant. This cost is less
than that estimated for Los Batios Grande. There is no doubt that some time during the next century
the region will be looking to the Pacific Ocean for their long term reliable water supply.
The differences between the long term reliability of MWD versus that of the SDCWA are more
difficult to ascertain. It really comes down to the policies that will be adopted in the next Drought
Management Plan and which is on the agenda of the Rate Refinement Task Force and should be
addressed by the MWD Board in the near future. Should the shortage sharing provisions be similar
to what existed within the llCP and be dominated by Preferential Rights issues, then the reliability of
SDCWA will be enhanced by their ownership of an independent supply such as is being proposed
through agreement with IID as this supply should not be subject to the regional cut backs. However,
should MWD move more towards an end user cut back allocation, the reliabilily benefits of an
independent supply to SDCWA customers will not exist. Under either scenario, as time progresses
and the San Diego region continues to develop, the impacts of Preferential Rights diminish
significantly and it is only the shortage sharing policies that will determine the relative reliability
issue.
Summary of MWD/SDCWA Reliability
The reliability of the imported water supply is complex and will depend on ongoing negotiations for
both the Delta and the Colorado River as well as implementation of MWD and SDCWA programs.
The SDCWA completed the most recent Water Resources Plan in February, 1997. This plan
projects water demands and sources under a variety of scenarios. For the entire service area, the
projected demand in the year 2015 is 870,000 AF/yr before conservation adjustments and
787,000 AF/yr with conservation. The plan also projects a potential shortfall of 200,000 AF/yr in dry
years. This figure was based on the MWD hydrologic model that includes both the Sacramento and
Colorado River systems. The SDCWA will attempt to make up this shortfall with other transfers such
as IID. However, a conservative case would be that the SDCWA could face a 25 percent cut-back,
or 75 percent of normal delivery, if transfers cannot be secured based on the SDCWA Water
Resource Plan.
Through structural programs being implemented by both MWD and SDCWA, emergency reliability
issues are being addressed. However if SDCWA does not construct the Emergency Storage Project
and there is a break in the treated water aqueduct, then the CMWD would need to depend on local
sources.
CMWD Reliability
The CMWD can implement local water resource programs such as reclamation or seawater
desalination to improve local supply reliability during drought. The biggest question would be the
proper capacity to assure the health and safety of the residents.
One approach to selecting local capacity is to review seasonal water demands to identify basic
health and sanitation needs. This water demand is approximately the lowest water demand that
occurs in the given year. It assumes irrigation demands are at their lowest due to rainfall and lower
temperatures. The demand therefore reflects the interior uses of potable water.
4-22
The normalized, monthly demand variations are shown on Table 4.3. This shows the monthly
variation in demand for the period from 1991 through 1995. The minimum demand occurs in March,
and this coincides with higher rainfall periods experienced in the San Diego region. The water
demand is about 55 percent of the average annual demand. This figure could then be used to
determine basic health and safety needs.
The 55 percent figure is much less than the 75 percent projection of normal SDCWA deliveries as
discussed above. Therefore, basic needs should be satisfied by imported water.
For 2015, the average annual CMWD water demand is projected to be 25.4 mgd. Accounting for the
existing reclamation program at 1.27 mgd (average annual) and a low estimate of future
conservation, the demand decreases to 22.86 mgd. Assuming a 25 percent cut-back in imported
supplies, the average annual local resource, with existing reclamation and conservation, would be
19.69 mgd. This represents 78 percent of the 201 5 demand, and the imported and local sources
should provide for a minimum level of reliability.
The CMWD could consider development of other local sources or reclamation to further improve
reliability. For example, development of the San Luis Rey water rights could add 3.23 mgd in local
resources. With existing reclamation, the total available resource could reach about 80 percent of
the normal projected demand. This is shown on column 2 of Table 4.4. With the same local supply
and the recommended, ultimate reclamation program, reliability could increase to 88 percent.
4-23
Table 4.4 Reliability Conditions at Year 2015
Carlsbad Municipal Water Master Plan, Water Resources Master Plan
Redamation with Reclamatton wkhout 3.23 mgd Local LoCel sum
Imported
Water pius
Imported 3.23mgd
Descriphon Water Only Load Supply An. No. 3 Alt. No. 7 Alt. No. 3 All. No. 7
Base Demand 25.40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25.40 25 40
Base Reclamation 1 27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1 27 1.27
Low Conservation 127 1.27 1.27 127 127 1 27
Base Imported 19.63 I 19.11 I 12.17 I 22.34 I 15.40
Demand
Drought Cutback I 5.72 I 4.91 I 4.78 I
Additional Local Supply I 0.00 I 3.23 I 3.23 I 3.23 I 0.00 I 0.00
Additional Reclamation 0.00 0.00 0.52 7.46 0.52 7.46
Total Resource 19.69 20.49 20.62 22.36 19.82 21.55
Percent Base Demand 77.5% 80.7% 81 .2?4 88.0% 78.0% 84.8%
Note: The quantities of reclaimed water are based on Alternatives 1 and 7 as contained in Volume IV,
Reclaimed Water Master Plan. These alternatives would provide for 2,000 and 9.780 AF/yr
respectively. Alternative No. 3 is the minimum yield alternative. Alternative No. 7 is the recommended
ultimate program.
4.4 Future Imported
Water Costs
Based on the above programs, estimated future costs of imported water are given on Tables 4.5 and
4.6. Table 4.5 reports costs for the MWD, for basic treated and untreated water for both domestic
and residential users. On Table 4.6, the first line projects the increment for the SDCWA. The
following rows are the sum of the SDCWA increment and the MWD cost.
There are other rates that apply to seasonal shill storage in reservoirs and groundwater basins that
are not included herein.
-
4-24
Note. Estimated rates are based on an annual escalation of Readiness to Serve is in $1,000. is for the entire District,
and is estimated at an increase of $8,000,000 per year. AddUional charges such as Connection Maintenance
Charge, New Demand Charge, and Wheeling Rates are not.
ITotal Wholesale Rates I
4-25
This chapter gives an overview of the various water resource opportunities available to the District.
These focus on local opportunities and include groundwater, sea water desalination, and surface
water. Reclaimed water, an additional resource, is discussed in Volume IV. To aid in discussion of
the opportunities, the location of each is shown on Figure 5.1.
Objectives
The objectives of this investigation are to identify the ground water quality conditions and availability
within the CMWD corporate boundaries and within the San Luis Rey watershed. The CMWD has
Pre-1914 water rights in the San Luis Rey River. The scope of this overview is based on a review of
existing information and studies. Additionally, where information is available, assessments will be
provided of the sustainable yields of the identified ground water resources along with estimates of
the basins pumping capacity and associated drawdowns. The following describes the type of
information searched for in the literature review, and uses of the information.
- Safe Ground Water Yield
The water budget of a basin is an assessment of the inflow and outflow components of ground water
flow. Water budget studies are typically performed to investigate the sustainable or safe yield of a
ground water basin. Fetter (1988) defines safe yield as:
"the amount of natural/y occurring ground water that can be withdrawn from an
aquifer on a sustained basis, economica//y and legally, without impairing the native
ground water quality or creating an undesirable effect such as environmental
damage.
Instances of environmental damage may include reduced stream flow, lowered lake levels, intrusion
of water of undesirable quality, and subsidence of the land surface. A specific environmental issue
for the Mission Basin is lowering of the water table to the extent the riparian habitat is impacted.
The sustainable yield can be calculated using a water balance approach where the change in
storage (AS) equals the inflow (I) minus the outflow (0). or AS = I - 0. Ground water inflow
components include precipitation infiltration, stream flow recharge, ground water flow from adjacent
basins, irrigation, and sewage effluent infiltration. Ground water outflow components include
domestic pumping, phreatophyte evapo-transpiration, stream baseflow, storm runoff, and ground
water outflow from the basin.
Changes in the amount of basin inflow and outflow over time result in a change of storage. These
changes in storage may be quantified by measuring changes in ground water elevations, volume of
saturated sediments, or storage coefficient (specific yield). An aquifer is defined as being in a steady
state condition when the inflow and outflow components are equal.
KiCMWh4332AW\VWCHS.RPT 5-1
Ground Water PumDina Caoacity
Several aquifer-specific parameters are used to assess the pumping capacity and associated
ground water drawdown of a ground water supply basin. These parameters include aquifer hydraulic
conductivity, storage coefficient, and specific capacity.
Hvdraulic Conductivity
This empirical parameter was developed by the French engineer Henry Darcy, who performed
systematic studies of water flow through porous media in the mid-nineteenth century. Through these
studies, Darcy determined the discharge of a fluid through a pipe filled with a porous medium was
proportional to the difference in the height of the fluid (hydraulic head) between the pipe ends, and
inversely proportional to the flow length. Darcy also determined that the quantity of flow is
proportional to a coefficient (K, hydraulic conductivity), which is dependent upon the nature of the
porous medium. Typically measured in gallons per minute through a cross section of one square
foot, the hydraulic conductivity relates the ease at which the fluid moves through a porous medium
Hydraulic conductivity magnitudes may be derived from aquifer tests, laboratory experimentation, or
approximated by visual observations of soil types with comparison to standard soilhydraulic
conductivity tables.
Storaae Coefficient
- This aquifer parameter is defined as the volume of water that a unit volume of aquifer releases from
storage under a unit decline in hydraulic head. It is a dimension-less property. Typically given as a
percentage, for a confined aquifer the storage coefficient is the product of the specific storage (e.g.,
the volume of water that a unit volume of aquifer releases from storage under a unit decline in
hydraulic head) and the aquifer thickness. For an unconfined aquifer, the storage coefficient is equal
to the specific yield or storativity (e.g., the amount of water that will drain or is available from an
aquifer due solely to the effects of gravity and a decrease in hydraulic head). The storage coefficient
is useful to determine the volume changes of ground water in an aquifer due to changes in ground
water elevations.
SDecific Caoacitv
Specific capacity is a measurement of the productivity of a well. Defined as the rate of discharge of a
water well per unit of drawdown, specific capacity is typically measured in gallons per minute per
foot. Specific capacity is controlled by the hydraulic parameters of the basin and the construction,
design, and condition of the producing well.
Ground Water QualiQ
The physical and chemical quality of ground water often determine its usefulness for industry,
agriculture, and municipal uses. Because water is a solvent for many salts and organic matter,
ground water contains a wide variety of inorganic and organic chemical constituents in varying
concentrations. Total dissolved solids (TDS) is one of the most common measurements of ground
water quality. The following (Table 5.1) represents a simplified ground water classification scheme
based on TDS (after Freeze and Cherry, 1979):
-
K-\CMWDU332AW\VOLZCHS.RPT 5-3
.-
Fresh Water
Brackish Water
Saline Water
0- 1,000
1,000- 10,000
in~nnn- inn.noo
-1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 Brine Water 1- Morn than lOOb00
Note: Ground water with a TDS greater than 2, 000 mg/L is generally too salty to drink.
In natural settings, the substances found occurring in ground water are often a function of the matrix
the ground water is contained in or passing through, and the material the water infiltrated through
from the surface. Thus the most common ions found in ground water include those also found in
rocks and sediments; sodium, magnesium, calcium, chlorine, carbonate, sulfate, and silicon. The
total concentrations of these ions typically account for more than 90 percent of the TDS measured in
ground water (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).
Two common practices resulting in degradation of ground water include agricultural fertilization and
overdraft of an aquifer. Continuous fertilization through the aquifer recharge areas often lead to
elevated concentrations of nitrate (N03) from infiltration of the contaminant back to the water table.
Nitrate (the main constituent of fertilizer) is the most common identifiable contaminant in ground
water (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Over draft of an aquifer (e.g., production beyond the aquifer
sustainable yield) also has the ability to degrade ground water quality. Overdraft will ultimately lower
the water table through the ground water basin to a point where recharge of the aquifer is through
either the upward or lateral diffusion of connate brines and/or juvenile water from surrounding
basement rocks or, if the aquifer is near the ocean, salt (sea) water intrusion. Proper water
management procedures are necessary to protect water supply aquifers from these and other forms
of degradation.
San Luis Rey Hydrologic Unit
The San Luis Rey Hydrologic Unit (SLRHU) is comprised of approximately 565 square miles of land
drained by the San Luis Rey River and its tributaries. Three Hydrologic Areas are contained within
the San Luis Rey Watershed: Lower San Luis located at the western extent of the SLRHU; the
Warner Valley located at the eastern end of the SLRHU; and, the Monserate located between the
two. Lake Henshaw, one of the largest water storage areas in the San Diego Region, intercepts the
San Luis Rey River approximately 7-8 miles east of Oceanside at the western end of the SLRHU
(Warner Valley HA).
5-4
Mission Basin
Mission Basin is a hydrologic sub-unit of the San Luis Rey Hydrologic Unit, Lower San Luis
Hydrologic Area. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) designates the
San Luis Rey Hydrologic Unit as Unit 3.00 and the Mission Hydrologic Sub-Unit as Unit 3.1 1
(RWQCB 1994). The 565 square mile drainage area of the San Luis Rey River discharges to the
Mission Basin. With a length of 6 miles and covering approximately 10 square miles in the lowest
portion of the Lower San Luis Rey Area, Mission Basin begins in the narrow canyon at the western
edge of the Bonsall Basin and extends downstream approximately 4 miles before it spreads into a
broad alluvial plain about 1.5 miles in width. At the western end of the basin the San Luis Rey River
enters a narrow canyon approximately 2 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean.
The geologic units in the San Luis Rey River valley area are divided into two main groups,
consolidated rocks of pre-Tertiary and Tertiaty age, and unconsolidated deposits of Quaternary age.
The younger unconsolidated Quaternary deposits are generally more permeable than the older
deposits and contain the majority of the ground water stored within the watershed.
The basin is bounded mostly by Tertiary age marine sedimentary deposits including the San Onofre
Breccia, of Miocene age, and the La Jolla Group of Eocene age. The ground water in both of these
units is saline (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 1960). The San Onofre Breccia
borders and underlies the basin on the downstream, western edge and is composed of low
permeability cemented sand, sandy shale, and shale (DWR, 1960) The La Jolla Group borders and
underlies most of the rest of Mission Basin with the exception of the northern edge of the upstream
canyon which is bounded by pre-Tertiary basement complex. Only slightly permeable, the La Jolla
Group is composed of finegrained, well sorted, wellcompacted, and generally slightly cemented
sand with a few beds of sandy shale and shale (DWR, 1960).
At the west end of the basin where it meets the ocean, the San Luis Rey River has cut through and
exposed the well cemented San Onofre Breccia. Here the alluvial valley narrows from a width of
1.5 miles to a width of several hundred feet (USGS, 1985).
Overlying the Tertiary age sediments are the younger Quaternary age alluvium and river channel
deposits which average 150 feet in thickness throughout the basin and attain a maximum thickness
of 220 feet at the basin center (USGS, 1974). The upstream, eastern end of the basin is reportedly
unconfined (Welch, 1995). Near the center of the basin, the major water bearing sediments are
composed of a highly permeable coarse, clean sand and gravel overlain by a thick sequence of fine
sand, silt, and clay in the west-central and northern sections of the basin. This approximately 50-feet
thick finegrained sequence which occurs at around 40 feet below grade separates and confines the
lower aquifer from the water table aquifer (NBS Lowry) Slow drainage from the confining member
into the more permeable lower zone reportedly causes the system through this area to operate
similarly to a water table aquifer under long-term condtions (USGS, 1974). Data was not presented
to support this statement. Review of drillers logs maintained at the DWR confirm the existence of
fine-grained sediments in the northern and central sections of the basin but suggest the layers may
be highly localized and occur at varying depths and thicknesses.
-
r
5-5
- Ground Water Use
In addition to state and federal water resource studies of the Mission Basin, four studies have been
completed for the City of Oceanside to evaluate the potential for Oceanside to develop the ground
waters of Mission Basin. These four studies are Phase-/ Report, Balanced Water Management
Project, by NBSILowry, June 19,1992; Groundwater Recharge and Water Qualify Issues, by
NBSILowry, February 1993; Evaluation of Groundwater Pumping, by Michael R. Welch, Ph.D.,
September 1995; and Supplemental Groundwater Pumping Ana&&, Michael R. Welch, Ph.D.,
February 1996.
According to a USGS report, with the exception of the northern and central portions of the valley, the
majority of groundwater throughout the Mission Basin exists in an unconfined state (USGS, 1974).
Until the late 1950s to early 196Os, the City of Oceanside depended solely on groundwater from the
Mission Basin for potable and irrigation uses (Welch, 1995). Significant over drafting of the aquifer
during the mid 1950s to early 1960s caused water elevations to drop 10 - 30 feet below sea level
with localized elevations measured at the pumping wells to 70 feet below sea level (NBSLowry,
1993). According to NBS/Lowry, seawater intrusion from over-pumping of groundwater at the
western basin margin and lateral and upward migration of saline water from the older marine
deposits deteriorated groundwater quality to below state and federal standards. Decreased use of
groundwater since 1965, increased use of imported irrigation water, and infiltration of treated
sewage have recharged the groundwaters of the basin to pre-pumping levels. For instance, during
heavy groundwater use the San Luis Rey River was an ephemeral stream and for some years did
not flow at all. With the increase of imported irrigation water and decrease of groundwater pumping,
the San Luis Rey River is now a perennial stream. In a groundwater quality survey performed by the
USGS in 1983, only three domestic and 17 agricultural wells were identified as in use. Current
information concerning the number of wells producing groundwater from the Mission Basin was not
available for this report.
In 1992 the City of manside began extracting 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) 2,800 acre-feet per
year (AF/yr) of brackish groundwater to provide 2 mgd of potable water through its Mission Basin
Desalting Facility (Welch, 1995). This water is provided from three wells located adjacent to the
desalting facility that tap semiconfined groundwater (NBS/Lowry, 1992). An additional 3.6 mgd to
5.2 mgd (4,000 to 5,800 AF/yr) of groundwater at two wells referred to as the North River Road well
field approximately two miles east and upstream of the desalting facility is under design. The
maximum groundwater extraction currently under consideration by the City of Oceanside is
therefore 7.7 mgd (8,600 AF/yr or 17 cubic feet per second). According to NBS/Lowry (1992) the
City of Oceanside has rights to 22 cubic feet per second of surface and groundwater from the San
Luis Rey River.
Groundwater Quality
Early groundwater quality measurements (1918) in the basin indicated TDS concentration of
450 mg/L (USGS, 1985). No basin wide of water quality data has apparently been compiled since
the data reported by the USGS in 1985. After development of the aquifer for municipal use by the
City of Oceanside in 1930, TDS concentrations began to increase both in response to seawater
intrusion and up welling of connate waters contained in the marine sediments underlying the basin
-
-
- alluvium. After 1965, as a result of decreased pumping, agricultural return from irrigation with
imported water, and increases in groundwater recharge, additional changes in groundwater quality
were appearing. In the eastern parts of the aquifer where wells had not been affected by seawater
intrusion, TDS concentrations began to increase. Decreases in TDS concentrations were observed
in wells located in the western portions of the basin where the trend of seawater intrusion was
reversing. Groundwater quality in the basin is considered marginal for potable and irrigation use with
TDS concentrations greater than 1,500 mg/L in the western portions of the basin and 1,000 to
1,500 mg/L in the central and eastern portions (NBS/Lowry, 1992). (NBS/Lowry, considers the use
of applied water (irrigation) in the valley as the principal reason for the current increases in TDS
concentrations. The net effect of evaporation of irrigation water which leaves the soluble salts behind
in the soil, application of salt-containing fertilizers, and ultimate transport of the concentrated salts to
the aquifer will, according to (NBS/Lowry, continue to increase the dissolved solids load of the basin
aquifer.
Groundwater Occurrence
Recent piezometric surfaces in the basin remain relatively unchanged from the 1984-1985
elevations which ranged from a mean of 20 feet above sea level in the western portion of the basin
to more than 70 feet above sea level in the eastern portion (NBS/Lowry, 1993). Groundwater flows
from the upper elevations in the eastern portion of the basin westward to the ocean with gradients
ranging from 0.0014 Wft to 0.0032 Wft(l983 USGS measurements). Depths to groundwater typically
range from 0 to 20 feet below grade with the gradients closely paralleling the ground surface
throughout the basin (USGS, 1985).
Safe Yield Estimates
Water balance calculations for the Mission Basin have been performed by both the USGS (1974)
and (NBS/Lowry, (1993). The USGS used basin data collected during the years 1940- 1972.
(NBS/Lowry, used basin data principally collected during the years 1967-1990. USGS data indicate
the basin was operating at a net loss of groundwater (e.g., pumping and outflow were greater than
recharge) through the years 1947-1 958, when pumping for agricultural and municipal uses averaged
approximately 4,300 acre-feet per year (AF/yr). Pumping was greatly reduced after 1958, to an
eventual low of 10 AF/yr in 1972, and waste discharge was increased during the same period. The
USGS concluded that steady state conditions would exist for a sustainable yield of 6,700 AF/yr
(USGS 1974), (NBS/Lowry, in 1993, estimated that the sustainable yield of the basin had increased
to approximately 10,000 AF/yr with the difference due to an estimated threefold increase of infiltrated
water from the San Luis Rey River and Pilgrim Creek. NBS/Lowry's basis for the higher infiltration
rate is an increase in surface water flow as documented by USGS stream flow records. The
increased flow is likely due to the use of imported water for agricultural and residential use beginning
in the mid 1960s.
Assuming a safe yield of 10.000 AF/yr and a full scale groundwater extraction program by the City of
Oceanside of 8,600 AFlyr, as is under consideration (Welch, 1996), the remaining available safe
yield of groundwater from the basin for other users would be 1,400 AF/yr.
-
.-
5-7
Groundwater Pumping Capacity
Aquifer testing has been performed in the Mission Basin most recently by Stetson Engineers, Inc.
(Stetson, reported by (NBWLowty, 1993) and Michael R. Welch (1995).
Stetson conducted a 72-hour constant discharge test at well MW-140 located at the desalting facility.
The flow rate for the test was not reported. Well MW-140 is apparently completed to a total depth of
240 feet below grade. The well is screened below a 50-foot thick silt layer in poorly graded sand
from 90 to 150 feet below grade. A shallow monitor well completed across the water table provided
information on the water table's response to pumping at depth. Test data indicate that groundwater
occurs in a semi-confined state below the silt layer. The transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and
coefficient of storage of the pumping interval were reported as 18,800 f?/day, 310 Wday and 5.1~10~.
Welch conducted step and constant rate aquifer tests on two newly-installed, City of Oceanside
groundwater wells at the North River Road well field (Wells No. 4 & 5 located approximately 500 feet
apart). Continuous pumping of Well No. 4 at an average rate of 1230 gallons per minute (gpm) for
approximately 55 hours induced a 1 foot drawdown in Well No. 5. Continuous pumping of Well No. 5
at approximately 1,130 gpm for a similar period of time resulted in a 0.6 foot drawdown in Well No.
4. For each test, the well not being pumped was used as an observation well. Both wells are
completed to a depth of 140 feet below grade and screened from 65 feet below grade to 130 feet
below grade. The wells reportedly encounter unconfined groundwater. However, lithologic logs and
well construction data were not included in the report to document this interpretation (Welch, 1995).
The average transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of the two tests were reported as 6,500 */day
and 100 Wday. A storage coefficient was not calculated by Welch from the test data but was
estimated without documentation at 0.15.
Stetson used the aquifer test data from MW-140 to calibrate an unconfined transient groundwater
model. It is not clear if the calibration included accounting for the semi-confined conditions observed
at the site. The model was used to calculate groundwater drawdown at the pumping well and the
radius of influence in the surrounding aquifer due to pumping after 72-hours of pumping. Model
parameters were adjusted to match calculated drawdown in the pumping well to observed
drawdown. Specific documentation of these adjustments including accounting for well efficiency was
not included in the report. Drawdown and radius of influence simulations were performed using two
withdrawal rates (2.0 and 5.0 mgd) at two locations. With a 2.0 mgd withdrawal, production well
drawdown was calculated at 12 feet with a radius of influence of approximately 2,000 feet. The
resultant piezometric surface was estimated to range from 13 to 14 feet mean sea level. Based on
these 72-hour estimates of drawdown, Stetson reported no significant impacts from long term
pumping are expected on the water table of the shallow aquifer nor the water level and flow in the
San Luis Rey River channel.
Welch used the steady state unconfined groundwater flow equation and assumed that under
average hydrologic conditions the river represents a constant head boundary condition to estimate
drawdown. Welch concluded that pumping both wells at 1,250 gpm (approximately 4,000 AF/yr)
would result in an elliptical pattern of groundwater drawdown with minimal drawdown occurring near
the river. A maximum drawdown of 3 to 4 feet was estimated with drawdown of 2 feet occurring at a
distance of 1,500 feet perpendicular to the river. Under drought conditions, when stream flow could
.
-
-
K3CMWGU33ZAWIVOLXHS.RPT 5-8
,-- not sustain a constant head boundary, drawdown due to pumping the aquifer at a rate of 4,000 AF/yr
would result in groundwater drawdown of 2 feet at a distance of approximately 2,400 feet in all
directions from the pumping wells. Maximum drawdown was estimated between 8 feet and 10 feet.
Welch predicted no impact to vegetation or habitat under the 4,000 AF/yr or 5.800 AF/yr pumping
scenarios.
Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit
The Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (CHL) encompasses an approximately triangular-shaped area of
21 0 square miles of drainage (RWQCB 1994). The CHL boundaries extend laterally from Lake
Wohlford west to the Pacific Ocean, and from Vista south to Cardiff-By-The-Sea. Six hydrologic
areas further dividing the CHL include the Loma Aha, Buena Vista Creek, Agua Hedionda, Encinas,
San Marcos, and Escondido Creek. Waterways draining the area include the creeks Buena Vista,
Agua Hedionda. San Marcos and Esoondido.
Four major coastal lagoons are contained within the boundaries of the CHL: Buena Vista, Agua
Hedionda, Batiquitos, and San Elijo. The northernmost lagoon, Buena Vista, lies within both the City
of Oceanside and the City of Carlsbad. The lagoon is fed fresh water from vista Creek which
combines both surface runoff, rain infiltration, and return irrigation.
Agua Hedionda lagoon is completely within the City of Carlsbad city limits and receives fresh water
from the Agua Hedionda Creek. The lagoon serves both the cooling of the adjacent power
generating utility and water sports recreation in the eastern portion of the lagoon. The mouth of the
lagoon leading to the Pacific Ocean is occasionally dredged to ensure free flow of the lagoon with
the ocean and continued cooling of the power plant.
Batiquitos Lagoon is located between the City of Carlsbad and the unincorporated community of
Leucadia. San Marcos Creek drains into Batiquitos Lagoon approximately 2.6 miles from the ocean
(City of Carlsbad). The San Elijo Lagoon is located between Cardiff-By-The-Sea and Solana Beach.
The majority of the San Elijo Lagoon is tidal marsh which, although typically closed off from the
ocean, is tidally influenced. The San Elijo Lagoon is fed fresh water from Escondido Creek
(RWQCB 1994).
The City of Carlsbad encompasses a varied topographic profile including higher elevation wave-cut
terraces and attendant canyons in the east, to flatter, lower-elevation depositional related plains in
the west. Four distinct drainage basins have been identified within the city limits including Buena
Vista, Agua Hedionda Creek, Encinas Creek, and the Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed (City of
Carlsbad 1994). Alluvium in these basins store groundwater that may be beneficial to the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District. However, little or no information has been collected on the
hydrostratigraphy, groundwater occurrence, water quality, sate yield, and pumping capacity of these
basins. An upper end estimate of groundwater for the four drainage basins in Carlsbad has been
developed by AVI by scaling the Mission Basin safe yield estimate. These estimates are derived by
taking the ratio of the drainage area of the individual basins in Carlsbad to the drainage area of the
Mission Basin, then multiplying by the estimate of groundwater recharge for the Mission Basin as
estimated by NBS/Lowry. These estimates do not take into account different land use practices, the
probability that average rainfall is greater in the Mission Basin whose larger drainage area likely
_-
-
K!CMWD!d332AWWOLXHS.RPT 5-9
.- includes areas of higher elevation and therefore higher rainfall; the limited storage capacity of the
alluvium in the smaller Carlsbad basins, or the differences in soil moisture capacity. Despite this, the
estimates may prove useful to evaluate whether the groundwater resource has sufficient potential
value to justify further evaluation.
Buena Vista Creek
Buena Vista Creek is a Hydrologic Area (HA 4.20) contained within the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit
(HU 4.00). Draining an area of approximately 19 square miles, the HA is further divided into the El
Salto (HSA 4.21) and Vista (HSA 4.22) Hydrologic Sub-Areas (RWQCB 1994). The drainage area is
long and narrow extending from the San Marcos Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, a distance of
approximately 9 miles. Several tributaries and Vista Creek combine surface flow that ultimately
drains into the Buena Vista Lagoon, entering the lagoon approximately 1.4 miles east of the ocean
(City of Carlsbad 1994). Information on the water balance of the Buena Vista Creek HA was not
available for this report. The estimate of groundwater recharge based on the Mission Basin estimate
is 340 AF/yr. The limited water quality data available for review was provided by the DWR (1988)
and included only wells within the Vista HSA. Analysis of groundwater collected from 3 wells
indicated an excess of nitrates (above primary drinking water standards) with total dissolved solids
ranging from marginal to unacceptable for municipal and irrigation uses. Overall, the mineral content
of the groundwater increased in a downstream direction. Depths to groundwater closely mimicked
topography ranging from 10 to 60 feet below grade and at elevations from 320 to 630 feet above - mean sea level.
Aaua Hedionda Creek
The Agua Hedionda Creek Hydrologic Area (HA 4.30) drains an area of approximately 29 square
miles. Hydrologic subareas contained within the Agua Hedionda Creek HA include Los Monos
(HSA 4.31) and Buena (HSA 4.32) (RWQCB 1994). Agua Hedionda and Buena Creek are the main
surface drainage features of the HA with Buena Creek accounting for approximately 6 square miles
of the total area drained. Agua Hedionda Creek originates in the hills south of San Marcos Mountain
with Buena Creek originating in the San Marcos Mountains (City of Carlsbad 1994).
As part of a groundwater quality study, the DWR collected samples from 13 wells in the Agua
Hedionda Basin for chemical and physical analysis. The study reported groundwater quality in the
Agua Hedionda HA as marginal to poor for municipal uses, and marginal to unsuitable for irrigation
(DWR 1988). TDS concentrations ranged from 818 to 2020 mg/L and tended to increase in the
downstream direction. Also detected at elevated concentrations were chlorides, sulfates, calcium,
magnesium, and sodium. The water is classified as hard to very hard (DWR 1988). Laboratory
analysis of two surface samples collected from Agua Hedionda Creek detected the same
constituents as found in the groundwater but at slightly lower concentrations. Groundwater
elevations through the basin ranged from approximately 350 feet above sea level in the eastern
highland areas to 50 feet above sea level at the western extent of the basin (DWR 1988).
Groundwater was found to closely follow surface topography. No information concerning basin water
balance was available for this report. The estimate of groundwater recharge based on the Mission
Basin estimate is 510 AF/yr.
-
5-10
P Cannon Well Field
The Cannon well field is located on the north side of El Camino Real, south of the Rancho Carlsbad
Golf Course. The well field was reportedly developed in the early 1950s with installation of
4 groundwater supply wells (Barrett Consulting Group 1991). Boring and well installation logs for
these wells were not available. The wells reportedly supplied the CMWD during the years 1958
through 1962 at an averaged rate of 163AFlyr (1958-1961). During the 1961-1962 period, only
16 AF/yr were pumped from these wells. Additional information concerning the decrease in well
production and the ultimate discontinued use of these wells was not available. A presumed long
term yield from these wells was reported at approximately 400 AF/yr (Barrett Consulting Group
1991) however, no data supporting this estimate nor the method of estimation was reported.
The 1991 report states that two of the wells had been abandoned and two of the wells were inactive
and in a state of disrepair. The report recommended drilling a test 16-inch test well, and if
successful, equipping it with a 200 gpm pump. The water would be blended with other non-potable
water sources and used on a proposed golf course.
The quality of this resource could be marginal. As reported for Agua Hedionda Creek, the TDS
concentrations could reach 2000 mg/L. The Barret report estimated the quality ranging from 1300 to
1500 mg/L. This was based on sampling of various wells located within the Agua Hedionda Creek
Hydrologic area. The present quality is not known.
Due to blending limitations, it is probable that demineralization would be required to reduce the TDS
to 1,000 mg/L. This would result in a net decrease in the estimated resource by about 20 percent.
This represents the reject brine stream. The brine should not be returned to the sewer, as this would
impact the wastewater quality for further reclamation.
If developed, the well discharge would connect to the proposed 20-inch reclaimed water line in
Cannon Road. Estimated capital costs for the well, pipeline, and sealing of the existing wells is
$227,000. The cost of the demineralization unit would add another $1,287.000 in capital costs and
$54,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs, including power. The equivalent cost of water,
including annual capital cost, operations and maintenance, and power is estimated at $80 per AF
without demineralization. This increases to $647 per AF with demineralization.
Encinas Creek
The Encinas Creek Basin (HSA 4.40) drains an area of approximately 3.9 square miles with the long
and narrow drainage paralleling Palomar Airport Road. Basin elevations range from 0 to 440 feet
above sea level through its maximum length of 22,000 feet. Information concerning wells located in
the Encinas Basin, basin yield, or groundwater quality were not available for this report. The
estimate of groundwater recharge based on the Mission Basin estimate is 70 AF/yr.
Batiauitos
The Batiquitos Hydrologic Subarea (HSA 4.51) is located within the San Marcos Hydrologic Area
(HA 4.50) of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (RWOCB 1994). The entire watershed drains
approximately 46 square miles and is further divided into the San Marcos Creek and Encinitas
-
-
K3C\CMWD’433ZAW\VOLXHS.RPT 5-1 1
Creek drainage areas. San Marcos Creek originates in the San Marcos Mountains and is
intercepted by Lake San Marcos within the San Marcos Corporate Boundary. From Lake San
Marcos the creek flows southwest approximately 4 miles before entering the Batiquitos Lagoon
2.6 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Watershed surface elevations range from 0 to 1700 feet above
sea level. Published information on the basin yield or water quality was not available for this report
but the approximately 600 acre lagoon is estimated to provide considerable storage during large
floods (Carlsbad Planning Dept. 1994). This surface water storage will contribute to groundwater
recharge. The estimate of groundwater recharge based on the Mission Basin estimate is 810 AF/yr.
This resource should not be considered as viable without additional investigations. No specific
information exists on quality or yield.
Published information on groundwater conditions in the Mission Basin is extensive, however
acquisition of additional selected hydrogeologic data may be useful to reduce the uncertainty of the
estimate of available groundwater. In contrast, hydrogeologic information for basins within the City of
Carlsbad is limited. Upper end estimates of groundwater recharge have been provided for the
CMWD basins to support an evaluation whether the expense of basin specific investigations are
justified.
In the Mission Basin, most of the basic parameters for groundwater resource evaluation have either
been obtained or the data necessary to calculate the parameters have been obtained (Table 5.2).
Basin specific information lacking includes storage coefficient values and specific capacity values.
Data to support calculations for both of these parameters should be available from previous work.
Storage coefficient values, in particular, are important in managing the basin since this parameter is
used to calculate the volume of groundwater available for extraction based on the thickness and
extent of saturated sediments.
Two groundwater extraction well fields have been selected by the City of Oceanside. One well field
is located adjacent to Oceanside's desalting plant. The second well field, the North River Road well
field, is about 2 miles east of the desalting plant. The North River Road well field is comprised of two
pumping wells and is tentatively planned to extract 5 mgd of groundwater.
Stetson, under contract to NBSlLowry, estimated the extent of drawdown at the desalting plant well
field. Stetson reported that drawdown of the potentiometric surface while pumping 2 mgd or 5 rngd
would not fall below 14 feet msl, assuming a static potentiometric surface of 29 feet msl. Initial
modeling results were not representative of site conditions in that unconfined conditions were
assumed which would underestimate drawdown. Subsequent aquifer test results indicated leaky
confined conditions prevailed in the primary aquifer.
-
5-1 2
Groundwater MWn
PWamSaerS Basin
&rem Agua %%ta Hedlonda Enconas l3ati~uRos Creek Basin anWrk BaeB, convne(rts
Welch estimated the extent of drawdown that may occur at the North River Road well field.
Estimates of drawdown under nondrought conditions assume a sustainable constant head boundary
along the river. Overall average flow rates reported by Welch suggest this is a reasonable
assumption. Data was not reviewed to confirm that stream flow at this location of the basin is
available year round to sustain this boundary condition. Welch (1995) used a storage coefficient of
15 percent which appeared to be a non-site specific value. Though this value is not an unreasonable
value for a literature reference, it is on the high side for storage coefficients. Drawdown calculations
using overestimated storage coefficient values can under predict the amount of drawdown
associated with a given pumping rate.
-
Safe Yield
Pumping Capacity
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Storage Coefficient
Specific Capacity
Groundwater
Quality
5-13
X X Safe yield at Agua
Hedionda, reported for !he
Cannon well field only.
X X Historic pumping rates
reported for the Cannon
well field without calculated
parameters.
but not for lithology
bordering the basin.
Data to calculate the
storage coefficient at the two aquifer test sites in the
Mission Basin has probably
been collected by (1996)
and Stetson (1991).
Data to calculate the
specific capacity in the
Mission Basin has probably
been collected by Welch
(19%).
X Data obtained for alluvium
X X X Comprehensive water
quality data for the Mission
Basin appears to be about
15 years old.
- Though good evidence has been provided that suggests sea water intrusion into the basin could be
a minor issue, basin specific hydrogeologic data and simplified hydraulic calculations to evaluate
sea water intrusion do not appear to have been conducted. Hydraulic conductivity and storage
coefficient of the San Onofre Breccia which reportedly bounds the alluvial basin near the Ocean has
not been estimated or measured. If available, these data could be used to estimate the change in
water quality in the alluvial aquifer in response to pumping.
Basin wide groundwater quality data presented by NBS/Lowry (1992 and 1993) is current up to the
early 1980s. No comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring has apparently been conducted
since then. Without documentation of the variation of groundwater quality across the basin before
extensive pumping begins, it will be difficult to assess how pumping has affected water quality.
The groundwater recharge estimate calculated by NBSLowry (1993) for the Mission Basin is
greater than the groundwater recharge estimate calculated by the USGS (1973). The increase in
recharge is appropriately attributed to the increase in imported water used in the basin. Some of this
water is recharged to groundwater via stream flow along the San Luis Rey River. However, the
amount of surface water recharging groundwater may decrease with the construction of the
improved channel on the San Luis Rey River. The purpose of the channel is to move surface water
out of the basin and into the ocean more quickly during rainfall events. This may also result in more
rapid flow of surface water out of the basin even during dry season flows. By reducing the time
surface water is in the drainage channel the volume of water that infiltrates through the channel is
likely to be reduced. No estimate of how the channel improvement may decrease groundwater
recharge has been found in the groundwater reports reviewed by AVI.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Following provides conclusions and recommendations for the Mission Basin and the Carlsbad
Hydrologic Unit.
-
Mission Basin
Based on water balance calculations, NBSLowry reports that the sustainable yield of groundwater in
the Mission Basin is 10,000 AF/yr. The City of Oceanside has preliminary plans to pump from 7,000
to 8,600 AF/yr from the basin leaving the balance for other users. Based on the previous evaluation
of published information, the estimated safe yield of the Mission Basin may be over- estimated for
the following reasons: . Estimated long term drawdown at the desalting plant well field are based on calculated
results after 72 hours of simulated groundwater pumping. The piezometric surface is
estimated to be approximately 14 feet above mean sea level (msl). These drawdown
estimates have not necessarily achieved steady state conditions. Additionally, it is not clear
whether adjustments to the groundwater model included changing from an unconfined to a
leaky confined condition. If the estimated drawdown was based on unconfined conditions,
the results of the model would under estimate the amount of drawdown. One of the
groundwater management goals, as stated in NBS/Lowry (1992), is to maintain piezometric
levels above 10 feet msl. These two factors may provide an overly optimistic assessment
that this goal can be met. Since pumping is now underway, it is a simple task to monitor
actual drawdown and compare to the estimated drawdown and the groundwater
K1CMWW332ALWVOLZCHS.RPT 5-14
management goals. Observation wells at the water table and in the pumping zone should be
installed to observe changes in water level elevation and water quality. The storage coefficient value used to estimate drawdown at the North River Road well field
is not a site specific value. The value used (15 percent) is on the high side of the range of
storage coefficients. If the storage coefficient is over estimated, the amount and extent of
drawdown would be under estimated. Data should be available from previous aquifer tests to
calculate a site specific storage coefficient.
Channel improvements to the San Luis Rey River may result in a decrease in groundwater
recharge. The effect of the new channel should be evaluated. Channel design documents
may be useful in conducting this evaluation. Empirical evidence suggests that sea water intrusion will probably not constrain pumping in
the basin. However, no calculations have been published to demonstratively support this
qualitative assessment. Laboratory or insitu measurements of hydraulic conductivity, storage
coefficient, and effective porosity can be obtained to support simplified, noncalibrated
hydraulic calculations. If it is infeasible to obtain site specific values, estimates from literature
could be used. A comparison of the potential water treatment costs associated with
increased total dissolved solids to the cost of sea water intrusion calculations could be used
to determine the merits of a more quantitative sea water intrusion evaluation.
Additionally. basin wide water quality data records are out of date. A monitoring well network
comprised of existing, and if necessary, new wells should be established and a semi-annual
groundwater monitoring program implemented. These data will identify how water quality and water
level elevations change in response to groundwater extraction.
.
.
.
- If the CMWD is considering using its existing water supply wells, well rehabilitation will be
necessary. The initial condition of the wells can be assessed using video logs. Based on the video
logging, a method of well development can be proposed and the wells pump tested for hydraulic
parameters and well efficiency. A second round of video logging may be useful for at least one well
to evaluate the effectiveness of the well development procedures.
If the CMWD were to redevelop their groundwater rights, a desalting facility would have to be sited
either adjacent to the existing wells or somewhere in Carlsbad. A new pipeline would need to be
constructed from the wells to Carlsbad and tie into the CMWDs distribution system at the north end.
Finally, a suitable method of brine disposal would need to be determined. The City of Oceanside
uses capacity in their ocean outfall for their brine disposal.
Lastly, if groundwater extraction for multiple users occurs in close proximity, consideration should be
given to estimating the overall drawdown that occurs as a result of the total groundwater extraction.
The use of the existing CMWD wells could interfere with the two wells drilled by the City of
Oceanside at their Mission Basin Desalter.
Considering 1) the status of the City of Oceanside's desalter including plans for expansion, 2) the
difficulty of transmitting the water to the CMWD, and 3) the need to manage the overall Basin, a joint
project between Oceanside and CMWD should be considered.
Carlsbad Hvdroloaic Unit
Hydrogeologic data for the Carlsbad Hydrolosic Unit is sparse. What data is availaMe suggests poor
to marginal groundwater quality and limited sustainable yield. Sustainable yield estimates scaled .
-
K:V2MWMU32AW!VOKWS.RPT 5-15
from the Mission Basin water balance calculations can be used to evaluate feasibility of more
detailed evaluation of the basins within this hydrologic unit.
Off-peak Aauifer Storaae
There is insufficient information available to assess the potential for seasonal storage in any of the
groundwater basins other than the possibility of the Mission Basin. Potential for injection of run-off
flows for summer use cannot be developed within the scope of this analysis.
Coniunctive Use
Conjunctive use within the Mission Basin would involve the recharge of the basin with imported
water supplies during the wet winter months and extraction during the dry summer months. This
would enable the District to take advaniage of the Seasonal Storage pricing incentives offered by the
MWD. Adequate geology for any significant recharge through spreading is limited within the basin
and it is likely that the recharge would require the construction of injection wells. The logical
approach for the District would be the construction of combination injection/extraction wells for the
implementation of a successful Aquifer Storage and Retrieval (ASR) program.
In addition to the construction of ASR wells, conjunctive use in the Mission Basin would require
wellhead treatment due to the high salinity within the basin. While the water quality within the basin
would most likely improve over time, the near term would require desalting to enable the use of the
stored water.
The final necessary facilities would be the construction of transmission capacity to CMWD. As with
other alternatives for the development of the Mission Basin, a more cost effective approach for this
transmission ability would be to the negotiation of an exchange agreement with the City of
Oceanside which would involve the use of SDCWA faciliiies for transfer of the exchanged supply.
Capacity
The medium projection for potable water needs for CMWD is 20.76 mgd at ultimate. The peak day
demand, based on the peak factor of I .67 from the Water Master Plan, is 34.67 mgd. In order to
maximize the benefits of the Seasonal Storage pricing, the District would need to develop a net
capacity of 13.91 mgd. The source ASR wells and the desalination treatment facility would have a
required capacity of 17.4 mgd based on an 80 percent recovery. This would require the construction
of five ASR wells of a nominal capacity of 5.4 cfs (2420 gpm) each.
cost
- ASR Wells 5 $1,000,000 each $5,000,000
RO Treatment 17.4 mgd $2.00/Gallon $34,800,000
Connection to Oceanside . 1 Luma Sum $2.onn.nno I Total Capital Cost . I I I $41,800,000 I
K1CMWDI4332AW\VOLXHSRPT 5-16
Introduction
Carlsbad's geographical location presents the opportunity for sea water desalination. This section
describes three general classes of desalination:
1 ) Reverse Osmosis
2) Thermal Processes
3) Capacitive Deionization
The location of a reverse osmosis or capacitive deionization plant would probably be at the 32 acre
site south of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. The parcel is owned by the six member
agencies that make up the Encina Wastewater Authority. Other potential uses of the site include an
Administration Building and equalization reservoirs for Encina and the potential District water
reclamation plant. There would be sufficient land available for the RO plant. The brine could be
disposed through the Encina ocean outfall system.
A thermal desalination plant could be co-located at SDG&Es Encina power plant. Opportunities for
the use of "waste" heat from the power plant might exist. This would result in lower operations costs.
Deregulation of electrical energy prices could put SDG&Es future ownership of the Encina power
plant in doubt.
The water would need to be delivered into the District's 550 pressure zone. From there, it would flow
into this and lower zones for delivery. The connection at the 550 zone is required to develop a large
enough service area for a base-loaded facility.
For both plant sites, a parallel 18-inch transmission pipeline would be constructed in the future
Cannon Road extension. Due to high pressure at the plant, this separate line would be required.
During final design, multiple transmission lines connecting into several pressure zones could be
considered.
The project cost for the pipeline is estimated between $1,920,000 and $2,530,000 for the Encina
Power Plant and the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, respectively. The desalted water would
also have to be lifted into the 550 zone. This represents over 200 psi of pressure.
Desalination Overview
The reclamation of brackish water, and seawater itself, also provides potential sources of future
water supplies. Cost is the principal limitation. Technology is available to produce large quantities of
water of suitable purity. The cost of desalination varies with the salinity and quality of the water being
reclaimed. Seawater, for example, contains about 35,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids, and
desalting costs have been estimated between $1200 and $3000 per acre foot. Brackish water, on
the other hand, may cost only on the order of $500 per acre foot. Brine disposal from the
desalination process represents another significant problem, and another cost unless the plant can
discharge directly into the ocean. Opportunities for CMWD include the Encina Water Pollution
.-
KlCMWDW32AW7VOL2CHS.RPT 5-1 7
Control Facility Ocean Outfall or combined discharge with the Encina Power Plant cooling water.
During the last drought, the City of Santa Barbara completed a desalination plant capable of
producing 7500 acre feet a year at a cost of about $2000 per acre foot. In 1992. however, the plant
was placed on indefinite standby when the city was able to secure additional fresh water supplies at
substantially less cost.
At the present time, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has appropriated about
$5 million toward a pilot desalination project located on the coast at Huntington Beach. A small test
plant is being constructed to produce about 2,000 gallons of freshwater daily. The plant will run for
one year and will help in the design of a full-scale demonstration facility that will desalt 5,000 acre
feet a year. The process will boil seawater, turning it into steam which is then collected and cooled
into freshwater. Heat from an adjoining power plant will be used in the process. If the demonstration
plant is successful, MWD expects to construct a plant producing between 50,000 and 100,000 acre
feet annually.
Desalination technologies in commercial use today can be divided into two broad categories based
on the underlying mechanism for removing the salt molecules from the water. Membrane processes
are based on the use of either electrical forces or mechanical forces (pressure) to move the water
molecules through selected membranes while leaving the salts behind. Thermal processes are
based on removing the salt molecules by causing the solution to go through a change of phase. This
can be done either through boiling or through freezing the water. Virtually all of the thermal plants
operating today use boiling or evaporation to change the water to a gas phase while leaving the salts
in solution.
Reverse Osmosis
In comparison to distillation, RO is relatively new, with successful commercialization occurring in the
early 1970s.
RO is a membrane separation process in which the water from a pressurized saline solution is
separated from the solutes (the dissolved material) by flowing through a membrane. No heating or
phase change is necessary for this separation. The major energy required for desalting is for
pressurizing the feed water.
In practice, the saline feed water is pumped into a closed vessel where it is pressurized against the
membrane. As a portion of the water passes through the membrane, the remaining feed water
increases in salt content. At the same time, a portion of this feed water is discharged without passing
through the membrane.
Without this controlled discharge, the pressurized feed water would continue to increase in salt
concentration, creating such problems as precipitation of supersaturated salts and increased
osmotic pressure across the membranes. The amount of the feed water discharged to waste in this
brine stream varies from 20 to 70 percent of the feed flow, depending on the salt content of the feed
water.
.-
-
5-18
An RO system is made up of the following basic components: . Pretreatment . High-pressure pump . Membrane assembly . Post-treatment
Pretreatment is important in RO because the feed water must pass through very narrow passages
during the process. Therefore, suspended solids must be removed and the water pre-treated so that
salt precipitation or microorganism growth does not occur on the membranes. Usually, the
pretreatment consists of fine filtration and the addition of acid or other chemicals to inhibit
precipitation.
The high-pressure pump supplies the pressure needed to enable the water to pass through the
membrane and have the salts rejected. This pressure ranges from 250 to 400 psi for brackish water
and from 800 to 1180 psi for seawater.
The membrane assembly consists of a pressure vessel and a membrane that permits the feed water
to be pressurized against the membrane. The membrane must be able to withstand the drop of the
entire pressure across it. The semi-permeable membranes are fragile and vary in their ability to
pass fresh water and reject the passage of salts. No membrane is perfect in its ability to reject salts,
so a small amount of salts passes through the membrane and appears in the product water.
RO membranes are made in a variety of configurations. Two of the most commercially successful
are spiral-wound sheet and hollow fine fiber. Both of these configurations are used to desalt both
brackish and sea water, although the construction of the membrane and pressure vessel will vary
depending on the manufacturer and expected salt content of the feed water.
Post-treatment consists of stabilizing the water and preparing it for distribution. This post-treatment
might consist of the removing gases such as hydrogen sulfide and adjusting the pH.
Two developments have helped to reduce the operating costs of RO plants during the past decade:
the development of membranes that can operate efficiently with lower pressures and the use of
energy recovery devices. The low-pressure membranes are being widely used to desalt brackish
water. The energy recovery devices are connected to the concentrate stream as it leaves the
pressure vessel. The water in the concentrate stream loses only about 15 to 60 psi relative to the
applied pressure from the high-pressure pump. These energy recovery devices are mechanical and
generally consist of turbines or pumps of some type that can convert a pressure drop to rotating
energy.
Vari-PowerNari-Ro Technology For Reverse Osmosis Desalination
,---
The VARI-POWERNARI-RO technology is intended to replace conventional high pressure pumping
and energy recovery equipment currently used for Reverse Osmosis (RO) desalination plants. It is
claimed that pumping energy savings of up to 30 percent could be achieved for RO seawater
desalting plants, and also up to 30 percent for brackish water desalting plants. -
5-19
c The VARI-RO pumping system is a low speed, direct acting, reciprocating pumping unit wherein the
brine blowdown from the RO membrane unit assists in pushing a floating piston in a water
displacement cylinder to pressurize the feed flow to the RO membrane unit. Naturally, in-as-much
as the RO brine flow is insufficient to provide all of the power needed lo pressurize the RO feed flow,
auxiliary power is needed to compensate for the difference in the respective kinetic energies in the
two streams. In the VARI-RO system, this auxiliary power is supplied by a conventional hydraulic
pumping unit such as is used (e.g.) for elevators and earth moving equipment. The transmitting
means for the auxiliary power is a push-rod going from the hydraulic unit to the bottom end of the
floating piston in the water displacement cylinder.
The energy savings claimed for the VARI-RO system result from the well-known fact that recipro-
cating pumping systems are inherently more efficient than rotary pumping systems - 85 to
97 perceni efficiency versus 60 to 82 percent, respectively. Also, the system does not need a
separate variable frequency drive (VFD) to match membrane pressure.
The principal inventor/developer of the VARI-RO equipment is Mr. Willard Childs, the principal
owner of the Vari-Power Company (VPC). He has worked on this development for a number of
years with initial support from Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAC) in San Diego,
California.
Initial Research Studies
In 199411995, the U.S. Bureau of Redamation (USBR) provided some financial support to SAC and
VPC for a preliminary research study of this new technology under the U.S. Government Contract
No. 1425-3-SP-81-19510. This study, entitled: VARI-RO tow €nergy”Desalfing for the San Diego
Region, was completed in July 1995. An indication of the principal findings of this study may be
derived from the abstract of the final report which is quoted as follows:
“This Water Treatment Technology Program research study shows
the feasibility to reduce the cost of dssalting seawater by using the
VARI-ROO system, which is more efficient and environmentally
attractive than “Existing Methods”.
‘The VARI-RO6 system is an integrated pumping and energy
recovery method for seawater and brackish water reverse osmosis
(SWRO) and (BWRO) desalting projects. The study validated that
significant electric power reduction is achievable as compared to
conventional centrifugalhrbine methods. As compared to these
methods, a power reduction of 5.2 MW (a 30 percent savings) was
projected; and as compared to the California State Water Project
(SWP) a reduction of 4.2 MW (22 percent savings) was projected.
These savings projections were based on a 30-mgd (1 13,550 ms/d)
capacity SWRO facility. This means that desalting seawater can be
less energy intensive than importing water from Northern California
to the San Diego region via the SWP.”
5-20
"The technology is suitable for low, medium, and high capacity
facilities, providing the optimal capability to lower energy
consumption, reduce membrane related costs, and improve water
quality."
VARI-RO "Low Enerav" Desaltina for the San Dieao Reaion,
(July, 1995)'
VARI-RO Desalting Pilot Plant Development Program
Based on the findings in the preliminary research study described above, the USBR, under
Solicitation No. 1425-5-FC-81-20410, requested a proposal from SAlC to undertake a pilot plant
investigation of the VARI-RO technology. Subsequently, the USBR awarded a contract to SAlC for
this work in the fall of 1995 under a fifty-fifty cost sharing basis, under which both monetary as well
as in-kind (labor, equipment) contributions would be required from SAC and VPC and other
interested entities, public or private. About a dozen private sector firms and a half dozen public
entities have pledged or indicated their support for the pilot plant work. Many of the private sector
firms, in addition to SAlC and VPC, have already made significant contributions to the work
underway. Among consultants, Carollo Engineers agreed to provide about 100 man-hours of labor
support, corresponding to an in-kind contribution of about $1 2,000. Several manufacturing firms,
prominent among them: Wheatley Gaso. Inc. (pump valves and housings); Zemarc Corporation
(hydraulic power system); Parker Hannifin Corporation (hydraulic cylinders); Cal-West Machining,
Inc. (water cylinders and valves); Shore Western (control system, assembly, and shop testing); and
several others, have contributed significant time and effort in fabricating a prototype pilot model of
the VARI-RO pumping and energy recovery system.
Prominent participants from the public sector are Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
MWDSC, LADWP, SDCWA, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Cambria Community Services
District, etc.
The VARI-RO prototype unit is currently being assembled and shop-tested at Shore-Western's
facility in Monrovia, California. Shop testing has been completed. Next, the unit was installed at the
San Pasqual Test Facility of the City of San Diego. It has been operating under varying test
conditions. Results of the testing will be available by the end of 1997. If these field tests are
satisfactory, it is planned to install the prototype unit at an actually operating RO facility for "real
world" testing. Candidate sites for this phase of the program may be: . . . The RO seawater plant of Southern California Edison on the Island of Catalina
Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Cambria Community Services District, Cambria, San Luis Obispo County, California
Regarding the possible test site at Carlsbad, the unit could be installed either at the Encina Power
Plant of SDG&E or at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF). Since SDG&E, in
'A complete copy of this report is available from the National Technical Information Service,
Operations Division, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
K1CMWhrl3324W\VOLXHS.RPl 5-21
pledging their support, has expressed a desire to have at least some of the longer term test work
done in their service area, the Carlsbad sites would be a good choice. An additional advantage of
the Carlsbad location would be that the VARI-RO unit could be run on real seawater as well as
brackish water and even reclaimed wastewater.
Summary
The VARI-RO development program funded by the USBR, SAC, VPC and many other entities is
now at about the half-way point of the initially planned two-year cycle to design, build, and operate a
prototype unit.
It is expected that the prototype unit will be installed and operated under simulated seawater
conditions at Port Hueneme for two to four months. Following that initial shakedown test period, it is
planned to install the VARI-RO prototype at a convenient site where 'real world" testing can be
carried out.
Thermal
The production of pure or potable water from saline feed water by evaporation (distillation) is the
oldest desalination method. The distillation process is essentially the same as the natural water
cycle in that saline water is heated, producing water vapor that is in turn condensed to form fresh
water thereby concentrating the dissolved minerals in the original liquid phase. Currently, most of
the world's desalted water is produced with heat to distill fresh water from sea water. Thermal
processes are typically not used for desalination of brackish water supplies as the membrane
processes previously mentioned are generally more cost effective.
The typical thermal desalination process uses external energy to heat the feed water to the boiling
point to produce the maximum amount of water vapor. In order to enhance the cost effectiveness of
a desalination plant, the boiling point is controlled by adjusting the pressure of the water being
boiled. The temperature required to boil water is lower at lower pressures (such as at higher
elevations). The reduction of the boiling point not only allows for less heat energy to boil the water
but also allows for multiple boiling and reduction of scaling problems within the desalination units.
Over 60 percent of the world's desalted 'water is produced with heat to distill fresh water from sea
water. The distillation process mimics the natural water cycle in that saline water is heated,
producing water vapor that is in turn condensed to form fresh water. in a laboratory or industrial
plant, water is heated to the boiling point to produce the maximum amount of water vapor.
For this to be done economically in a desalination plant the boiling point is controlled by adjusting
the atmospheric pressure of the water being boiled (The temperature required to boil water
decreases as one moves from sea level to a higher elevation because of the reduced atmospheric
pressure on the water. Thus, water can he boiled on top of Mt. McKinley in Alaska (elevation
6,200 meters (20,300 feet) at a temperature about 16°C (28°F) less than boiling it at sea level). The
reduction of the boiling point is important in the desalination process for two major reasons: multiple - boiling and scale control.
5-22
To boil, water needs two important conditions: The proper temperature relative to its ambient
pressure and enough energy for vaporization. When water is heated to its boiling point and then the
heat is turned off, the water will continue to boil only for a short time because the water needs
additional energy (the heat of vaporization) to permit boiling. Once the water stops boiling, boiling
can be renewed by either adding more heat or by reducing the ambient pressure above the water. If
the ambient pressure is reduced, then the water would then be at a temperature above its boiling
point (because of the reduced pressure) and will boil with the extra heat from the higher temperature
to supply the heat of vaporization needed. As the heat of vaporization is supplied, the temperature of
the water will fall to the new boiling point.
To significantly reduce the amount of energy needed for vaporization, the distillation desalting
process usually uses multiple boiling in successive vessels, each operating at a lower temperature
and pressure. This process of reducing the ambient pressure to promote boiling can continue
downward and, if carried to the extreme with the pressure reduced enough, the point at which water
would be boiling and freezing at the same time would be reached.
Aside from multiple boiling, the other important factor is scale control. Although most substances
dissolve more readily in warmer water, some dissolve more readily in cooler water. Unfortunately.
some of these substances like carbonates and sulfates are found in seawater. One of the most
important is gypsum (CaSO,), which begins to leave solution when water approaches about 95°C
(203°F). This material forms a hard scale that coats any tubes or containers present. Scale creates
thermal and mechanical problems and, once formed, is difficult to remove. One way to avoid the
formation of this scale is to keep the temperature and boiling point of the water below that
temperature.
These two concepts have made various forms of distillation successful in locations around the world.
The process which accounts for the most desalting capacity is multi-stage flash distillation,
commonly referred to as the MSFpfocess.
The production of pure or potable water from saline feed water by evaporation (distillation) is the
oldest desalination method. The basis of the process is the evaporation of liquid water (containing
salts) to steam which is subsequently condensed to generate mineral free condensate or distilled
product water. The fundamental separation accomplished by the concept has undoubtedly been
known for thousands of years but its probably within the last century that it has been applied
expressly for the purpose of producing pure water.
Thermodvnamic Cvcles
There are a variety of thermodynamic or energy utilization cycles which are applicable to seawater
desalination evaporators. Ranging from the simplest or fundamental single effect boiling concept
through vapor recompression techniques which may use only a small fraction of the energy per unit
of water produced. There are many physical configurations which can be employed depending on
energy form and quantity available.
/--
5-23
MultiDle Effect Distillation
The multiple effect distillation (MED) process has been used for industrial distillation for a long time.
One popular use for this process is the evaporation of juice from sugar cane in the production of
sugar or the production of salt with the evaporative process. Some of the early water distillation
plants used the MED process, but this process was displaced by the MSF units because of cost
factors and their apparent higher efficiency However, In the past decade, interest in the MED
process has renewed and a number of new designs have been built. Most of these new MED units
have been built around the concept of operating on lower temperatures.
MED, like the MSF process, takes place in a series of vessels (effects) and uses the principle of
reducing the ambient pressure in the various effects. This permits the sea water feed to undergo
multiple boiling without supplying additional heat after the first effect. In an MED plant, The sea
water enters the first effect and is raised to the boiling point after being preheated in tubes. The sea
water is either sprayed or otherwise distributed onto the surface of evaporator tubes in a thin film to
promote rapid boiling and evaporation. The tubes are heated by steam from a boiler, or other
source, which is condensed on the opposite side of the tubes. The condensate from the boiler steam
is recycled to the boiler for reuse. Only a portion of the sea water applied to the tubes in the first
effect is evaporated. The remaining feed water is fed to the second effect where it is again applied to
a tube bundle. These tubes are in turn being heated by the vapors created in the first effect. This
vapor is condensed to fresh water product, while giving up heat to evaporate a portion of the
remaining sea water feed in the next effect. This continues for several effects, with 8 or 16 effects
being found in a typical large plant.
Usually, the remaining seawater in each effect must be pumped to the next effect so as to apply it to
the next tube bundle. Additional condensation takes place in each effect on tubes that bring the feed
water from its source through the plant to the first effect. This warms the feed water before it is
evaporated in the first effect.
A thermal desalination plant could be sited at SDG&Es Encina Power Plant. Deregulation of
electrical energy prices could put SDG&E's future ownership of the Encina Power Plant in doubt.
SeDhton Water Technoloaies
Considering the proximity of the San Diego Gas and Electric Encina Power Plant to the CMWD
facilities and sewice area, the possibility exists to utilize waste-heat from this plant to produce an
incremental, additional supply of "new" water for Carlsbad.
Well-proven technology to do this exists and its potential implementation for CMWD was discussed
in a meeting with Dr. Hugo H. Sephton on August 26, 1996. Dr. Sephton has developed the
waste-heat desalination concept over the past 20 years and highlights and key details of
Dr. Sephton's work are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Development of 'Enhanced Heat Transfer" Concepts
The main objective of Dr. Sephton's work has been the development of several methods for
obtaining an "enhancement" of the rate of evaporation and, therefore, the thermal efficiency of
.-
K1CMWDU332AW\VOLXHS,RPT 5-24
vertical tube evaporators (VTE) utilized in the multiple effect distillation (MED) process. He directed
and carried out this work at the University of California at Berkeley for about 13 years (1966 to 1979)
with support from the USEPA and other entities. Later he worked on his own (with EPA and EPRl
support) with Envirotech, Southern California Edison and Modesto Energy Partners to demonstrate
the commercial applicability of his heat transfer enhancement concepts.
Dr. Sephton's main contribution involves the use of a small amount of surfactant additive to the
saline water feed flow to the VTE, which increases the overall heat transfer coefficient by about 50 to
100 percent. In addition, a later development involves the application of a special surfactant as a
dispersant to prevent mineral scale from forming on the heat transfer tubes in the evaporator. These
concepts, entitled "foamy flow" evaporation for heat transfer enhancement, and "dispersed, seeded
slurry evaporation" for mineral scale prevention, have been patented by Dr. Sephton; and are now
licensed to RCC (Resources Conservation Company), a subsidiary of lonics, Incorporated.
The significant improvement in the heat transfer coefficient resulting from Dr. Sephton's work
opened up valuable opportunities for improving VTE performance for seawater desalting and
wastewater reclamation utilizing waste-heat from turbine exhaust steam. In these applications, the
VTUMED equipment (with surfactantldispersant additives) can be operated in parallel with the final
condenser of the turbine exhaust steam in a thermal power plant. A typical arrangement on how this
is done is shown in the schematic process flow diagram in Figure 5.2.
In order to distinguish this new method of heat transfer enhancement from conventional VTE
equipment, the new equipment has been called "VTFE" which stands for vertical Tube "Foamy
Flow" Evaporator; because the surfactant addition causes this condition on the brine side
evaporation side) of the heat transfer surface.
Test Equipment Construction
In order to demonstrate the long-term commercial viability of Dr. Sephton's heat transfer
enhancement concepts, various testing units were built and operated during the past 25 years.
There are five pilot plants with a capacity of about 5,000 gpd each in existence; and a larger
demonstration unit of 40,000 gpd capacity.
All test units are made from corrosion resistant materials (316 stainless steel evaporator vessels
and piping; and aluminum-brass or copper-nickel heat transfer tubes, etc.). These test units are in
excellent condition, even after many years of use. Long-term tests have been carried out with this
equipment as described in Section 4.0 below. All test units can be made available for site specific
studies as needed.
Field Testing of VTFE Equipment at Various Power Plant Sites
Over the past 15 years, several power utiliies have provided sponsorship for field testing of the
VTFE equipment. Tests supported by EPRl and Southern California Edison Company were started
in 1980, on cooling tower blowdown. The process was defined, several problems were solved, and
the facility was automated to reduce operator time needed to about 4 mandays per month. It was
tested on this basis for a continuous 14-month period at 95 percent availability, with only one
technician in attendance.
-
-
-
K.KMWLT43321WIVOLZCH5.RPT 5-25
For the second test series, at Edison's Cool Water Coal Gasification Combined Cycle Program site,
the VTFE facility was operated by the regular site crew as part of their normal duties. This test was
successful and the technology declared ready for full-scale implementation in a letter to EPA in
1988, by Edison's Project Engineer.
The third field test was at the Modesto Energy Ltd. Partnership site, where the main objective has
been to interface with a relatively small turbine (15.megawatt), and to further automate the VTFE
facility in order to cope with the variable steam supply at this site. This test has been concluded
successfully, and the facility is now ready for tests on seawater feed.
The test work described above has led to general acceptance of Dr. Sephton's waste-heat
evaporator technology. A further recent development has been the adaptation of the VTFE to the
concentration of waste brine from reverse osmosis plants, etc; and Dr. Sephton has now licensed
this technology to lonics' Resources Conservation Company for commercial use.
Seawater Desalination Developments
Since 1989, Dr. Sephton has also been involved with the development of two desalination efforts
applying some of the above results: One was with the group led by Dr. Philip Hammond for the
development of the novel MED tower concept for the MWDSC, and now being further developed by
Parsons, IDE and MWDSC. The second was the development of waste-heat driven seawater
desalination for smaller facilities; which should reduce the cost of desalted seawater to a level
comparable to that obtained from the MED tower concept study for the MWDSC.
Two important reasons for reductions in cost are as follows: (1) The MED of 75 mgd for MWDSC
uses turbine extraction steam at 24 psia (233 degrees F) at a cost of $0.47/kgal of product
($152/AF) [capital costs are $0.64kgal ($21O/AF)]. Since the waste-heat has no dollar cost it saves
between 30 and 40 percent of the major MED cost items. (2) The temperature difference (delta T)
available to drive the waste-heat MED is about twice the effect-to-effect delta T available in the
MWDSC MED concept. This provides a second substantial cost saving potential. Also to be
considered is that essentially the same materials applied for the MWDSC evaporator and its vertical
tower concept can be applied to the waste-heat MED too. However, these designs and the
processes are distinctly different. The MWDSC MED benefits from being very large, which provides
a substantial economy of scale. The waste-heat VTFE benefits from being a simpler process; it does
not require a feed heater under pressure, feed pretreatment is less critical, and corrosion concerns
are reduced due to the low temperature of the waste-heat.
Waste-Heat VTFE Use in Combination with Reverse Osmosis for Desalination
There are significant synergistic benefits for each of the component processes of this concept: The
power plant turbine which drives the waste-heat MED is not derated, but delivers its full generating
capacity and can be base loaded with the RO high-pressure pumps. Also provided is a significant
synergistic benefit with the RO unit, or series of RO units, operated sequentially to maintain the
power generation at full load. Mixing the MED product and the RO product provides a further product
improvement, as well as an option for an RO cost reduction by using a more productive membrane
operating at lower transmembrane pressure (TMP). This synergism between the power plant, the
.---
-
-
KSMWDU332A~VOLXHS.RPT 5-27
_- RO and waste-heat MED is outlined in a paper which was presented at the American Power
Conference in Chicago in April 1997 by Hugo Sephton and Kurt Frank. It includes a suggestion for a
hybrid plant concept combining Electric Power Generation with RO and WH-VTFE seawater
desalination. This concept is shown in the block diagram in Figure 5.3.
Recent Developments, Summary and Conclusion
In September 1996 a new proposal was submitted by Dr. Sephton with EPA concurrence, to the
Electric Power Research Institute, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison
Company to request their support for a test on seawater feed at a coastal power plant site.
Dr. Sephton has also discussed tests to evaluate and define the benefits of the waste-heat VTFE
concept at another coastal site, at Corpus Christi, Texas. The proposed seawater tests would utilize
the above-mentioned 40,000 gpd waste heat driven VTFE unit presently located at Modesto Energy
Ltd .
Further, Dr. Sephton is pursuing other test sites to further demonstrate the feasibility of seawater
desalination with the VTFE technology with the expectation that such tests will lead to commercial
applications in the not too distant future. It is worth noting in this respect that Dr. Sephton has
received preliminary assurance of support from EPRl if and when a test site for seawater
desalination has been secured.
Regarding water costs, Dr. Sephton estimates that desalted water from a commercial WH-VTFE
plant processing seawater would cost about $1.75 to $2.50 per 1,000 gallons ($570 to $815 per
acre- foot), excluding transmission costs.
Water cost estimates for the "hybrid" concept (Electric PowerMIH-VTFVRO) have not been made
yet. However, judging from a previous study for SWRO desalting at South Bay (San Diego) where
RO product water cost estimates came in at $900 to $1.000 per acre-foot, it may be projected that
the "hybrid" concept will turn out to be commercially viable.
In summary, the conclusion may be drawn that the waste-heat driven desalting technology
developed by Dr. Sephton over the past 25 years or so is technically feasible and in many respects
well-proven; and should be ready for commercial application with little or no further testing.
-
Carbon-Aeroael Based CaDa citive De-Ionization (CDI) Technoloqy
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in Livermore, California, released information
in late 1994 and early 1995 about a new desalting process entitled "Capacitive Deionization with
Carbon-Aerogel Electrodes." This new desalting process has been developed by LLNL over the
past 3 to 5 years with the initial intent to treat low level radioactive wastewater. However, LLNL
thinks that this technology may also find a more general application in the desalination of brackish
groundwater, and even seawater, for the production of potable water. Accordingly, there is now an
interest in carrying out field evaluation tests and LLNL has recently built a portable pilot plant unit for
this purpose. Among other sites, short duration test runs on this pilot plant are proposed for the
Alameda County Water District, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and McClellan Air Force
Base, all in California. The following paragraphs give a brief description of the new capacitive
de-ionization technology and an overview of recent developments.
-
K:KCMWDb(33ZAW\VOLXHSRPT 5-28
The following description is based on, and mostly quoted verbatim, from a fact sheet published by
the LLNL.
Design
Electrodes with high specific surface area are fabricated by attaching sheets of carbon-aerogel
composite onto both sides of a titanium sheet. The square aerogel sheets are 3 inches on a side and
0.005 inches thick. Several of these double-sided electrodes--separated by spacers and
gaskets--are then incorporated into assemblies. Each assembly has stainless steel headers with
access ports for flow on both ends. Threaded rods with washers and nuts are used to hold the
assembly together. Several assemblies are then incorporated into a stack. The flow travels through
the inlet headers, through the assemblies, and to the outlet header.
Operation
The ions contained in the water are forced to move to the surfaces of the electrodes by an imposed
electric field. The electric field causes polarization between the two sides of aerogel sheets. Cations
are concentrated at the surface of the anode while anions migrate to the cathode charged side of the
sheet. The feed and product water are monitored with in-line conductivity, pH, and temperature
sensors. In some cases, ion-specific electrodes are also used. This array of sensors is used to
determine removal efficiencies and selectivities for various anions and cations in multi component
electrolytes.
Studies and Results
A large number of detailed studies have been conducted by LLNL with the capacitive de-ionization
(CDI) prototype. Different types of solutions, concentrations and stack sizes have been employed
and processing has been conducted in both batch and continuous modes, stack voltage has been
altered from zero power up to 1.2 volts. The studies have found that electro absorption capacity has
a strong dependence on cell voltage. Excellent performance is achieved at 1.2 volts, diminishing as
the voltage is reduced. The concentration and conductivity of each salt solution was cycled up and
down numerous times by charging and discharging the stack. With the exception of concentrated
phosphate solutions, no obvious degradation of capacity was observed after cycling the system in
batch mode for several months.
Information From June 19, 1996 Visit To Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Because of CMWDs interest in studying the CDI technology, District and Carollo personnel, Bill
Plummer and Kurt Frank, respectively, and independent consultant Don Christiansen, visited LLNL
to attend a presentation and inspect a bench scale test unit on the CDI process. The presentation
was given by Ms. Jean de Pruneda and Ms. Veronica Lanier of LLNL. A summary of the information
gathered during this LLNL visit is given in the following paragraphs.
The idea for making a carbon-based aerogel was originally derived from the existence of silica gel,
which is used extensively for air drying purposes. It works for this purpose because it has an
interconnected pore structure with a very high specific surface area per unit weight (or unit volume)
-
-
-
5-30
L for adsorbing water molecules. The idea was to determine if gel with similar properties could be
made utilizing carbon rather than silica as the base material.
The first development of carbon gel was done at the University of Oklahoma in the 1960s. The
technology was developed further by Rick Pekala and Joe Farmer of LLNL. Initially, LLNL was
interested in developing carbon gel-based CDI for the concentration and cleanup of liquid
radioactive wastes as a substitute for conventional, resin-based ion-exchange technology. Also,
there was an initial interest for using the carbon gel for capturing micro-meteorites, Le., charged
particles, in NASA's outer space program. In 1992, tests were begun at LLNL to see if carbon
gel-based CDI could be used for desalination of high TDS waters. LLNL has applied for and has
received several patents covering the manufacture and application of the carbon gel and for the
carbon gel covered electrodes.
The manufacturing process for the carbon gel involves the following steps: . Mixing of the carbon-base material with an organic solvent (formaldehyde was
mentioned as one possibility)
Gelation to produce the gel Solvent extraction at super critical temperature
Pyrolysis at about 1,050 degrees C to produce the carbon-aerogel cloth
. . .
Up to now, LLNL has produced 3-inch by 3-inch square pieces of carbon gel cloth, backed by 6-inch
by 6-inch square titanium electrodes. It was mentioned, however, that other metals could be used in
place of titanium, depending on the corrosivity and other requirements of the fluid to be desalted.
Some of the parameters given were as follows:
-
. . The aerogel itself is pure carbon (in a cloth form).
The specific surface area available for electrostatic attraction of charged ions (e.g.,
Na' CI, Ca", Mg", C03-, SO,-), is 400 to 1,100 square meters per one gram of
carbon cloth. Or, expressed in other terms, the available surface area is 3 x IO6 square centimeters per each carbon electrode 3" x 3" square.
and gaskets to form a water channel, will form an electrode pair.
area, indicating a very high capacity for holding charged salt ions by means of
electrostatic attraction when the carbon electrode is energized with low voltage
electric current.
. The electrode typically is 8 mils thick. Two electrodes, back to back, with spacers
The capacitance of the carbon cloth is 10-20 farads per square centimeter of cloth .
For desalting applications, several electrode pairs, also called cell pairs, are assembled into a cell
stack. As mentioned above, each cell pair forms a feed water channel; and the feed water to be
desalted is directed, by appropriate means, to flow successively through each cell pair.
It was mentioned that about twenty (20) cell pair stacks would be required to desalt seawater to a
product water TDS of about 50 ppm. The hydraulic head loss of such a 20 cell stack was said to be
about 15 to 20 psi. Thus, very little pumping energy is required to move the feed water through the - stack.
5-31
The primary energy consumption is in energizing the stack with low voltage current. The following
Table 5.4 gives typical energy consumption values, based on 1,000 gallons of product water, for the
CDI process as compared to Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR).
Comparing the values in Table 5.3, it is apparent that specific energy consumption values are better
for CDI for brackish water desalting than for seawater desalting.
Brackish Water
up to about
5,000 ppm
5.3 to 8.5 2.0 to 5.0 1.5 to 3.0 I 0.5 to 1 .O
I Seawater 118 to 36 I25 to 36 114to22 IlOto14 I
(1) Reverse Osmosis (RO)
(2) Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR)
(3) Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAC), San Diego, CA and Vari-Power Company (VPC), Encinitas, CA
NOTE: The last two columns were added by the writer for convenient comparison. -
1 I I I (RO only) 1 I
.-
5-32
I Brackish Water up to 400 to 600 I 400 6oo
About 5,000 ppm I
Seawater 1,300 to 1,500 900 to 1,300 800 to 1,100
KACCMWDU132*WZV(X2CHS.RPT 5-33
. LLNL recognizes that the maturity level of the CDI technology is still low and that the
LLNL has been in touch with the Saudi Arabian Government to gauge their interest in
maturity level influences the commercialization approach.
assisting financially with development work. However, due to budget constraints
resulting from low oil prices and debts from the Gulf War, the Saudi Government is
currently not in a position to support R & D work in foreign countries, in spite of their
great need for inexpensive desalting technologies.
.
As mentioned above, LLNL has given a nonexclusive license to Aerojet for the manufacture of
carbon-aerogel electrodes. . LLNL is in touch with several entities who have, apparently, inquired about licensing
the technology. No agreements had been concluded at the time of the meeting in
June, 1996.
A firm from Tucson, Arizona, Far West Group, Incorporated, has taken out several licenses from
LLNL for the manufacture of carbon-aerogel electrodes, as well as the fabrication of equipment for
various market applications, including: 1) boiler feed water treatment, 2) treatmentlcleanup of mixed
medicalhadioactive wastes, 3) brackish groundwater desalting, and possibly other applications.
Pilot Testing
The District and LLNL entered into an agreement to pilot test a 2,000 gallon per day unit at the
EWPCF. Due to technical problems with the pilot unit, the timing of the ted is not known. The LLNL
has indicated that the regeneration time with commercially manufacturer electrodes takes much
longer than expected. This would significantly decrease through put and increase costs.
Conclusions And Findings
The following findings and conclusions may be reasonably made based on the information available
to date on the carbon-aerogel based capacitive de-ionization process developed by LLNL.
The science on which the carbon-aerogel CDI process is based is sound in principle, and has been
proven in three years worth of bench scale tests at LLNL with pure sodium chloride solution made
up with distilled water.
Since tests on a "real world" feed water, such as brackish groundwater or surface water, containing
a mixture of salts, as well as other contaminants or impurities (organics, heavy metals, colloids,
etc.), are still lacking, there are basic questions on whether or not the CDI process would work on
"real world water sources. For example, the carbon-aerogel might foul so rapidly, and
consequently, would have to be "cleaned, or replaced, so frequently that its use for desalting would
not be economically feasible.
Another economic feasibility question relates to the cost of manufacturing the carbon-aerogel
electrodes. The first licensee, Aerojet, currently sells carbon-aerogel electrodes for $15.00 per
square foot. LLNL estimates that the electrode cost would have to be brought down to the $1 .OO to
$2.00 per square foot range for the CDI process to become economically feasible. Obviously, it is an
open question about whether or not such a large cost reduction can be achieved.
-
-
5-34
Comparing the carbon-aerogel CDI process with other available desalting processes (RO, EDR), it
appears that CDI would be more competitive for brackish water applications than for seawater
applications (see Tables 5.4 and 5.5 above).
It seems that carbon-aerogel CDI might be most useful for the following applications: . . Low salinity, brackish water desalting.
Ultra-pure water polishing, replacing conventional ion-exchange (IX) canisters. In
current applications, the IX canisters must be replaced with replenished ones when
they are exhausted, i.e., loaded up with ions. The exhausted canisters are then taken
off-site for chemical regeneration. Carbon-aerogel electrode stacks, on the other
hand, could remain in place for regeneration without chemicals, thus eliminating
considerable cost for labor and chemicals.
softeners are regenerated with salt (NaCl). The resulting salt discharge, from
regeneration rinse-out, as well as the softened water itself, adds considerably to the
TDS of domestic wastewater. In areas where domestidmunicipal wastewater is
reclaimed for irrigation or other recycling use, the carbon-aerogel CDI process could offer a really beneficial alternative to the conventional IX water softening process, in
that no additional salt would need to be added to soften the domestic water supply.
wells for individual houses, many of which show increasing levels of nitrate. The
carbon-aerogel CDI process would be an almost ideal application for nitrate removal, without the need for regeneration of IX resins with salt.
. Replacement for household and commercial water softeners. Conventional IX water
. Nitrate removal from well water for domestic water supply. There are millions of
-
In summary, it appears worthwhile to develop and test the carbon-aerogel CDI process further for
the possible initial applications given above. However, the first next step that needs to be done is to
test a CDI stack on a "real world" feed water.
As mentioned in the introduction, several entiiies, such as: the Alameda County Water District, the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District and McClellan Air force Base, are interested in field testing the
CDI technology and LLNL has built a pilot plant for this purpose. Accordingly, field test are expected
to be carried out during the year 1997 and probably beyond.
In addition, it is reasonable to project that the new LLNL licensee: Far West Group, Incorporated of
Tucson, AZ will put forth a considerable effort in doing further development work on the
Carbon-Aerogel Capacitive De-ionization Technology. At this time, however, the technology remains
un-proven on "real" waters at viable capacities.
Desalination Summary
Desalination continues to hold interest for Coastal California cities and agencies. The Metropolitan
Water District continues to find research and possibly pilot plants to develop reliable cost and
operating parameters.
However, few plants have been constructed. In California, these include the reverse osmosis plants
at Santa Barbara and Morro Bay. The Santa Barbara plant has not operated for significant periods of
time. Other cities including Ventura and Avalon abandoned planning efforts.
-
5-35
- The cost of seawater desalination as compared to other sources is still high. For a 5 mgd plant, the
American Water Works Association Desalting Manual (draft) estimates the following costs:
Process Cost WAF)
Reverse Osmosis $1,370
Multiple Effect Distillation
Dual Purpose $1,500
Single Purpose $2,345
The dual purpose cost would be for a facility co-located with a thermal power plant with opportunities
for increased energy efficiency.
Seawater reverse osmosis plant range from $6.00 to $8.00 per gpd of capacity. For example the
Santa Barbara plant at 6.0 mgd was between $7.00 to $8.00 per gpd. Based on the above reverse
osmosis plants would be as follows:
Unit Cost
$6.00/gpd
$8.00/gpd
xmz!
$18 million
$24 million
$30 million
$40 million
The lower cost would be for example, if feed water coukl be taken from an existing intake such as
the Encina Power Plant. The higher cost would be if a new off shore intake and brine discharge
outfall would have to be constructed.
Process variations such as VARI-RO and Waste Heat VTFE could reduce the above costs. These
processes are being developed, but full scale units on similar applications have not been
constructed.
-
San Marcos Creek
San Marcos Creek originates in the City of Escondido and flows west through the City of San
Marcos and the City of Carlsbad. It discharges into Batiquitos Lagoon. It also flows through Lake
San Marcos and the La Costa Resort and Spa.
There is little existing information concerning stream flow. Based on a drainage area of almost
28 square miles, the total resource might average 3,500 acre-feet per year. Maximum storm flows
have been estimated at 12,000 cubic feet per second(100-year storm). Stream gauging has not
been done. Urban runoff may contribute nuisance runoff. Lake San Marcos probably reduces
down-stream flows somewhat. Stream flow was measured at 0.6 cubic feet per second in
October, 1992.
In April, 1996, District staff completed a preliminary feasibility study of developing San Marcos
Creek as a non-potable resource. The proposed project consisted of a 170 foot high earthen dam
located just upstream from La Costa Golf Course near Vista Bonita street. The resulting reservoir
capacity would be 1640 acre feet. Based on the reservoir volume and use for recycled water this
c
K:WWD!4332AGmvOLXHS.RPl 5-36
alternative has been analyzed with an annual resource of 1.500 AF/yr. The water in the reservoir
would be treated. Booster pumps would then be used to pump the treated water to Mahr Reservoir
and blended with the recycled water supply. No water would be used in the potable water supply.
Water Qualitv
The 1996 District report found little water quality data. The total dissolved solids (TDS) could vary
from 536 mg/L to up to 4,000 mg/L. However, if a project was designed to capture wet weather flows
and divert dry weather runoff, the lower figure may be more reasonable.
Limited testing also revealed high fecal and coliform counts and moderate concentrations of nitrate
nitrogen, phosphates and suspended solids.
Potential Uses
Based on quality, this source should be considered for non-potable use. However, to meet coliform
requirements, some suspended solids and disinfection treatment will be required. As discussed in
the CMWD report, the water would be pumped to the Mahr Reservoir for ultimate introduction in the
CMWD's reclamation distribution system.
Based on the potential size of the resource, the water would be used throughout the irrigation
season. This analysis is based on delivering 1500 acre-feet per year or about 2.75 million gallons
per day(mgd). This resource equals the existing Phase I program as discussed in
Volume IV-Reclaimed Water.
Facilities
The facilities included in this analysis include a new dam. As discussed in the District report, a dam
with a storage capacity of 1,640 acre-feet could be constructed across the creek. The water would
be treated at the dam site and pumped to the Mahr Reservoir. The connecting pipeline would be
12-inches in diameter. Treatment would include coagulation, filtration, and disinfection.
Costs
The estimated costs for this alternative are shown on Table 5.6. The costs for the dam are from the
District report. All other cost factors are as developed for Volume IV-Reclaimed Water.
The resulting unit cost for the water is $866 per acre-foot (AF). This compares to a range of $784 to
$956 for reclaimed water for an expanded program. However, approximately $200 per AF should be
added to this cost to account for transmission improvements. The apparent cost for the least cost
reclamation alternative is only $632 per AF. Further, the potable water rate charged to customers is
currently $740 per acre foot. This alternative could be more costly than implementing reclamation.
-
5-37
Table 5.6 Alternatives
Mematiwe San Ww Creek Buena Wta Lago~n
carisbad ,Mur\icipdci wglr Dispict
Annual Water Resource (AF) 1 1.500 I 400
Capital Costs
Pipelines transmission :
improvements
Reservoir Dam (1 70-feet high)
Booster Stations
Treatment Facility
Subtotal
Project Cost @I 37.5%
Total Capital Cost
Annual Capital Cost
3&M
O&M
Power
Annual OBM Cost
$61 6,000
$4,600,000
$670.000
$2,800,000
$8,686,000
$3,257,000
$1 1,943,000
$886,000
$320,000
$93,000
$413,000
$480,000
$300,000
$120,000
$50,000
$950,000
$356,000
$1,306,000
$94,000
$10,000
$8,000
$18,000
Annual Total Cost $1,299,000 $1 12,000
Unit Water Cost - $/AF $866 $295
Other Factors
The above analysis is based on very preliminary information. Specifically, very little information
exists concerning the stream flow and quality. The amount of water available could be less,
specifically in drought years. Treatment to a potable water level would increase costs. Other factors
such as impacts on Batiquitos Lagoon(reduced flushing) could result in this alternative being
infeasible. This potential resource should be given a low priority.
Buena Vista Lagoon
Buena Vista Lagoon is located along the northwest boundary of the City of Carlsbad. The limit with
Oceanside runs through the lagoon. It is a freshwater with no opening to the Pacific Ocean.
Interstate 5, the North County Transit District tracks, and Carlsbad Boulevard cross the lagoon from
north to south.
The lagoon is fed by Buena Vista Creek. The drainage area is approximately 19 square miles. It is
long and narrow and extends from the San Marcos Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, a distance of
about 9 miles. The surface area is approximately 190 acres. There is little information available
concerning the water balance. The total resource might average 2,400 AF per year.
5-38
Water Quality
No water quality data was located for this report. Both the Department of Fish and Game, which
manages the ecological preserve, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board were contacted.
There is some data for wells within the Vista hydrologic subarea. The data revealed high nitrate and
TDS concentrations. The TDS concentrations increased from the eastern to the western wells.
Potential Uses
For this analysis, it is assumed that the water would be used to supplement reclaimed water. The
analysis is based on raising the water level in the lagoon by a maximum of 2 feet. Considering the
annual reclaimed water demand variation versus annual rainfall, the resource might be limited to
400 AF per year.
Facilities
Facilities included in this analysis include raising the outlet, an inlet pump station, and piping to the
reclaimed water system. The water is controlled by a weir at the west end of the lagoon. The
existing weir structure is deteriorating. The City of Oceanside is planning a $200,000 project to
construct a new concrete weir structure. The weir length would be increased for flood control
purposes. A sluice gate would also be added to provide flushing of sediments.
I A pump station could be located on the south side of the lagoon and just east of the Interstate 5. An
8-inch pipeline would connect to the existing CALTRANS line. The new line would extend from the
lagoon for approximately 8,000 feet south. The water would be filtered and a chlorine residual would
be provided by application of sodium hypochlorite.
Q.S&
Estimated costs are presented in Table 5.6. The estimated cost is estimated to be $295 per AF. This
cost is attractive as compared to other sources.
Other Factors
The biggest unknown concerning this alternative is the Impact on habitat and flood control by raising
the level of the lagoon. In discussions with the Department of Fish and Game, it was felt that raising
the level would not be acceptable. This would result in flooding of habitat for endangered species.
Further, the alternative would require a drawdown of two feet per year. Based on habitat concerns, it
is doubtful that this alternative could be implemented.
Lake Calavera
The Calavera Dam located in the Los Monos HSA intercepts an unnamed creek approximately
1.5 miles prior to joining the Agua Hedionda Creek The resultant lake (Lake Calavera) is important
as it attenuates peak discharge due to the storage of flood water provided by its volume. The
drainage basin contributing to Lake Calavera encompasses approximately 2,300 acres (P&D
Technologies 1991) with an estimated annual recharge capacity (stream flow contribution) to the
lake of 100-300 AF/yr (L.R. Burzell ISSO), and an estimated mean annual impoundment of
-
K1CMWD\U3UWIVOLXHS.RPT 5-39
- 500 AF/yr. Overall chemical water quality of Lake Calavera is considered fair however, high turbidity
is reported (Kubota & Lill 1996).
Lake Calavera is located in the northeast corner of the City. It was constructed in 1940 as a water
storage reservoir. It was used to store water from the San Luis Rey, Mission Basin Wells in the
winter for subsequent use in the summer. This storage was required to meet summer demands, as
the well pumping rate alone was insufficient. The facility was abandoned when the first Colorado
River Water was imported in 1957.
As discussed previously, the potential resource may average only 100 to 300 AF/yr. The District has
a right to 150 AF/yr.
Water Quality
No water quality data was available for this review. It is expected that the quality is highly impacted
from urban runoff.
Potential Uses
.L
Considering the small resource, the best potential use for Lake Calavera is for seasonal reclaimed
water storage. This is presented in Volume IV, Reclaimed Water.
Ollvenhain Mt. Israel Project
The Olivenhain Municipal Water District has been planning the Mount Israel storage and water
treatment plant project for over 10 years. The current planning is for a joint project between the
Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority. A dam and reservoir
will be constructed for the Authority’s Emergency Storage Project as well as storage for Olivenhain.
The reservoir is expected to store 24,000 acre-feet, with Olivenhain owning between 3,600 to
4,600 acre feet per year of operational storage. This will provide Olivenhain with emergency storage
for planned maintenance or disruption of the Authority supply.
Olivenhain is also planning to construct an 85 mgd membrane water treatment plant. It will be
located near the planned dam. The site will be capable of an expansion to 125 rngd. The treated
water will be piped west to the Olivenhain Municipal Water District‘s distribution system.
This project provides the CMWD an opportunity for increased reliability because of access to an
additional storage reservoir for emergency supply of treated water. The CMWD would purchase raw
water from the Authority year-round. It would be treated by Olivenhain in an up-sized treatment
plant. The treated water would be conveyed in a shared pipeline to Olivenhain’s Gaty Reservoir.
From there, CMWD would construct a dedicated 21-inch line to its La Costa High Reservoir.
The potential advantages to CMWD include access to emergency supplies in Mount Israel, a
product water with reduced total dissolved solids, an additional water connection point to the system,
and potential for less costly water. -
K1CMWW332AWWOLZCHS. RPl 5-40
c
Costs for this option have been estimated using the information contained in "A Briefing Document
for the Olivenhain Water Storage Project" dated May 1996. A 5 cubic feet per second capacity or
3.2 mgd has been considered. This flow would be comparable to the CMWDs current right in the
San Luis Rey River Mission Basin.
The facilities required would include: . Upsized electric service to the plant site
Shared cost of the planned 66-inch line from the plant to the existing SDCWA aqueduct
Upsized piping from the treatment plant to Olivenhain Municipal Water District Gaty
A new pipe from Gaty Reservoir to the CMWDs La Costa High Reservoir. This would run
Proportionate operation and maintenance costs. The flow from the water treatment plant to
. Upsized treatment capacity . .
Reservoir
north along Elfin Forest Road to Questhaven Road, west to Rancho Santa Fe Road, north to
Melrose, west along Melrose to Alga Road, and then to the La Costa High Reservoir.
La Costa High is expected to be by gravity.
.
.
The CMWD's share of the total capital cost is estimated at $1 1,274,000 as summarized in Table 5.7.
Maximum month demand - mgd
Annual Water Usage - AF
Capital Costs
3.23
3,250
Pipelines $4,238,000
Reservoirs $0
Booster Stations $0
Treatment (incl. RO) $3,961,000
Subtotal $8,199,000
Project Cost @ 37.5% $3,075,000
Total Capital Cost $1 1,274,000
Annual Capital Cost $844,000
Annual O&M Cost $320,000
Annual Total Cost I $1,164,000
Unit Water Cost - SIAF I $350
Raw water purchase from the SDCWA $594
Total Cost I $952/AF - Most of the pipeline cost is for the 21-inch pipe from the Gaty Reservoir to the La Costa High
Reservoir. The estimated length of this line is'25,200 lineal feet. The actual cost would need to be
5-41
,--- confirmed by preliminary engineer’s estimates as well as negotiated cost sharing between CMWD
and Olivenhain Municipal Water District.
Using base loading and assuming 90 percent delivery, the total estimated cost for the treatment and
conveyance is $358 per acre-foot. The purchase cost of raw water from the County Water Authority
would have to be added to this figure. The future cost of raw water is assumed to include the
Emergency Storage Project. This would add $594 in raw water costs.
An additional advantage of this alternative is the potential for emergency storage in the Mount Israel
Reservoir. This could provide a portion of the CMWDs ten-day emergency storage requirement.
The Water Master Plan (Volume ill), determined that the District will ultimately require 235.8 MG of
emergency storage. This would satisfy the San Diego County Water Authority’s recommendation for
10 days storage when the aqueducts are taken out of service for maintenance. The Maerkle
Reservoir will provide 195.0 MG of this requirement.
The Mount Israel Reservoir could provide the remaining amount. Over a ten-day period, the CMWD
would require an average flow of 4.1 mgd or 6.3 cfs. Therefore, this alternative could increase
system reliability and eliminate the need to site almost 41 MG of new reservoir capacity. The
estimated project cost for this storage is $28,200,000. This would be an avoided cost benefit for the
Mount Israel Project.
Based on projected water demands and only considering current reclaimed water capacity, the
additional storage would need to be on-line in 10 years. The present worth of the avoided cost is
$15,747,000. Over 20 years and considering an annual delivery of 3,250 AF, the net cost of water
would be:
c-
rn CosffAF
Treatment and Conveyance $358
Water Purchase $594
Reservoir Storage Credit $(343)
Apparent Net Cost $609
If the District were to implement additional reclaimed water capacity, the need for emergency
storage would also decrease.
Further, other joint opportunities might exist to decrease CMWD’s storage requirements. Without the
storage credit, the estimated cost of water is $952 per AF.
5-42
.-
References
Barretl Consulting Group, Rewrt o n the Feasibilitv for Redevelooment of the Cann on Well Field.
Burzell, Linden R., Rewrt on the Water SUDD~V for lake Calavera Golf Courser. Carlsbad. California.
Carlsbad, Califor&August 1991.
August 1990.
River Vallev Area, May 1971
the San Diego Drainage Province, Memorandum Report, April 1973.
Ground Water Studies. Reclaimed Water Use. Phase II, August 1984.
Studies. Phase IV. Memorandum Rewrt. June 1988.
California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 91 -18. Water Wells in the San Luis Rey
California Department of Water Resources, Southern District, Summarv o f Ground Water Qua litv in
California Department of Water Resources, Southern District, San Dieao Countv C oooerative
California Department of Water Resources, Southern District, San Dieao Reaion Ground Water
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Qualitv Control Plan for the S an Dim
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Final Master Environmenta I ImDact Rewrt For The Citv of
City of Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Miscellaneous San Lu is Rev Water SUDD Iv Well Lws.
Fetter, C.W., ADDlied Hv droaeoloQy , Merrill Publishing Co., 1988
Freeze, R. Allen and Cherry, John A., Froundwate r. Prentice Hall, 1979
Izbicki, John A., USGS, Evaluation of the Mission, Santee. and Tijuana Hydrologic Subarea for
Kubota, Jack Y., and Lill, Wayne P., Water Svste m Enaineerina Studv. C itv of Carlsbad. January
NBS/Lowry Engineers and Planners, Inc./Stetson Engineers, Inc., Balanced Water Manaaement
NBS/Lowry Engineers and Planners, Inc., Groundwater Recharae and Water Qualitv Issues. 2 mad
Palmer, Michael Arnold, Hvdroaeolwic lnvestiaation of Las Flores Basin. San Dieao. California,
Basin (9). 1994.
Carlsbad. General Plan Uodate. March 1994.
Measurements' and Qua litv Data. 1996.
Reclaimed Water Use. San Diego County, California, 1985.
1966.
Proiect. Phase I Rewrt. Final Draft, June 1992.
San Luis Rev Basin Desaltina Facilitv. 1993.
1990, Masters of Science Thesis, SDSU.
- P&D Technologies, Lake Calavera MuniciDal Golf Course. Draft Environmental ImDact Rewrt,
August 1991.
RECON, San Luis Rev River Water Qualitv Ma naaement Plan-February 1996.
K.ACMWOU332AWIVOLXHS.RPT 5-43
Todd, David Keith, Ph.D., Ground Water Hvdroloav. Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Wate r Resources lnvestiaations 24-74. Hvdroloaic- and
-
Salt-Balance Investigations Utilizing Digital Models. Lower San Luis Rev River Area. San Diego
Countv. California, October 1974.
USGS, Evaluation of the Mission. Santee. and Tijuana Hydrologic Subareas for Reclaimed-Water
Welch, Michael R., Ph.D., P.E., Evaluation of Ground Water Pumping. City of Oceanside 5 mgd
ExDansion of Mission Basin Brackish Ground Water Desaltina Facility, September 1995.
Use. San Dieao Countv. California. 1985.
5-44
Chapter 5 identified various local resource opportunities that include groundwater, surface water,
and seawater desalination. This chapter compares the alternatives with respect to feasibility, cost,
and other issues. A full description of the resources is given.in the previous chapters.
New water resources need to be compared to existing sources with respect to cost. The CMWD
currently uses imported water from the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD). This water is treated at MWD's Skinner Plant. The other local
source is reclaimed water. This program is discussed in Volume IV Reclaimed Water.
The current cost of imported water is approximately $506 per AF. This includes the SDCWA's
increment of $80 per AF. The CMWDs total customer charge is about $740 per AF which covers
operation, maintenance, administration, and District-wide capital improvements.
The existing costs of imported water will increase due to significant capital expenditures by the
MWD and the SDCWA. The SDCWA's Emergency Storage Project is expected to increase rates by
$165 per AF in today's dollars. The comparative cost should include this increment. Therefore, the
other alternatives will be compared to a cost of $671 in today's dollars.
Development of local resources should be eligible for up to a $250 per AF rebate from the MWD.
This rebate is part of MWDs Local Projects Program. The actual rebate is based on the total cost of
the local resource. The Local Projects Program pays the difference of the local resource cost to
MWDs cost of treated water. The maximum rebate is the $250 per AF figure.
The cost of reclaimed water would vary depending on the alternative selected. The 199W96 cost of
reclaimed water was $570 per AF. This included the rebate from the MWD. The current cost of
reclaimed water is less than the average rate for potable water. For the apparent best alternative,
reclaimed water would cost $667 per AF. This includes the $250 per AF MWD rebate. The market
for this alternative 8 million gallons per day (mgd) peak month. This equates to an average annual
demand of 4,460 acre-feet per year (AF/year).
-
Some of the resource opportunities identified in Chapter 5 have a finite capacity. However,
desalination would be an unlimited resource. For the basis of comparison, the alternatives are
compared based on a 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 3.23 mgd capacity. This figure has been
chosen as it matches CMWDs existing water right in the San Luis Rey River. It provides a base-line
comparison for future implementation of these rights. Considering a 90 percent yield, this would
provide 3,250 AF per year. This compares to a total projected demand of 28,450 AF per year in
2015.
-
6-1
6.3 Alrarnatrve Summary
The alternatives considered in this chapter include:
Groundwater
1.
2. Cannon Road Well Field
Sea Water Desalination
3. Thermal Processes
4. Reverse Osmosis
Surface Water
5. San Marcos Creek
6. Mount Israel
Groundwater sources not included are:
Mission Basin of the San Luis Rey River
Resoure Limitations
Buena Vista
Agua Hedionda Creek
Encinas Creek Low potential yield.
Batiquitos Subarea
High nitrates and total dissolved solids (TDS)
High TDS concentrations
No yield or quality data exists. -
For sea water desalination, VARI-RO or the Sephton Water Technologies variations could be
considered. Capacitive deionization cannot be considered a proven desalination process at this
time.
Development of Buena Vista Lagoon and Lake Calavera are not considered. Buena Vista Lagoon
probably cannot be developed due to impact a wildlife resources. Lake Calavera would be used for
seasonal reclaimed water storage as discussed in Volume IV Reclaimed Water. The location of
each of these alternatives was shown on Figure 5.1.
Resource Summary
For the purpose of this analysis, the following capacities and potential yields are considered.
Alternative Peak Capacity Annual Delivery
(mgd) WYr)
1. Mission Basin 3.23 3,250
2. Cannon Road Well Field 0.29 320
3. Thermal Desalination 3.23 3,250
4. Reverse Osmosis Desalination 3.23 3,250
5. San Marcos Creek 1.50 1,500
6. Mount Israel 3.23 3.250
-
6-2
,---
As discussed previously, the 3.23 mgd figure relates to the City of Carlsbad's existing right in the
Mission Basin. The treatment alternatives consider base-loading with a 90 percent yield. This would
allow for an average of 1 month downtime per year.
Potential Uses
Due to quality considerations, the water resource would be used for either potable or to supplement
reclaimed water. The assumed uses are:
Use
Alternative Potable Reclaimed
1. Mission Basin X
2. Cannon Road Well Field X
3. Thermal Desalination X
4. Reverse Osmosis Desalination 'X
5. San Marcos Creek X
6. Mount Israel X
There is insufficient quality data available for the Cannon Road Well Field, or San Marcos Creek to
consider them for potable water uses.
-
This section includes an estimate of probable capital costs and total annual costs in terms of dollars
per acre-foot. The latter takes into account the cost of capital over a twenty year period and annual
operation and maintenance costs.
The cost estimates are based on an order of magnitude analysis of the alternatives. The estimates
could vary by 50 percent below to 30 percent above completed costs. A detailed design report is
required to further refine the estimates. However, the estimates presented can be used for general
comparison purposes.
All costs are reported for a December 1996 level as expressed by the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index of 6550. An allowance of 37.5 percent is included for engineering,
administration, legal, and contingencies. An interest rate of 6 percent has been used to calculate
equivalent annual cost.
6-3
'Table 6.f Water Resource Oppo~u& cost Comparison
Carfsbad Municipal Water Disgict ' .
unit cost (SJAF)
Alternative cost ($1 .ooQ) " Total MWO Rebate Ne Cast
I 1. Mission Basin I $9,589 I $493 I $0 I $493 I
3. Thermal Desalination $35,640 $1,496 ($250) $1,246
4. Reverse Osmosis Desalination $29,479 $1,535 ($250) $1,285
5. San Marcos Creek $1 1,943 $1,066 ($250) $816 - 6 Mount Israel $1 1,274 $952 $0 $952
I 2. Cannon Road Well Field I $1.514 I $587 I $0 I $587 I
6-4
The cost factors for a reverse osmosis plant are somewhat more defined than for thermal
desalination. Numerous reverse osmosis plants have been constructed for brackish water, water
softening, and sea water desalination. A site exists, and co-locating with a power company is not an
issue.
Alternative No. 5 San Marcos Creek
The costs for San Marcos Creek include the dam, suspended solids removal, chlorination, pumping,
and pipeline. The estimates are based on delivering 1,500 AF per year.
Alternative No. 6 Mount Israel
The cost for the Mount Israel Project includes purchase of untreated water from the Water Authority.
The estimated $165 per acre foot for the Authority's Emergency Storage Project is also included as
well as the equivalent annual cost for transmission from the treatment plant to the CMWDs La
Costa High Reservoir. The water purchase cost could be reduced somewhat if the MWD Reservoir
Seasonal Shifl Programs continue to apply to water stored in Mount Israel.
As discussed in Chapter 5, the Mount Israel Project could reduce the CMWDs future reservoir
needs for lo-day's emergency storage. This would avoid up to $28,200,000 in reservoir construction
costs. The storage above that in Maerkle Reservoir would not be needed for 10 years. The present
worth of the avoided cost would reduce the net cost of water to $609 per AF. This net cost would
compare to the $651 per AF for imported treated water as presented in Section 6.1.
If the CMWD implements additional reclaimed water capacity, the emergency storage requirements
drop with a reduced avoid cost benefit.
This section describes the probable reliability of the potential yields and cost analysis.
Alternative No. 1 Mlsslon Basin
The factors surrounding Mission Basin are relatively well known. The City of Oceanside has
constructed facilities that have operated successfully for several years. The water quality and cost
considerations are established. Through emergency interties, the CMWD might receive groundwater
even though imported supplies are restricted The only question concerns the long term yield of the
basin.
Alternative No. 2 Cannon Road Well Field
The estimated yield and quality would need to be investigated further before this alternative is
implemented. These factors could heavily influence final costs. A test well would need to be drilled.
Additional water quality testing is required. This source could be considered for reclaimed water,
depending on the TDS concentration. -
6-5
Alternative No. 3 Thermal
Seawater provides an unlimited source of local water. While costs have been based on a 5 mgd
plant, the unit costs would also decrease somewhat if the CMWD implemented a larger project.
However, co-location at the Encina Power Plant raises various technical issues including:
1) future SDG&E ownership
2) CPUC review and approval
3) space
4)
Alternative No. 4 Reverse Osmosis
As with thermal desalination, seawater provides an unlimited source of local water. Further, a
reverse osmosis plant could be phased and expanded more easily than a thermal desalination plant.
Factors that could affect the costs include the type of inlet facilities and approval of brine disposal in
the EWPCF ocean outfall. The inlet could consist of Ranney collectors constructed in the beach or
an inlet pipeline. Considerable regulatory approval would be required for either option.
Alternative No. 5 San Marcos Creek
There is insufficient information to establish the expected yield of this project. Long-term water
quality parameters are not established. The costs are speculative.
If developed, this project would add to local sources. Because of unknown quality, the source should
be considered for augmentation of reclaimed water supplies. However, if there were a drought it is
doubtful that significant deliveries could be made. This source is less reliable than reclaimed water.
Alternative No. 6 Mount Israel
This project is currently being defined by the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the San Diego
County Water Authority. The cost factors have been defined on a preliminary basis. This alterative
would increase the District's reliability, with access to the stored water in the reservoir. This could be
used for IO-day's storage and could provide for additional emergency storage.
brine effect on the plants NPDES permit.
6-6
A review of the various water resources available to CMWD has resulted in the identification of
several candidates for development of local water resources. These would reduce the dependency
On imported water supplies. Some of the more viable opportunities may result in the CMWD
returning to its historical source of water supply while others may place them in a leadership position
with regard to the use of new technologies.
The City of Carlsbads original water supplies were from the Mission Basin located to the north in
the City of Oceanside. As was previously described, the CMWD still maintains certain water rights in
the basin, some of which are fairly senior. The CMWD periodically reports to the State Water
Resources Control Board as to the status of plans for the future use of the groundwater basin, by
CMWD, which results in the extension of the appropriative rights in five year increments. The current
expiration date for the appropriative rights is the year 2000.
Investigations have been made of the feasibility of rehabilitating the old CMWD wells within the
Mission Basin and the construction of transmission capacity to convey the water to the CMWD.
Costs have always proven prohibitive when compared to the cost of imported supply. In addition to
the well and transmission costs, the groundwater requires desalting due to the degradation of the
water quality within the basin.
The City of Oceanside is the other agency with water rights within the Mission Basin and they
currently use their rights through operation of a 2 million gallons per day (mgd), reverse osmosis
desalter. Oceanside is presently designing an expansion of the Mission Basin Desalter to a capacity
of 6.7 mgd and has long range plans for further expansion to 20 mgd. It is their desire to have full
control of the Mission Basin and to be the only rights holder within it.
CMWD’s appropriative rights may be lost if some form of groundwater use is not implemented.
However, the CMWD’s 200 miners inches (5 cfs) of Pre-1914 rights are not subject to loss through
non-use. CMWDs real benefit of developing local groundwater would be the reliability of local
supply which would not be subject to cutbacks by either the San Diego County Water Authority
(SDCWA) or the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). CMWDs ownership of
Pre-1914 rights may create an opportunity for an agreement with the City of Oceanside wherein the
City could achieve its objective of control of the basin while CMWD could realize a reliable local
r
supply.
This development of the Mission basin could be achieved by an exchange agreement with the City
of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside would develop Carlsbad’s right to the Mission Basin. The City
of Oceanside would then treat an equal amount of raw imported water at their Robert A. Weese
Water Treatment Plant. The water would be delivered through an inter-system connection. A new
-
KiCMWDU332AWlVOLXHI.RPT 7- 1
pipeline would be constructed in El Camino Real starting north of Highway 78 and running south to
Carlsbad Village Drive. To match demands, the pipe would connect to the District's 225 and 330
zones. Pressure reducing stations would probably be needed at both points of connection. The
estimated project so of the new 16-inch line is $759,000.
The cost of this water should be on the order of that for treated imported water. The advantage
would be increased reliability to the District. Normal operation would entail delivery of imported
water. In case of emergency or drought curtailment, the City of Oceanside would continue to deliver
5 cfs through the existing emergency inter-tie. This continuance of emergency deliveries would be a
key element of the agreement.
The Mount Israel Project provides the CMWD the opportunity to increase emergency storage and
supply reliability. It would not provide for long-term drought reliability. As discussed in Chapter 5, the
project would be constructed jointly with the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the San Diego
County Water Authority. The Mount Israel reservoir would store 24,000 AF of water as part of the
Authority's Emergency Storage Project. Olivenhain would own between 3,600 and 4,600 AF of
operational storage. They would also construct a membrane water treatment plant.
There is an opportunity for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District to participate in this project. The
CMWD would purchase raw water from the Authority. Olivenhain would treat the water in an
up-sized plant. The treated water would be conveyed in a shared pipeline to Olivenhain's Gaty
Reservoir. From there, CMWD would construct a dedicated 21-inch line to the CMWD's La Costa
High Reservoir.
The County Water Authority recommends that each member agency have sufficient storage to
provide for 10 day's average annual demand. This provides for emergency supplies when the
aqueducts are out of service for maintenance. When improvements to the CMWD's Maerkle
Reservoir are completed in 1998, the reservoir will provide 195 MG of emergency storage. Based on
the present level of reclamation, conservation, the total requirement would be 235.8 MG. The
additional 41 MG of storage might be provided within the Mount Israel Reservoir.
The estimated cost for the CMWDs portion of the project is $1 1,274,000. The unit cost of water
would be $932 per AF. This includes the CMWDs portion of annual capital and operating costs as
well as the purchase of raw water.
While this cost is high, other factors that require consideration include: . Other existing system storage. The other reservoirs provide for 50.5 MG of storage. Even
Other local sources, specifically the Mission Basin, would substitute for this project.
The Cost sharing would require negotiation with Olivenhain and possibly the Authority.
considering these half-full when an outage occurs, much of the deficit in storage exists. . - .
K1CMWM4332AW\VOL2CH7. RPT 7-2
. The water allocation, during a drought, could dictate a less reliable supply. A drought
management plan by MWD and the SDCWA needs to be adopted to establish CMWD’s
rights for water from this source. . The SDCWA must approve the Emergency Water Storage Project for funding of design and construction.
Current seawater desalination technology in use around the world is quite expensive. This high cost
has precluded any significant development of seawater as a potable water resource where
alternative resources have been available. As was presented previously, several new desalination
technologies are under development and hopes for significant economic improvement do exist. The
vertical tube multiple effect distillation process which has been developed by MWDSC is still
appearing to be able to produce desalted seawater for about $800 per acre-foot delivered into the
system when constructed in the 75-80 mgd size range. This capacity is obviously well beyond
anything that CMWD could use. The MWDSC process development team (Parsons, IDE, and
Reynolds Aluminum) is nearing the completion of a commercial module in the capacity of 12.6 mgd
which may be of some interest to CMWD. The current estimated costs for this module are on the
order of $1.000 to $1,200 per acre-foot However, published costs based on operating units suggests
a cost on the order of $1,500 per acre-foot for a dual-purpose, multiple effect distillation process.
When combined this cost with the MWDSC subsidy of $250 per acre-foot through its Local
Resource Program, the process may become a little more attractive, particularly when you factor in
the high quality of the finished water when compared to other local or imported supplies. These
costs may be brought down further by the design teams current investigations into alternative
surfactants to improve the heat transfer by improving the sheet flow on the fluted aluminum tubes.
This modification to the process is similar to the Sephton Technologies process which uses a
patented surfactant to improve the heat transfer.
The demonstrated costs of the reverse osmosis process are currently lower than for thermal
processes. The opportunity exists for sitting a plant at the 32 ace site south of the Encina Water
Pollution Control Facility. This land is owned jointly by the six agencies that make up the Encina
Wastewater Authority, including the City of Carlsbad. The brine might be discharged through the
Encina Ocean Outfall. At this time, the implementation of a reverse osmosis plant has advantages.
However, advances in thermal processes could shift the relative cost in the future.
Should thermal seawater desalination appear economically attractive as a local resource, CMWD
would need to negotiate agreements with San Diego Gas & Electric for joint use at their Encina
Power Plant and for the delivery of a reliable steam supply to drive the process. Additional local
water utilities may also wish to participate in such a project. Of all sources, this would be the most
reliable given the availability of seawater during the most catastrophic drought events.
The desalted water would be delivered to the CMWDs distribution system. An 18-inch pipeline
would run from the desalination plant and connect to the 550 Zone at El Camino Real. The
alignment would be along the proposed Cannon Road Extension. The pipe would have to tie into this
zone to provide for system blending as well as to match the supply to system demands.
-
K:\CMWD’d332AW\YOLXHI.RPT 7-3
The CMWD should continue to monitor developments in seawater desalination and opportunities to
implement a cost effective project.
In addition, the CMWD should prepare a preliminary design report determining site requirements,
location of wells or ocean intake pipelines, develop groundwater extraction rates for wells, resolve
brine disposal issues, verify distribution system improvements and complete the environmental
review process.
The expanded use of reclaimed water is recommended to decrease reliance on imported water. The
recommended Phase II Program, Alternative No. 9 discussed in Volume IV, would provide for
4,480 AF/yr of local supply. The ultimate program would provide for up to 9,780 AFlyr.
7.5 esn%esvatCon i ' I
It is recommended that the CMWDs existing conservation program be continued. The Best
Management Practices include:
1) Participation in the regional conservation programs being implemented by the MWD and the
SDCWA. - 2) Implementation of conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Economic and financial incentives to encourage efficient use of water.
Water use regulation through City ordinances.
Public relations and education programs.
3)
4)
5)
The 2015 water resource demand has been projected to be 25.4 mgd on an annual average basis.
With the candidate resources, excluding seawater desalination, the relative sources would be:
Item
Base Demand
Existing Reclamation
Conservation
Candidate Programs
Phase II Reclamation
Mission Basin
Net Imported Demand
Mount Israel
Average Annual Percent Total
Flow (mgd)
24.4 100
-1.27 5
-1.27 5
2.73 11
3.23 13
16.9 67
3.23 13
Emergency Drought Reliability Reliability
X X
X
__ __
X X
X X
X - From this summary, 10 percent of the future demands are expected to be met by existing
reclamation and conservation programs. Another 24 percent of future demands could be met by the
Phase II Reclamation program and the Mission Basin groundwater.
K:!CMWD\4332AM)\VOLCHI. RPT 7-4
Future water scenario is shown on Figure 7.1. This figure shows the historical demands from 1990
and takes into account the existing Phase I reclamation and conservation. The future scenario
assumes that a new project would not be on-line until 2002. This allows approximately 2 years for
design and 2 years for construction.
7.7 casts I
The costs for the recommended candidates are given below. The capital costs include engineering,
legal, administration, and contingencies. The equivalent water cost include cost of capital and reflect
available rebates through MWD’s Local Projects Program.
Candidate Resource Estimated Capital cost Water Cost ($/AF)
Phase I1 Reclamation $24,229,000 667
Mission Basin $9,589,000 493
Mount Israel $1 1,943,000 932
The water costs compare to a projected imported water cost of $671/AF. This figure is reported in
today’s dollars, but factors in full implementation of the SDCWS’s Emergency Storage Project. If the
Mount Israel Project can avoid the CMWD from constructing additional emergency storage, the net
water cost of this alternative drops to $609/AF.
7-5
The CMWD is located adjacent to various cities and special service districts responsible for water,
reclaimed water, and wastewater services. This section describes joint use of facilities that could
result in benefits to both CMWD and the adjacent agency. Though presented in this volume
discussing potential water resources, some of the joint use concepts are applicable to sewer and
reclaimed water facilities. Copies of the agency meeting notes pertinent to this master plan are
contained in Appendix A.
The City of Vista is located to the northeast of the CMWD. Vista provides wastewater collection
services. The wastewater is conveyed through the Vista-Carlsbad Trunk Sewer for treatment at the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. This sewer is jointly owned and operated by Vista and the
City of Carlsbad (see Volume I). The City of Vista is a member agency of the Encina Wastewater
Authority.
The City of Vista also operates the Shadowridge Water Reclamation Plant. This plant was
constructed by a developer for the Buena Sanitation District. The Buena Sanitation District is located
in the southern portion of the City of Vista, and the City provides all management. The on-site
operation of the Shadowridge plant is done by Encina Wastewater Authority staff by contract.
Areas of mutual support and facilities include: . Purchase of excess reclaimed water from the Shadowridge Water Reclamation Plant.
Almost all of the flow is used to irrigate the Shadowridge Golf Course in July and August.
Excess flows are available in other months for storage in Lake Calavera. There is an existing
agreement covering use of excess effluent (see Volume I).
would be diverted through the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor (see Volume 5).
. Conveyance of flows from the Buena Sanitation District Raceway Pump Station. These flows
The Vista Irrigation District (VID) covers the City of Vista and is responsible for water service. The
VID also is the water purveyor of the reclaimed water to the Shadowridge Golf Course.
The VID receives its water from the San Diego County Water Authority and Lake Henshaw. Their
water supply in Lake Henshaw is diverted from the San Luis Rey River, through the Escondido
Canal to Lake Wholford, and then treated in the Escondido-Vista Water Treatment Plant at Lake
Dixon. The VID owns 25 million gallons per day (mgd) capacity out of the total capacity of 90 mgd.
Lake Henshaw storage is used to meet the 10 day's emergency storage criteria set by the County
Water Authority.
-
8-1
The VID has completed a reclaimed water master plan. The Shadowridge Water Reclamation Plant
could be expanded to 2.5 mgd from the existing 1.16 mgd capacity. The service area would extend
from State Route 78 south. The District has no plans to go forward with the reclaimed water program
at this time.
The VID and Carlsbad Municipal Water District could benefit from the following: . A system cross-connection at Palomar Airport Road and Business Park Drive.
Use of Santa Fe II potable water storage reservoir by the VID. This could possibly eliminate
Use of the Santa Fe I reservoir for joint reclaimed water use. This CMWD reservoir is not
Use of Lake Henshaw water to help the Carlsbad Municipal Water District during planned or
.
the need for a costly reservoir in the Shadowridge Business Park.
currently used.
emergency shutdowns of the County Water Authority Aqueducts.
.
.
The City of Oceanside is located north of the City of Carlsbad. Oceanside provides for both water
and wastewater service within its city limits. There is no redaimed water program.
Oceanside has two sources of potable water. These include imported Colorado River water and
groundwater from the Mission Sub-basin of the San Luis Rey River. The City can draw both raw and
treated water from the County Water Authority. Raw water is treated in the 25 mgd Robert A Weese
Water Treatment Plant. Built in 1983, the City reports that it can treat water more cost effectively
than purchasing treated water.
The City constructed the Mission Basin Desalting Facility in 1994. It currently produces about
2.3 mgd. A design is undelway to expand its capacity to 6.37 mgd. The facility makes use of the
City's 22.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) right in the San Luis Rey River and underlying Mission Basin.
The planned withdrawal is 5,800 acre-feet per year, and the actual production will be set to prevent
specified reduction in groundwater levels and seawater intrusion. The Mission Basin is discussed in
Chapter 7.
Opportunities for joint Oceanside-Carlsbad facilities include:
-
. Connection of Leisure Village to the CMWDs sewer system at the planned extension of Cannon Road. This would eliminate a sewage pump station in Oceanside. These flows
would be treated at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility through an existing exchange
agreement with the City of Vista. . Improve the emergency water connection at El Camino Real for at least 5 cfs.
Utilize CMWD water rights in the Mission Basin by participating in Oceanside desalting .
expansion. -
8-2
The Leucadia County Water District provides for wastewater collection in the southern portion of the
City of Carlsbad as well as the northern portion of Encinitas. Most of the flows are treated at the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. Up to 0.75 mgd is treated for reclamation at the District‘s
Gafner Water Reclamation Plant. This reclaimed water is sold to the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District for purveying to the La Costa Resort and Spa.
Opportunities for joint facilities include: . An emergency overflow from Alga Road to Leucadia’s La Costa Pump Station. This would
require implementation of the upgrades being designed.
8.5 OIivenhatn
The Olivenhain Municipal Water District provides water service in the southeast corner of the City of
Carlsbad as well as portions of Encinitas. Olivenhain currently uses imported treated water.
The Olivenhain Municipal Water District will participate in the construction of the planned Mount
Israel Reservoir project implemented by the County Water Authority. They will own about one-fifth of
the storage, or about 3,600 to 4,600 acre feet per year of operational storage. This will provide for
emergency storage volume up from their current six days.
An 85 mgd membrane water treatment facility will be constructed by the Olivenhain Municipal Water
District downstream of the dam. The treated water will then be piped to their distribution system. The
treatment plant site can handle an expansion to 125 mgd. These facilities will be owned and
operated by Olivenhain.
The Olivenhain Municipal Water District is continuing to look at injection in the upstream portion of
the San Dieguito Basin for subsequent downstream withdrawal. This work is being done by the San
Dieguito Basin Task Force.
Joint facilities could include: . Leased capacity in Olivenhain’s planned water treatment facilities. The booster pump station
and pipeline to Olivenhain’s Gaty Reservoir would need to be upsized. The CMWD would
then need to construct pipelines into its distribution system. . Additional emergency cross connections. There are four emergency connections at this time.
8.6 Vallecltos Water OistrSct -
The Vallecitos Water District provides water and wastewater service for the area east of the City of
Carlsbad as well as a portion of Carlsbad at the eastern City limit. The Vallecitos Water District
K?MWLWZBAW!VOL2CHB,RPT 8-3
L covers the City of San Marcos. Most of the wastewater flows through the City of Carlsbad to the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility for treatment and disposal. A portion of the flow is treated at
the 2.25 mgd Meadowlark Water Reclamation Plant, and the effluent is purchased by the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District for reclaimed water distribution. The wastewater treated at Meadowlark is
from that drainage basin and that pumped to the plant from Pump Station No. 1.
The Vallecitos Water District currently purchases treated water from the County Water Authority.
There are groundwater wells that are not used because of the poor quality. Vallecitos will retain a
site for a 50 mgd water treatment plant in the vicinity of their planned Twin Oaks Reservoir and the
County Water Authority aqueducts.
There are two emergency water cross connections between the CMWD and Vallecitos Water
District.
Opportunities for joint facilities include: . Improvements at the Vallecitos Mahr Reservoir for seasonal reclaimed water storage.
Continue development and use of the Meadowlark Water Reclamation Plant to develop
Potential joint development of a water treatment plant utility imported water via the SDCWA.
.
reclaimed water. .
Appendix A
Agency Meeting Notes
4 carouo < encrneers
ROUTE -
CONFERENCEMEMORANDUM
Project: Master Pian Updates Conf. Date: July 10,1996
Client: Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Reissue Date: August 6,1996
Location: EWPCF
Purpose: Agency Coordination
Attendees: ciw 0 f Ca- -Carollo:
Bill Plurnrner (BP) Dennis Wood Rick Graff (RG) Mike Fiieccia (MF)
Distribution: Attendees, Duane Jensen File: 4332AOO
DIacuuion:
Th. fullowlng la ow und.ntmdlng of the subject malm covd In mb ~~~IWICO. It thla dltlm wim your undmondhg,
pluu notlly us.
1. Water Reclamation Plant
RG said that Carlsbad was the first agency to come forward concerning the land. The agreement
says that all agencies have to agree to the use. Encina also has some funding to look at the
equalization basin in more detail. Maybe fund through Carlsbad or Leucadia. Things that could be
shared are pumping, piping, and compatible tankage.
The land is in the name of Carlsbad in behalf of the other agencies.
No wording on cost allocation if a member agency uses the land.
The site is 36.985 gross acres inclusive of easement and right-of-way. The net buildable area is
32.014 acres.
2. Desalination Plant
RG said there were targeted uses for the land. These included reclamation, flow equilkadon
administration building, and buffer area. The question would probably have to go back to the
member agencies.
There could be a potential for joint use of the outfall for brine
K:\CMWUGENIMN 1
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
BP said they would like to use the dewatering wells by the clarifiers for the water source. Carlsbad
may do the pilot test. Carlsbad may approach Encina with a program.
3. Agreements for O&M
I .,.,.: ..................... ..: I.. ... :: ..:.... . .,: ....:.:... .:. . . Encina could operate the reclamation plant ff;p:ed.bsWdAQEWA . There is no requirement
that Encina do this. It could be done by agreement similar to Shadowridge.
MF also discussed opportunity of additional cogeneration power for use at the potential reclamation
plant.
4. TDS Reduction at Encina
The revenue sampling points have testing done. MF has given this information to Keith London.
The extension of the brine discharges from the industries could be until the year 2,000.
5. On-Sie Reclamation
MF said they have records on what Is used on the CALTRANS median.
i~e~,~a be a future customer
In July 1997. Carlsbad may be in predesign for the reclamation plant.. There could be a joint
opportunity for spac
Facility Plan Update
control rooms, etc., as part of Encina's 2020
Prspared B /i
DKW:cs
2
ROUTE
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Project: Master Plan Updates Conf. Dare: July 10.1996
Cllent: Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Issue Date: July 12. 1996
Location: Carlsbad Oftices
Attendees: atvofCarl$Wi !~xQ!&x
Bill Plummer (BP) Dennis Wood Tim Jochem (TJ)
Distribution: Attendees, Duane Jensen Rle: 433ZAOO
Oimussbn:
ma following la our undemanding of tho wb1M mtM wI.d In thla confwwca. If this dlt(m WIUI your undmPndlng.
ploau nottty ua.
1. Master Plan Updates
TJ felt that federal grants would be needed to have reclamation go in this area. The bills have gone
to the floor. San Elijo is ready to go. TJ would like to get some appropriation up front so that there
would be an investment in North County.
There would also be 25 percent funding for design.
Leucadia may want to get rid of the primarylsecondary treatment at Gafner and pump back from
Encina. Possibly look at demineralization. The elimination of primarykecondary would free up
some land. The digester could provide equalbation Or storage.
The Gafner TDS is about 1,100 mgd. Almost 10 percent of the TDS is due to sodium hypochlorite.
They got some benefit from sealing lines from infiltration.
TJ also feeds that they have to add higher than normal alum and polymer doses.
Discussed the reclaimed water rate Set to recover capital and variable costs.
La Costa is taking more water this year and could reach full capacity this summer.
BP said Poinsettia Park would open November/December. This will start hydro seeding soon.
KXMWD\AG.EN I .MN 1
BP asked about emergency overflows at Alga TH said there could be some future capacity after
the La Costa Pump Station is upgraded. This design is undernay. TJ need to verify this.
Dennis K. Wood
DKW:cs
2
L
.-
<+ cclrouo encineers
ROUTE Ell
CONFERENCEMEMORANDUM
Project: Master Plan Updates Conf. Date: July 17, 1996
Client: Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Issue Date: July 26, 1996
Location: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Office
Attendees: Carollo: ASL: Oceanside:
Bill Plummer (BP) Duane Jensen (DJ) Steve Tedesco (ST) Jim Turner (JT) Robert Granney (RG) Greg Blakely (GB)
Distribution: Attendees File: 4332A00
Discussion:
The following is our understanding of the subject matter covered In lhls conference. If this differs with your understanding,
please notify us.
1. Robert A. Weese Water Treatment Plant
(JT) The existing Robert A. Weese Water Treatment Plant (Weese Plant) by Oceanside,
constructed in about 1983, is beginning to pay off. It gives Oceanside the ability to draw water
from the Water Authority's (SDCWA) raw water pipeline as well as the treated water pipeline.
They are finding that they can treat water less expensively than the charges for treatment
charged by SDCWA for treated water from MWD. JT feels that having a redundant water source
is of great value. The plant was constructed as a direct filtration plant with space set aside for
the addition of future clarifiers if they are ever necessary. The plant has a 25 MGD capacity at
the present time. The annual power cost of the plant is about $20,000 when running at an
average flow of 16.5 MGD.
Mission Valley Desalting Project and the San Luis Ray Ground Water Basin (SLRGWB)
(JT) Said that Oceanside is interested in the development of the SLRGWB. They have begun
the development by constructing and operating the pumping and treatment facilities for extracting
the about 2.0 MGD of ground water from the basin. The ground water has a TDS of about
1500 mg/l so desalting treatment is required.
Oceanside's future plans are to completely manage the SLRGWB. They plan to develop a plan
for deposition, storage, and extraction of imported water within the SLRGWB. Oceanside is in
the process of studying the basin's capacity and the impacts of its use. Potential concerns so far
2.
1
CONFERENCEMEMORANDUM
include Fish and Wildlife (FW) restrictions on fluctuations of ground water levels. Fw's current position is to allow no more than a one foot fluctuation because the ground water may affect
surface water features. Oceanside is planning to address these impacts by further evaluation of
the ground water and surface water relationships and possibly the development and use of
reclaimed water in the basin area to help mitigate them.
Carlsbad Water Rights in the San Luis Ray Ground Water Basin and Interconnections
(RG) mentioned that Carlsbad held some water rights in the SLRGWB and has maintained some
easements feeding from the basin area to the Carlsbad system. RT said he was aware of
Carlsbad rights and he thought Oceanside could be interested in participating in an agreement to
provide water to Carlsbad through the Weese Plant in exchange for the use of the rights. The
ability of delivery systems to transfer this water should be determined thought the ongoing master
plans evaluations.
(RT) There may be a need to relocate and enlarge the metering facilities between Oceanside and
Carlsbad. The present capacity is limited to about 5 cfs. A 24-inch future tie in on College is
blocked by a storm sewer line in the area. Oceanside will also look into feeding water to
Carlsbad thought the Aqueduct system.
3.
4. Sewer Interconnections
(RT) Oceanside would like to connect the sewer from the Leisure area onto the Carlsbad system
and eliminate their pumping plant now sewing that area. The flow would flow the Encina as
covered by the present Vista agreement. The area is now completely developed. It would
connect to the Carlsbad line identified as SAHT2A.
5. Water Tank Sites
BP mentioned that Carlsbad has another 50 Acres at elevation 500. The discussion of shared
storage sites to meet the city's 1Oday storage policy. (RT) Another storage reservoir for
Oceanside at that level would have little value.
6. Buena Vista Lagoon
BP mentioned that FW would like to increase the level of the lagoon by increasing the weir level.
RT said that he thought this cause considerable highway flooding problems and probably will not
occur.
Prepared By:
A
.-
2
encineers
.-
Project:
Client:
Location:
Purpose:
Attendees:
Distribution:
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Master Plan Updates Conf. Date: September 13, 1996
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Issue Date: September 16, 1996
Olivenhain Offices
Agency Interface Meeting
Olivenhain MWD: Carlsbad MWD: Carollo Enaineers: Harry Ehrlich Bill Plummer Dennis Wood
Revised Date: October 3, 1996
Attendees, Duane Jensen, Howard Arnold, File: 4332A00 John Morris, File
Discussion:
The foliowlng Is our understandlng of the subject matter covered In thls conference. If this dltfers with your understanding,
please notify us.
1. The Olivenhain Municipal Water District(0MWD) will own about one-fifth of the Mount Israel Reservoir. This will provide OMWD with their operating storage--up from current 6 days. The
reservoir will be 24,000 acre-feet, and the OMWD will have 3600 to 4600 AF of operational
storage. The estimated capital cost to OMWD is $22.500.000 to pay CWA. Other facilities
such as treated water lines will be constructed by OMWD. The OMWD will fund their portion
with an assessment district. The OMWD is also providing the land as part of their cost contribution.
The OMWD will construct a membrane water treatment plant downstream of the dam. The
water can be boosted to the OMWD Gaty Reservoir. From there, there is the opportunity to
have a cross connection with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) off the Questhaven
Pipeline. The treatment will provide 550 milligram per liter total dissolved solids. This will
provide a benefit for reclamation. The current planning is a 85 million gallon per day(MGD)
plant (first phase to be 20 mgd). The site can handle up to 125 mgd. The plant will be modular
for future expansion.
The plant will be sited at elevation 982. Design should start next spring.
Discussed the possible participation by the CMWD. Capacity could be leased or purchased.
The CMWD would have to participate in the up-sizing of the pump station and the finished
water pipeline to the Gaty Reservoir. The CBMWD may want to take raw water from the CWA year-round and treat it by agreement with OMWD. For emergencies, the CBMWD would have
2.
K:KMWDWMWDREVl .MN 1
.- CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
The San Dieguito B$$nl";tskF@@ is continuing to look at injection upstream in the basin and
withdrawal downstream. The TDS is very high towards the ocean.
The OMWD is looking at reclamation projects at 45 Ranch and Rancho Cielo.
The OMWD may consider helping to fund the Aerogel pilot unit at Encina.
Emergency crossconnections were discussed. There is an interest for additional emergency
cross connections.
3.
Prepared By fl
i
Dennis K. Wood
K:CMWDUJMWOREVI .MN 2
<+ cclrouo encineers
ROUTE -
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Project: Master Plan Updates Conf. Date: July 9, 1996
Client: Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Issue Date: July 10, 1996
Location: Vallecitos Water District
Attendees: City of Carlsbad: Carollo: m: Vallecitos:
Bill Plummer (BP) Dennis Wood Keith London Bill Rucker (BR) Dennis Lamb (DL)
Distribution: Attendees File: 4332A00
Discussion:
The following is our understanding of the subject matter covered in this conference. If this differs with your understanding,
please notify us.
I. Master Plan Updates
BP wants to show adjacent District utilities within the City in CMMD's master plan. This would consist of some sewer service for Vallecitos. This area drains to Meadowlark.
Vallecitos is updating their master plans. Only Encina will be used for treatment and disposal.
The Meadowlark basin will generate 3 mgd ultimately. This will not occur for some time. The
contract with CMWD for providing reclaimed water is for 25 years.
Meadowlark rating will go to 2.25 mgd. This rating is to provide the flow to convey the solids.
Meadowlark is within Carlsbad.
The flows into Lift Station No. 1 are 4.86 mgd. Would need to upgrade Lift Station No. 1 and the
force main if Meadowlark was to go beyond 3 mgd. BR thinks this is cost prohibitive.
BR suggested looking at Carlsbad owning Encina.
Development will ultimately occur adjacent to the Meadowlark plant boundaries.
K:lCMWDV\GENCOOR.MN 1
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
2. Mahr Reservoir Improvements
BP discussed lining and covering the Reservoir. It would be tied directly to the distribution
system. The District is doing Squires now, and will have good cost data. There would be no
visual impacts with covering.
The microscreens would not be used if Mahr is tied to the system directly. The pumps control
the hydraulic grade line now.
BR suggested live stream discharge for San Marcos creek. This would look at site specific
objectives. No nutrient removal would have been required.
3. Reclaimed Watei
This will be in CDM’s scope. BR doesn’t see much real hope for reclaimed markets within
Vallecitos.
4. Failsafe Line through Carillo
DL felt that a design flow over 3 mgd was overly optimistic.
DW will provide sizing to BP.
BP said spilling was still a problem at the pump station. May pressurize the manhole.
If a reclamation plant is constructed at Encina, the line size may need to be of greater capacity to
convey flows to the Mahr Reservoir. Look at TDS tracing in the sewers.
5. Pricing Policies
BP would hope that the pricing policy for reclaimed water would be the same for both Districts.
CMWD will sell at 5% less than the potable rate.
6. Encina Site
BR would suggest that CMWD would look at leasing or purchasing that part of the site used by
the tertiary plant.
BP also noted the potential use of the site for desalination. The other site would be the Encina
power plant.
7. Emergency Water Connections
The Districts are connected at two major places. These only serve Carlsbad from Encina.
Maybe there is an option to get flow back into Vallecitos from one reservoir.
L
K:CMWDUIGENCOOR.MN 2
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
An option is an inland water treatment plant at the Twin Oaks site. Opportunity for joint water
treatment plant. The land is near the CWA bifurcation faality. Possibly 50 mgd could be built on
the existing site.
Olivenhain is another option. Last option is the CWA Emergency Storage Projects.
0KW:cs
3
4 carouo < encineers
.-
Project:
Client:
Location:
Purpose:
Attendees:
Distribution:
ROUTE E8
Master Plan Updates Conf. Date: July 10, 1996
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) issue Date: July 12,, 1996
Carlsbad offices
Agency Coordination
City of Carlsbad: Carolio: City of Vista:
Bill Plummer (BP) Dennis Wood Pete Nieblas
Attendees,Duane Jensen File: 4332A00
Discussion:
The following is our understanding of the subject matter covered in this conference. If this differs with your undentanding,
please notify us.
1. Encina Outfall Sewer (Buena Interceptor)
The Buena Vista Pump Station is complete. Vista has an exchange agreement for 2.5 mgd with
Oceanside. This ultimately comes into the Pump Station. This is an exchange and is seen as
Vista flow at Encina. Vista flows to the San Luis Rey plant in Oceanside. The flows are currently
200,000 gpd. They try to balance flows between the two cities.
Vista and Carlsbad are committed to parallel the line from the freeway bridge all the way to the
plant. It will be done in phases. The design was done in about 1991/1992.
BP said that with the new pumps in Buena Vista, the sewer manholes can float. Carlsbad has
tack-welded the covers down.
The force main is included. There may not be room in the existing bridge for a new line. May not be any bays left.
Carlsbad flows into the Buena Vista pump station from the mall area
K:CMWD\AGENZ.MN 1
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
.-
Buena also Owns the Buena interceptor (Encma Outfall) that runs through the Clty. Carsbad uses a
portion of this and is to pay $7,500 per year. This is leased capacity. BP said the City would not be
able to use the pipe when the peak flow depth reaches 75%.
The Raceway Pump Station is at capacity. The current plan is to gravity to South Agua Hedionda.
The alternative is to gravity to a new lift station in Carlsbad. This would collect flows in Carlsbad
also. The force main would connect to the existing outfalls.
One way to delete the Raceway Lift Station is to gravity to a new site and then pump to either the
Buena Interceptor or the Valiecitos Interceptor.
2. Vista Carlsbad
Carollo can use the flows in the 1993 Master Plan.
3. Failsafe Line
PN said thete were excess reclaimed flows in the winter. The Shadowridge capacity is 1 .I 6 mgd.
The flows are now up to 0.8 mgd. Can go to 2.25 mgd with an expansion. This is only a scalping
plant.
The additional capacity would go to VID.
BP said there was an agreement to take water from the fallsafe line. Not clear on timing or
requirement to put water in the line.
BP said the failsafe line was upsized for Carlsbad to build a reclamation plant in the industrial park.
This will never occur.
4. Agua Hedionda
SAHTIG is in place. BP is working on the alignment for SAHTIE and SAHTID.
Carollo will work on the Agua Hedionda analysis over the next couple of months.
Dennis K. Wood '
DKW.cs
2
<4 cnrouo encineers
ROUTE El
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Project: Master Plan Updates Conf. Date: January 17, 1997
Client: Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Issue Date: January 20, 1997
Location: District Offices
Purpose: Vista Irrigation District Interface
Attendees: Vista Irriaation Office: Carlsbad MWD: Carollo Enaineers:
Brian Smith (BS) Bill Plummer (BP) Dennis Wood (DK)
Jerry Keller (JK)
Distribution: Attendees, File File: 4332A00
,-- Discussion:
The following is our Understanding of the subkt matter covered In thls conference. if this differs with your understanding,
please notify us.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Carlsbad Reclaimed Water
The MWD rebate is for 22 years. BP said there was no curtailment during drought periods. Will
need to apply for Phase II rebates.
Shadowridge
Brian said that the Shadowridge WRP could be expanded to 2.5 mgd.
The Vista Irrigation District has an agreement with Buena to purvey the reclaimed water to the
Shadowridge golf course. Vista Irrigation District covers the Buena service area.
The Buena Colorado MWD was formed to bring Met water into the area. MWD saw the Vista
Irrigation District as agricultural only. The service area covered part of the Raceway Basin. The
reorganization ceded this area back to the CMWD.
Master Plan
Vista Irrigation District has done a programmed EIR for their reclaimed water master plan. The
Cost was $180,000. There are no CIP plans to go forward with the reclaimed water plan in the
next 5 years.
KVXWDUGENB.YN 1
,--
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
5. Joint Use
BS said that all markets in the area south of 78 could be sewed by the 2.5 mgd Shadowridge Plant.
BS would like to discuss joint use of Carlsbads Santa Fe I reservoir.
Vista Irrigation District also foresees using Santa Fe I for their potable system.
Vista Irrigation District has a smaller tank that needs to be upsbed but the cost is high. If Santa Fe I
could be used, the smaller tank could be used for reclaimed. The grade is over 700 feet.
The walls on Santa Fe I were re-prestressed in the 1970s.
DW will look to see if there is any excess storage for the maximum demand alternative.
6. Santa Fe II
BS asked if there was excess storage in Santa Fe Ii.
BP said that the hydraulics may not allow this, but would consider looking at it.
BS said they need storage for the Shadowridge area.
Vista Irrigation District uses all of their Escondido water capacity, and more if available. Vista
Irrigation District uses Henshaw as their emergency storage.
A cross connection could occur at Palomar and Business Park
BP said they are putting in a metered cross connection with Vallecitos In the same area, but
Vallecitos is much higher in grade. The meter will be a mag meter to measure the flow in both direction.
Vista Irrigation District is also looking at a 8 MG resewoir in their 550 zone. BS is uncomfortable
because of the size in this zone. The 10 MG Maerkle tank is also at 550. This could provide an
opportunity.
Vista Irrigation District has the ability to expand Peckstein by at least 10 MG.
K%CMWD\AGENB.MN 2
Appendix B
Memorandum of Understanding
Regarding Urban Water Conservation
in California
L.tw Conrwratbn Council
MEMOMDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECITALS mms ...
SECTION 1 .
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
SECTION 2 .
SECTION3 .
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
SECTION 4 .
SECl7ON 5 .
................... ............... ................. ... 1
............................................................. ............ 3
DEFIMTIONS ............................................................. 3
Best Management Practices .............. ..............
Implementation ...............................................
Signatory Groups ............................................................. 3
California Urban Water Conservation Council ...................................... 3
PURPOSES ................................................................ 4
LIMITS TO APPLICABILITY OF MOU ........................................ 4
Relationship Between Water Suppliers ............................................ 4
Agricul~rc .................................................................. 4
Rcclarnation ................................................................. 4
Land Use Planning ........................................................... 4
Use of Conserved Water ....................................................... 4
IMPLEMENTATION OFBESTMANAGEMENT PRACl7CES .................... 5
The Best Management F’ractices List, Schedule of ImplQnCntation and Assumptions ....... 5
Initial BMPs, PBMPs, Scheduls, aad Estimates of Reliable Savings .................... 5
Futurc Rcvision of BMPs, PBMPs, Schedules, and Estimates
of Reliable Savings .................................................... 5
Good Faith Effort ............................................................ 6
ExemptionS ................................................................. 6
Schcdule of ImplancntatiolL ................................................... 7
EA YDELTA PROCEEDINGS ................................................ 8 Use of MOU for Bay/Dclta Fbcdings .......................................... 8
Recommendatioas for BaylDeIta Pmccdin gs ...................................... 8
LcacrtostateBoard .......................................................... 9
withdrawal hm MOU ........................................................ 9
SECTION6 CALIFORM4 URBAN WATER CONSEXVATIONCOUNCIL ....................... 9
6.1 Organization ............................................................... 9
6.2 AnnualRcports .............................................................. 9
SEClTON Z GEh’ERAL PRO MSIONS ..................................................... 10
7.1 InitialTcrmofMOU ......................................................... 10
7.2 Signatoris ................................................................. 10
7.3 RencwalofMOU ........................................................... 10
7.4 Withdrawal 6omMOU ....................................................... 10
7.5 Additi~~lParti~~ ........................................................... 11
7.6 Lcgal Authority ............................................................. 11
7.8 Modifications ................................................................ 11
7.7 N~~~-C~~~traclual Ament .................................................... 11
EXHIBIT I.
EXHIBIT 2.
EXHIBIT 3.
EXHIBIT 4.
EXHIBIT 5.
MIBIT 6.
IXYIBIT 7.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES,
ASSUMPTIONS, AND POTENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
FOR URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA ............. 12
CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL ........... 26
ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ESTIMATES OF
RELIABLE WATER SAVINGS FROM THE INSTALLATION OF ULF TOILETS ............................................................... 28
PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE PERFORMANCE OF BMF' ECONOMIC
(COST-EFFECTIVENESS) ANALYSES ............................. 30
FORM OF LETER TO STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
.............................................................. 33
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION ANNUAL REPORT OUTLINE ........ 35
BYLAWS OF CALEORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL ................................................................ 55
KEY TO NOTATION
The EXHIBIITS to the MOU are occasionally altered by the Council as the MOU is updoied In
&tion. explanatory notes are occasionally imerted to indicae he stalus of various sections of the
EXHIBITS. Changes made to the original EXHIBITS are in the follmmg formm:
ADDIT7ONS:
DELET7ONS:
EUZANAT7ONS:
Additions to the Exhibits are indicated by italics.
[Erplcmaiory notes are enclosed by bracke~s.]
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA
This Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water
Conservation in California ("MOU") is made and entered into on the dates set forth
below among the undersigned parties ("signatories"). The signatories represent urban
water suppliers, public advocacy organizations and other interested groups as defined
in Section 1 of this MOU.
AMENDED
September, 1991
February 10, 1993
March 9, 1994
-I-
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
The signatones to this MOU recognitc that California's economy, quality of life and environment depend
in large part upon the water resources of the State. The signatories also recognize the need to provide
reliable urban water supplies and to protect the environment. Increasing demands for urban, agricultural
and environmental water uses call for conservation and the elimination of waste as important elements
in the overall management of water resources. Many organizations and groups in California have an
interest in urban water conservation, and this MOU is intended to gain much needed consensus on a
complex issue.
The urban water conservation practices included in this MOU (referred to as "Best Management
Mces" or "BMPs") are intended to reduce long-wm urban demands from what they would have been
without implemmtation of these practices and an in additim to programs which may be instituted during
occasional water supply shortages.
The combination of BMPs and urban growth, dcss properly accounted for in water management
planning, could make reductions in urban demands during short-term emergencies such as droughts or
earthquakes more difficult to achieve. However, notwithstanding such difficulties, the signatory water
suppliers will cany out the urban water conservation BMP process as described in this MOU.
The signatories ncognize that means other than urban water conservation may be needed to provide
long-term reliability for urban water suppliers and long-tam protection of the environment. However,
the signatories may have differing views on what additional measures might be appropriate to provide
for these needs. Accordingly, this MOU is not intended to address these issues.
A major benefit of this MOU is to conserve water which could be used for the protection of streams,
wetiads and estuaries andlor urban water supply nliabiity. This MOU leaves to othm forums the issue
of how conserved water will be used.
It is the intent of this MOU that individual signatory water suppliers (1) develop comprehensive
consemation BMP programs using sound economic criteria and (2) consider water conservation on an
equal basis with other water management options.
It is recognized that present urban water use throughout the State varies according to many factors
including, but not lited to, climate, types of housing and landscaping, amounts and kinds of
commercial, industrial and mtid development, and the extent to which conservation measures have
already beRl implemented It is hatha recognized that many of the BMPs identified in Exhibit 1 to this
MOU have already been implemented in some areas and that even with broader employment of BMPs,
future urban water use will continue to vary from area to area. Therefore, this MOU is not intended to
establish uniform per capita water use allotments throughout the urban areas of the State. This MOU
is also not intended to limit the amount or types of conservation a water supplier can pursue or to limit
a water supplier's more rapid implementation of BMPs.
It is recognized that projections of future water demand should include estimates of anticipated demand
reductions due to changes in the real price of water.
-2-
TERMS
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply:
1.1 Best Ma n- ' A Best Management Practice ("BMP") means a policy,
program practice, de, regulation or ordinance or the use of devices, equipment or facilities
which meets
(a) An established and generally accepted practice among water suppliers that results in more e5cient use or conservation of water;
(b) A practice for which su5cient data are available from existing water conservation projects to indicate that significant conservation or conservation related benefits can
be achieved; that the practice is technically and economically reasonable and not
environmentally or socially unacceptable; and that the practice is not otherwise
unreasonable for most water suppliers to carry out.
Although the term "Best Management Practices" has been used in various statutes and
regulations, the definitions and interpretations of that term in those statutes and regulations
do not apply to this MOU. The term "Best Management Practices" or "BMPs" has an
independent and special meaning in this MOU and is to be applied for purposes of this MOU
only as defined above.
either of the following criteria:
1.2 Imdementation. "Implementation" means achieving and maintaining the sta5ng funding,
and in general, the priority levels necessary to achieve the level of activity called for in the
descriptions of the various BMPs and to satisfy the commitment by the signatories to use
good faith efforts to optimize savings from implementing BMPs as described in Section 4.4
of this MOU. Section B of Exhibit 1 to this MOU establishes the schedule for initial
implementation of BMPs.
1.3 For purposes of this MOU, signatories will be divided into three groups
Group 1 will consist of water suppliers. A "water supplier" is defined as any entity,
including a city, which delivers or supplies water for urban use at the wholesale or
retail level.
Group 2 will consist of public advocacy organizations. A "public advocacy
organization" is defined as a non profit organization:
(i) whose primary function is not the representation of trade, industrial, or utility
(ii) whose prime mission is the protection of the environment or who has a clear
Group 3 will consist of other interested groups. "Other interested groups'' is
defined as any other group which does not fall into one of the two groups above.
Water C- The Wotnia Urban Water Conservation
Council or "Cound" will have responsibility for monitoring the implementation of this MOU
and will be comprised of signatories tc this MOU grouped according to the definitions in
Section 1.3 above. The duties of the Council are set forth in Section 6 and in Exhibit 2 to this
MOU.
as follows:
(a)
(b)
entities, and
interest in advancing the BMP process.
(4
1.4
-3-
TERMS
SECTION 2. PURPOSES
2.1 This MOU has
(1) to expedite implementation of reasonable water conservation measures in urban
areas; and
pursuant to Section 5 ofthis MOU, to establish assumptions for use in calculating
estimates of reliable future water conservation savings resulting from proven and
reasonable conservation measures. Estimates of reliable savings are the water
conservation savings which can be achieved with a high degree of confidence in
a given Service area. The signatories have agreed upon the initial assumptions to
be used in calculating estimates of reliable savings. These assumptions are
included in Exhibit 1 to this MOU. It is probable that average savings achieved by
water suppliers will exceed the estimates of reliable savings.
(2)
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
SECTION 3. LIMITS TO APPLICABILITY OF MOU
No rights, obligations or authorities between
wholesale suppliers, retail agencies, cities or other water suppliers are created or expanded
by this MOU. Moreover, wholesale water suppliers are not obligated to implement BMPs
at the retail customer level except within their own retail service area, if any.
Agriculture. This MOU is intended to apply only to the delivery of water for domestic,
municipal and industrial uses. This MOU is not intended to apply directly or indirectly to the
use of water for imgated agriculture.
Reelamation. The signatory water suppliers support the reclamation and reuse of
wastewater wherever technically and economically reasonable and not environmentally or
socially unacceptable, and agree to prepare feasibility studies on water reclamation for their
respective service areas. However, this MOU does not apply to that aspect of water
management, except where the use of reclaimed water may otherwise qualify as a BMP as
defined above.
Lmd Use Plannine. This MOU does not deal with the question of growth management.
However, each signatory water supplier will inform all relevant land planning agencies at least
annually of the impacts that planning decisions involving projected growth would have upon
the reliability of its water supplies for the water supplier's service area and other areas being
considered for annexation.
Usewed w. A major benefit of this MOU is to conserve water which could
be used for the protection of streams, wetlands and estuaries and/or urban water supply
reliability. This MOU leaves to other forums the issue of how conserved water will be used.
-4-
SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
4.1 The Best
Exhibit 1 to this MOU contains:
(a) In Section A: A list identifying those practices which the signatories believe
presently meet the definition of a BMP as set forth in Section 1.1 of this MOU.
In Section B: A schedule for implementing the BMPs to be followed by signatory
water suppliers unless exempted under Section 4.5 of this MOU or an alternative
schedule is prepared pursuant to Section 4.6 of this MOU.
In Section C: Assumptions for use in developing estimates of reliable savings
from the implementation of BMF's. Estimates of reliable savings are the water
conservation savings which can be achieved with a high degree of confidence in
a given service area The estimate of reliable savings for each BMP depends upon
the nature of the BMP and upon the amount of data adable to evaluate potential
savings. For some BMPs (e.g., public information) estimates of reliable savings
may never be generated. For others, additional data may lead to significant
changes in the estimate of reliable savings. It is probable that average savings
achieved by water suppliers will exd the estimates of reliable savings.
In Section D: A list of "Potential Best Management Practices" ("PBMPs").
PBMPs are possiile conservation practices which have not been promoted to the
BMF' list.
@)
(4
(4
The initial position
of conservation practices on the BMP and PBMP lists, the initial schedule of implementation
and study for the BMP list, the initial schedule of study for the PBMP list, and the initial
estimates of reliable savings represent compromises by the signatories to move the process
forward both for purposes of the present BayDelta proceedings as defined in Section 5 and
to promote water conservation generally. The signatories agree that as more and better data
are collected in the hture, the lists, the schedules, and the estimates of reliable savings will
be refined and revised based upon the most objective criteria available. However, the
signatories agree that the measures included as initial BMPs in Section A of Exhibit 1 are
economically justified on a statewide basis.
.. 4.2
wim of Bps of RWle Savin= Mer the beginning of the initial term of the MOU as provided in Section 7.1, the California Urban
Water Conservation Council ("Council") wiU, pursuant to Section 6 of this MOU and Exhibit
2, alter the composition of the BMF' and PBMP lists, redefine individual BMPs, alter the
schedules of implementation, and update the assumptions of reliable savings as more data
becomes available. This dynamic BMP assessment process includes the following specific
commitments:
.. 4.3
-5-
~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~
(a)
(b)
The assumptions of reliable savings will be updated at least every 3 years.
The economic nasonableness of a BMP or PBMP wiU be assessed by the Council using the
economic principles in Sections 3 and 4 of Exhibit 3.
A BMP will be removed from the BMP list if, after review of data developed during
implementation, the Council dctnrmncs . that the BMP cannot be made economically
rcasoaablcord '
. that the BMP otkawk fails to conform to the def~tion of BMPs
in section 1.1.
A PBMP will be moved to the BMP list ad assigned a schedule of implementation if, after
review of data developed during research, and/or demonstration projects, the Council
determines that the PBMP is dcally reasonable and othmvise conforms to the
definition of BMPs in Section 1.1.
(C)
(d)
4.4 We specific BMPs and results may mer because of varying local conditions
Qamg the snas SQVcd by tk siatory water suppliers, a good faith effort to implement BMPs will be
requid of all signatory water suppliers. 'Ibc following art. included within the mcaning of "good faith
effort to implement BMPs":
(a) .. The proactive usc by a signatory water supplier of legal authorities and admmsba tive
prerogatives available to thc water supplier as msary and reasonable for thc
implementation of BMPs.
hiw- ' of a partiarlar BMP is not witbin the legal authority of a signatory
water supplim, encouraging timely implcmcntation of thc BMP by other entities that have
the legal authority to carry out the BMP within that water supplier's service area pursuant
to wsting legal autbaity. This cnccuragcmcat may include, but is not limited to, financial
incentives as appropriate.
(b)
(d coopcrating with and ulcoumging ooopaation betwrm otha water suppliers and other
relevant entities wbcacva possible and within cxistiog legal authority to promote the
implementation of BMPS.
Optimizing savings hm impl-ting BMPs.
For each signatory watcr supplier and all signatory public advocacy organizations,
bsrrias tothe. implementation of BMps within that arorwgingthcdof-
water suppWs savia atra Exampla ofgood faith efforts to remove institutional barriers
include formal prscntatioas dorwritta~ r~quests to entities requesting approval of, or
amenmncnt to, local ordinances, amninistra tive policies or legislation which will promote BMP implementation.
(d)
(e) ..
4.5 sienatory water supplier will be exempt from the implementation of specific BMPs for
as long as the supplier annually substantiates that bascd upon then prevailing local conditions, one or
more of the following findings applies:
-6-
TERMS
(a) A !ill &-benefit analysis, pfonned in accoTdance with the principles set forth in Exhibit
3, demonstrates that either the program (I) is not cost-effective overall when total progam
benefits and costs are considered; OR (ii) is not cost-effective to the individual water
supplier even after the water supplier has made a good faith effort to share costs with other
program beneficiaries.
Adequate funds are not and cannot reasonably be made available from sources accessible
to the water supplier including funds from other entities. However, this exemption cannot
be used if a new, less cost-effective water management option would be implemented
instead of the BMP for which the water supplier is seehg this exemption.
Implementation of the BMP is (1) not within the legal authority of the water supplier; and
(ii) the water supplier has made a good faith effort to work with other entities that have the
legal authority to carry out the BMP; and (iii) the water supplier has made a good faith
effort to work with other relevant entities to encourage the removal of institutional barriers
to the implementation of BMPs within its service area.
(b)
(4
4.6 i n The schedule of implementation for BMPs is set forth in Section B of
Exhibit 1 to this MOU. However, it is recognized by the signatories that deviations from this schedule
by water suppliers may be necessary. Therefore, a water supplier may modi&, to the minimum extent
necessary, the schedule for implementation of BMPs if the water supplier substantiates one or more of
the following findings:
(a) That after a good faith effort to implement the BMP within the time prescribed,
implemmtation is not feasible pursuant to the schedule. However, implementation of this
BMP is still required as soon as feasible within the initial term of this MOU as defmed in
Section 7.1.
That implementation of one or more BMPs prior to other BMPs will have a more positive
effect on conservation or water supplies than will adherence to the schedule.
That implemen~on of one or more Potential BMPs or other conservation measures prior
to one or more BMPs will have a more positive effect on conservation or water supplies
than will adherence to the schedule.
(b)
(C)
-7-
SECTION 5. BAY/DELTA PROCEEDINGS
5.1 Yse of MOU for Bav/Delta Proe eedines. The BMPs, the estimates of reliable savings and
the processes established by this MOU are agreed to by the signatories for purposes of the
present proceedings on the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary
("BayDelta") and in order to move the water conservation process forward. "Present
BayiDelta proceedings" is intended to mean those BaylDelta proceedings presently underway
and those conducted until a final water rights decision is reached by the State Water
Resources Control Board ("State Board"). The willingness of the signatories to enter into
this MOU for purposes ofthe present Bay/Delta prodings in no way limits the signatories'
ability to propose diffbmt conservation practices, different estimates of savings, or Werent
processes in a forum other than the present BaylDelta proceedings, or for non-urban water
suppliers or for other water management issues. By signing this MOU, public advocacy
organization signatories are not agreeing to use the initial assumptions of reliable conservation
savings in proceedings other than the present BaylDelta proceedings. The signatories may
present other assumptions of reliable conservation savings for non-signatory water suppliers
in the present Bay/Delta proceedings provided that such assumptions could not have adverse
impacts upon the water supplies of any signatory water supplier. Furthermore, the signatories
retain the right to advocate any particular level of protection for the Bay/Delta Estuary,
including levels of freshwater flows, and do not necessarily agree on population projections
for California This MOU is not intended to address any authority or obligation of the State
Board to establish freshwater flow protections or set water quality objectives for the Estuary,
or to address any authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.
5 The signatories will make the following
recommendatiolls to the State Board in conjunction with the present BaylDelta proceedings
and to the EF'A to the extent the EF'A concerns itself with the proceedings:
(4
5.2
That for purposes of the present BaylDelta proceedings, implementation of the
BMP process set forth in this MOU represents a sufficient long-tern water
conservation program by the signatory water suppliers, recognizing that additional
programs may be required during occasional water supply shortages;
That for purposes of the present BayDeIta proceedings only, the State Board and
EF'A should base their estimates of hture urban water conservation savings on the
implementation of all of the BMPs included in Section A of Exhibit 1 to this MOU
for the entire service area of the signatory water suppliers and only on those
BMPs, except for (i) the conservation potential for water supplied by urban
agencies for agricultural purposes, or (ii) in cases where higher levels of
conservation have been mandated;
That for the purposes of the present BaylDelta proceedings, the State Board and
EPA should make their estimates of hture urban water conservation savings by
employing the reliable savings assumptions associated with those BMPs set forth
in Section C of Exhibit 1 to this MOU;
@)
(c)
-8-
TERMS
(4 That the State Board should include a policy statement in the water rights phase
of the Bay/Delta proceedings supporting the BMP process described in this MOU
and that the BMP process should be considered in any documents prepared by the
State Board pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the
present BayDelta proceedings.
5.3 Within 30 days of signing this MOU, each signatory will jointly or
individually convey the principles set forth in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 above by sending a letter
to the State Board, copied to the EPA, in the form attached to this MOU as Exhibit 4.
5.4 If during the present BaylDelta proceedings, the State Board or
EPA uses firture urban water comemation savings that are inconsistent with the use of BMPs
as provided in this MOU, any signatory shall have the right to withdraw from the MOU by
providing written notice to the Council as described in Section 7.4(a)(I) below.
SECTION 6. CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION
COUNCIL
Orm.naabon. The California Urban Water Conservation Council (“Council”) will be comprised of all Signatories to this MOU grouped according to the definition in Section 1
The signatories agree to the necessary organization and duties of the Council as specified in
Exhibit 2 to this MOU. Within 30 days of the effective date of this MOU, the Council will
hold its first meeting.
.. 6.1
6.2 The signatory water suppliers will submit standardized reports annually
to the Council providing suf6cient information to inform the Council on the progress being
made towards implementing the BMP process. The Council will also make annual reports to
the State Board. An outline for the Council’s annual report to the State Board is attached as
Exhibit 5 to this MOU.
-9-
TERMS
SECTION 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
The initial term of this MOU shall be for a period of 10 years. This ..
initial term shall commence on September 1, 1991.
Sien*tories. Signatories shall consist of three groups: water suppliers, public advocacy
organizationS and other interested groups, arranged according to the definition in Section 1.3.
Such arrangement will be made by a Council membership committee comprised of three
representatives fiom the water suppliers' group and three representatives fiom the public
advocacy organizations' group.
Renewnl of MOL The MOU shall be automatically renewed after the initial term of 10
years on an annuaI basis as to all signatories unless a signatory withdraws as described below
in Section 1.4.
Signatories to the MOU may withdraw from the MOU in three
separate ways as described in sections (a), (b) and (c) below.
(a) 1 Before the expiration of the
initial term of 10 years, a signatory may withdraw by providing written notice to
the Council declaring its intent to withdraw. This written notice must include a
substantiated 6nding that one of the two provisions (i) or (u) below applies:
(i) During the present BayDelta proceedings, the State Board or EPA used
l3ure ruban water conservation savings that are inconsistent with the use of
BMPs as provided in this MOU; OR
.. . ..
(u) Mer a period of 5 yean fiom the commencement of the initial term of the
MOU:
Specific signatory water suppliers representing more than 10 percent
of the population included within the combined service areas of the
signatory water suppliers have failed to act in good faith pursuant to
Section 4.4 of the MOU; and
The signatory wishing to withdraw has attached hdings to its past
two annual repom to the Council beginning no earlier than the fourth
annd report identifying these same signatory water suppliers and
giving evidence based upon the information required to be submitted
in the annual reports to the Council to support the allegations of
failure to act in good Edith; and
The State Board has failed to require wllSerVBtion &orts by the
specific water suppliers adequate to satisfy the requirements of this
MOU; and
-10-
TERMS
@)
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
Discussions between the signatory wishing to withdraw and the specific signatones named
have failed to satisfy the objections of the signatory wishing to withdraw
After a signatory declares an intent to withdraw under Section 7.4(a), the MOU shall remain
in effect as to that signatory for 180 days.
(b) -r exoiration of initial t- Mer the initial term of 10 years,
any signatory may declare its intent to withdraw from the MOU unconditionally
by providing written notice to the Council. After a signatory has declared its
intent to Withdraw as provided in this section, the MOU Will remain in effect as
to that signatory for 180 days.
hmediate withdrawal. Any signatory who does not sign a modification to the
MOU requiring a 2/3 vote as described in Exhibit 2 of this MOU may withdraw
from the MOU by providing written notice to the Council. The withdrawing
signatory's duties under this MOU will be terminated effective immediately upon
providing such written notice.
(4
If a signatory withdraws from the MOU under any of the above methods, the MOU shall
remain in effect as to all other signatories.
Parties. Additional parties may sign the MOU after September 1, 1991 by
providing written notice to and upon approval by the Council. Additional parties will be
assigned by the Council to one of the three signatory groups defined in Section 1.3 before
entry into the Council. AU additional signatory water suppliers shall be subject to the schedule
of implementation provided in Exhibit 1.
Nothing in this MOU is intended to give any signatory, agency, entity or
organization expansion of any existing authority. No organization formed pursuant to this
MOU has authority beyond that specified in this MOU.
JV0n-C- This MOU is intended to embody general principles agreed
upon between and among the signatories and is not intended to create contractual
relationships, rights, obligations, duties or remedies in a court of law between or among the
signatories.
Modifications. The signatories agree that this writing constitutes the entire understanding
between and among the signatories. The general manager, chief executive officer or
executive director of each signatory or their designee shall have the authority to vote on any
modifications to this MOU and its exhibits. Any modifications to the MOU itself and to its
exhibits shall be made by the Council as described in Exhibit 2.
-11-
EXHIBIT 1
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES,
ASSUMPTIONS, AND POTENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
FOR URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA
SECTION A. Best Ma nment P
This section contains those Best Management Practices ("BMPs") that signatory water
suppliers commit to implementing. Suppliers' water needs estimates will be adjusted to reflect
estimates of reliable savings from this category of BMPs. For some BMPs, no estimate of savings is
made.
It is recognized by all parties that a single implementation method for a BMP would not be
appropriate for all water suppliers. In fact, it is likely that as the process moves forward, water
suppliers will find new implementation methods even more effective than those described. Any
implementation method used should be at least as effective as the methods described below.
1. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
GOVERNMENTALlLNSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMERS.
FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as identifying the top 20% of water users
in each sector, directly contacting them (e.g., by mail and/or telephone) and offering the
service on a repeating cycle; providing incentives sufficient to achieve customer
implementation (e.& 6ee showerheads, hose end sprinkler timers, adjustment to high water
use bills if customers implement water conservation measures, etc.). This could be a
cooperative program among organizations that would benefit from its implementation.
2. PLUMBING, NEW AND RETROFIT.
a. ENFORCEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURE
STANDARDS INCLUDING REQUIREMENT FOR ULTRA LOW FLUSH
("ULF") TOILETS IN ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING JANUARY
1, 1992.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as contacting the local building
departments and providing information to the inspectors; and contacting major developers
and plumbing supply outlets to inform them of the requirement.
b. SUPPORT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING SALE
OF TOILETS USING MORE THAN 1.6 GALLONS PER FLUSH.
[STATUS OF BMP 2b: INACTIVE. State legislation prohibiting sale of toilets using
more than 1.6 gallons per flush was enacted in October, 1992.1
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as delivering retrofit kits including
high quality low-flow showerheads to pre-1980 homes that do not have them and toilet
displacement devices or other devices to reduce 5ush volume for each home that does not
already have ULF toilets; offering to install the devices; and following up at least three
times.
c. PLUMBING RETROFIT.
-12-
3. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAK DETECTION
AND REPAIR.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as at least once every three years
completing a water audit of the water supplier's distribution system using methodology such
as that described in the American Water Works Association's "Manual of Water Supply
Practices, Water Audits and Leak Detection," advising customers whenever it appears
possible that leaks exist on the customers' side of the meter; and performing distribution
system leak detection and repair whenever the audit reveals that it would be cost effective.
METERING WITE COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW CONNECTIONS AND 4.
RETROm OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS.
Implementation methods shall be requiring meters for all new connections and billing by
volume of use; and establishing a program for retrofitting any existing unmetered connections
and billing by volume of use; for example, through a requirement that all connections be
retrofitted at or within Si months of resale of the property or retrofitted by neighborhood.
5. LARGE LANDSCAPE WATER AUDnS AND INCENTIVES.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as identifying all irrigators of large (at
least 3 acres) landscapes (e.g., golfcourses, green belts, common areas, multi-family housing
landscapes. schools, business parks, cemeteries, parks and publicly owned landscapes on or
adjacent to road rights-of-way); contacthg them directly (by mail andor telephone); offering
landscape audits using methodology such as that described in the Landscape Water
Management Handbook prepared for the California Department of Water Resources; and
cost-efT& incentives sufficient to achieve customer implementation; providing follow-up
audits at least once every five years; and providing multi-lingual training and information
necessary for implementation.
LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND
EXISTINGCOMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, GOVERNMENTAL,
AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. - 6.
Implementation methods shall be enacting and implementing landscape water conservation
ordinances, or if the supplier does not have the authority to enact ordiices, cooperating
with cities, counties and the green industry in the service area to develop and implement
landscape water collServation ordinances pursuant to the "Water Conservation in Landscaping
Act" ("Act") (California Government Code $5 65590 -). The ordinance shall be at least
as effective as the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance being developed by the
Department of Water Resources. A study of the effectiveness of this BMP wiU be initiated
within two years of the date local agencies must adopt ordinances under the Act.
-13-
EXHIBIT 1
I.
8.
9.
10.
11.
PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as ongoing programs promoting water
conservation and conservation related benefits including providing speakers to community
groups arid the media; using paid and public service advertising; using bill inserts; providing
information on customers' bills showing use in gallons per day for the last billing period
compared to the same period the year before; providing public information to promote other
water conservation practices; and coordinating with other governmental agencies, industry
groups and public interest groups.
SCHOOL EDUCATION.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as ongoing programs promoting water
commation and comation related benefits including working with the school districts in
the water supplier's senice area to provide educational materials and instructional assistance.
COlKMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER CONSERVATION.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as identifying and contacting the top
1oo/o ofthe indd and commrcial customers directly (by mail and/or telephone); offering
audits and incentives sufticieslt to achieve customer implementation; and providing follow-up
audits at least once every five years ifnecessary.
NEW COMMERCIAL AND MDUSTRUL WATER USE REVIEW. ,
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as Bssuring the review of proposed water
uses for new commercial and industrial water Service and making recommendations for
improved water use efficiency More completion of the building permit process.
CONSERVATION PRICING.
hnplanentaton methods shall be at least as effective as eJiminating nonconserving pricing and
adopting conserving pricing. For signatories supplying both water and sewex service, this
BMP applies to pricing of both water and sewer Service. Signatories that supply water but not
sewer service shall make good faith efforts to work with sewer agencies so that those sewer
agencies adopt conservation pricing for sewer service.
.. provides no incentives to customers to reduce use. Such pricing is
characterized by one or more of the foUoWing components:
a. Rates in which the unit price decreases as the quantity used increases (declining block
rates);
b. Rates that involve charging customers a fixed amount per billing cycle regardless of the
quantity used;
c. Pricing in which the typical bill is determined by high fixed charges and low commodity
charges.
-14-
EXHIBIT 1
.. -provides incentives to customers to reduce average or peak use, or both
Such pricing includes:
a. Rates designed to recover the cost of providing service; and
b. Billing for water and sewer service based on metered water use.
Conservation pricing is also characterized by one or more of the following components:
c. Rates in which the unit rate is constant regardless of the quantity used (uniform rates) or
increases as the quantity used increases (increasing block rates);
d. Seasonal rates or excess-use surcharges to reduce peak demands during summer months;
e. Rates based upon the long-run marginal cost or the cost of adding the next unit of
capacity to the system;
f. Lifeline rates.
12,
13.
LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION FOR NEW AND EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as providing guidelines, information and
incentives for installation of more efficient landscapes and water saving practices (e.g.,
encouraging local nurseries to promote sales and use of low water using plants, providing
landscape water conservation materials in new home owner packets and water bills,
sponsoring demonstration gardens); and enacting and implementing landscape water
conservation ordinances or, if the supplier does not have the authority to enact ordinances,
cooperating with cities, counties, and the green industry in the service area to develop and
implement landscape water conservation ordinances pursuant to the "Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act ("Act") (California Government Code $9 65590 a a,). The ordinance shall
be at least as effective as the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance being developed
by the Department of Water Resources.
WATER WASTE PROEIIBITION.
Implementation methods shall be enacting and enforcing meaSureS prohibiting gutter flooding,
single pass cooling systems in new connections, nonrecirculating systems in all new conveyer
car wash and commercial laundry systems, and nonrecycling decorative water fountains.
Signatories shall also support efforts to develop state law regarding exchange-rype water sofleners
that would: (I) allow the sale of only more efficient, demand-initiated regenerating (DIR) models;
(2) develop minimum appliance efficiency standarh that (a) increase the regeneration efficiency
standard to at least 3,350 grains of hardness remowdper pound of common salt used; and (b)
implement an identified matimum number of gallons dischargedper gallon of sop water produced;
(3) allow local agencies, including municipalities and special districts, to set more srringent
standardr and/or to ban on-site regeneration of water softeners wit is demonstrated and find by
the agency governing board that there is an adverse effect on the reclaimed water or grindwater
Signatories shall also include water sopener check; in home water audit programs and include
information about DIR and exchange-type water sojeners in their educational efforts to encourage
replacement of less efficient timer models.
SUPP1Y.
-1s-
14.
IS.
16.
WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as designating a water conservation
coordinator responsible for preparing the conservation plan, managing its implementation, and
evaluating the results. For very small water suppliers, this might be a part-time responsibility.
For larger suppliers this would be a hll-time responsibility with additional staff as
appropriate. This work should be coordinated with the supplier's operations and planning
staff.
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as:
a. Offering financial incentives to facilitate implementation of conservation programs. Initial
recommendations for such incentives will be developed by the Council within two years
of the initial signing of the MOU, including incentives to improve the efficiency of
landscape water use; and
b. Financial incentives offered by wholesale water suppliers to their customers to achieve
conservation.
ULTRA LOW FLUSH TOILET REPLACEMENT.
Water suppliers agree to implement programs for replacement of existing high-water-using
toilets with ultra-low-flush toilets (1.6 gallons or less) in residential, commercial, and
industrial buildings. Such programs will be at least as effective as offering rebates of up to
$100 for each replacement that would not have occurred without the rebate, or requiring
replacement at the time of resale, or requiring replacement at the time of change of service.
This level of implementation will be reviewed by the Council after development of the
assumptions included in the following two paragraphs using the economic principles included
in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Exhibit 3.
a. Assumptions for determining estimates of reliable savings from installation of ultra-low-
flush toilets in both existing and new residential, commercial, and industrial structures will
be recommended by the Council to the State Water Resources Control Board ("State
Board") by December 3 1, 1991 for use in the present BayDelta proceedings.
b. Should the Council not agree on the above assumptions, a panel will be formed by
December 3 1, 1991 to develop such assumptions. The panel shall consist of one member
appointed from the signatory public advocacy group; one member appointed from the
signatory water supplier group; and one member mutually agreed to by the two appointed
members. The assumptions to be used for this BMF' will be determined by a majority vote
of the panel by February IS, 1992 using the criteria for determining estimates of reliable
savings included in this MOU. The decision of the panel will be adopted by the Council
and forwarded to the State Board by March I, 1992.
-16-
EXHIBIT 1
c. Effective July 1, 1995, deferment on the CII ULFT component of BMF 16 (adopted July
30, 1992 is hereby rescinded. For the purpose of cost-effectiveness calculations, 48
gallons per day per toilet may be used for the agreed-upon savings estimate for CII toilets
until Council agrees upon a reliable savings estimate.
From January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995, agencies will identify all non-residential
customers (to be defined by the CII submmittee) and rank them by water use. This will
be reported in the annual report due October 1996 covering FY 95-95.’ (Survey will also
be used for BMP 9.)
By June 30,1998, agencies will retrofit at least one percent ( 1%) of their non-residential
(commerciaYindustriaVinstiona~not agricultural) customers.’
By January 1, 1998, the council will complete studies quantiwng reliable savings and
establishing a methodology to quantify the number of toilets in the CII sector, and
establish a long-term implementation target for the CII sector based upon the findings of
the studies.
[STATUS OF PARAGRAPHS 16r, 16b: SATISFIED. After extensive review, on July 30 1992, the
Council adopted EXHIBIT 6, “ASSUMPTIONS AND hETHODOLOGY FOR DETERMMING ESTIMATES
OF RELIABLE SAVINGS FROM THE INSTALLATION OF ULF TOILETS.” EXHBIT 6 provides a
methodology for calculating the level of &ort required to satisfy BMP 16. EXHIBIT 6 also provides a
mabodology for calculating estimates of reliable savings for BMPs 2A, 2B, and 16.
.. *.I
Accepted in December, 1994
A water supplier may deem it optional to retrofit ”hostile use” sites such as airports and
prisons.
-17-
SECT10 NB. 1 molementation Schedules
Best Management Practices will be implemented by signatory water suppliers according to
the schedule set forth below. "Implementation" means achieving and maintaining the staffing, funding,
and in general, the priority levels necessary to achieve the level of activity called for in the
descriptions ofthe various BMPs and to satisfy the commitment by the signatories to use good faith
efforts to optimize savings fkom implementing BMPs as described in section 4.4 of the MOU. BMPs
will be implemented at a level of effort projected to achieve at least the coverages specified in Section
C of this Exhibit within the initial ten year term of the MOU
This schedule sets forth the latest dates by which implementation of BMPs will be underway.
It is recognized that some signatories are already implementing some BMPs, and that this schedule
does not prohibit signatories from implementing BMPs sooner than required.
The following BMPs will be implemented by the end of the first year of the initial term
(numbers correspond to those in the list set forth in Section A above):
2a. ENFORCEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURE STANDARDS
INCLUDING REQUREMENT FOR ULTRA LOW FLUSH TOILETS IN ALL NEW
CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1992.
2b. SUPPORT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING SALE OF
TOILETS USING MORE THAN 1.6 GALLONS PER FLUSH.
[STATUS OF BMP 2b: ACCOMPLISHED. State and federal legislation prohibiting
sale of toilets using more than 1.6 gallons per flush was enacted in October 1992.1
3. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER AUDITS. (LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
to be implemented by end of second year.)
7. PUBLIC INFORMATION.
8. SCHOOL EDUCATION
13. WATER WASTE PROHIBITION.
14. WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR
-18-
The following BMPs will be implemented by the end of the second year of the initial term:
2c. PLUMBING RETROFIT.
3. LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR. (DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER AUDITS
to be implemented by end of first year.)
4. METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW CONNECTIONS AND
RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS.
6. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION REQLJIREMENTS FOR NEW AND
EXISTING COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, GOVERNMENTAL,
AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
1 1. CONSERVATION PRICING. (All components except billing for sewer service based on
metered water use.)
12. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION FOR NEW AND EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES.
13.1
16. ULTRA LOW FLUSH TOILET REPLACEMENT. (Replacement of Commercial und
Industrial ULFTs is not yet scheduled)
The following BMPs will be implemented by the end of the third year of the initial term:
1. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
GOVERNMENTAUINSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMERS.
FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND
5. LARGE LANDSCAPE WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVES.
9. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER CONSERVATION
10. NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE REVIEW.
1 1 CONSERVATION PRICING. (Billing for sewer service based on metered water use.)
1S.FINANCIAL INCENTIVES.
-19-
EXHIBIT 1
1. interior and Exterior Water Audits and Incentive
Programs for Single Family Residential, Multi-family
Residential and GovernmentaVInstitutional Customers
SECTION C:
ment Prs
Pre-1980
Construction
Best Manaeement Practice I Estimated Water Savings
I
Reduction Factors (Unit water savings)
Low-flow showerhead
(2.5 gallons per minute durn flow)
Toilet retrofit (Five year life)
Leak Repair
Landscape audit, percent outdoor use
Loverage Factor (7mtallation ador compliance rate)
Target (Number of customers offered
an incentive or audit.) top percent of users
Accept audit
GOVERNMENTAWINSTITUTIONAL
Reduction Factor (Unit water savings) I
Interior retrofit, percent indoor use
Landscape audit, percent outdoor use
(Outdoor use = summer - winter use, on an average annual basis)
Target (Number of customers offered
an incentive or audit.)top percent of users
Accept audit
Coverage Factor (7nstallation ador compliance rate)
7.2 gcd*
1.3 gcd
0.5 gcd
1 oo/o
20%
70%
5%
1 0%
20%
70%
I
gcd = gallons per capita per day
I
Post 1980
Construction
2.9 gcd
0
0.5 gcd
10%
20%
70%
0
20%
70%
-
-20-
EXHIBIT 1
II Bat Management Practice
2. Plumbing, New and Retrofit
a. Enforcement of Water Conserving Plumbing
Fixture Standards Including Rquirement for
Ultra Low Flush Toilets in AM New Construction
Beginning January 1,1992
Reduction Factor (Unit Water Saving$
Coverage Factor (Insialltion and/or compliance rate) -
All new homes and buildings built after January 1992 I b. Support state and federal legislation prohibiting
sale of toilets using more than 1.6 gallons per
flush.
Reduction Factor (Unit Water Savin&
Coverage Factor (Insrallatn Mor complance rate) - 1 11 c PlumbingRetrofit
Reduction Factor (Unit Water Saviw)
Toilet Rurofit
(Five year I&)
Low-flow showerhead
(2.5 gallons per minute maximum flow)
Coverage Factor (Installotion &or compIiance raie) -
InstallationRate
Reduction Factors (Unit Water Savings)
Toilet Retro6t
(Five year life)
(2.5 gallons per minute maximum flow)
Coverage Factor (TnsiaIIation and/or compIiame rate)-
Mation rate
LOW-FIOW Showahead
*gd= gallons per capita per day
-21-
Estimated Water Savings
Pre-1980
Construction
SEE
EXHIBIT 6
SEE
EXHIBIT 6
NOT Qu- AT THIS
TIME
1.3 gcd*
7.2 gcd
75%
1.3gcd
7.2 gcd
80?h
.,
Post 1980
Construction
SEE
EXHIBIT 6
SEE
EXHIBIT 6
NOT
QU- AT THIS
TIME
EXHIBIT 1
Best Management Practice
3. Distribution System Water Audits, Leak Detection and
Reoair
Reduction Facior (Unit water savings)
Lower unaccounted for water ( authorized
unmetered usage, leakage and meter error)
to no more than percent total use
(AU other utilities remain at current levels)
Coverage Facior (Inslallotion and/or compliance rate)
Total number of utilities participating in audits
Utilities participating in leak detection and repair
4. Metering with Commodity Rates for dl New Connections and
Retrofit of Existine Conneetions
Reduction Factor (Unii water savings)
Unmetered portion of utility, perm of applied water
Coverage Factor (Insiallation and/or compliance rate)
5. Large Landscape Water Audits and Incentives
Reduction Factor (Unii water savins)
Unmetered Customers
Landscape audit for multi-family, commercial,
industrial, institutional, and public users, with
3 acres of landscaping or more, percent of
irrigation water use.
Coverage Factor ( (lnstallaiion and/or compliance raie)-
Applies to all sites three acres or more
6. Landscape Water Conservation Requirements for Ncw and
Existing Commercial, Industrial, Institutional,
Governmental. and Multbfamilv Develooments
Reduction Facim (Unit water savings)
Reduced landscape water use, percent of new irrigation use
Coverage Factor (Installation and/or compliance rate)
All new landscape areas
Factor
1 OYO
100%
Varies based on Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis
20%
1W/o
15%
1ooOh of sites 3 acres
or more
20%
100% of new
landscape areas
-22-
It Best Management Pkctice 11 7. Public Information
Reduction Factor (Unit water savings)
Coverage Factor (Installation ador compliance rate)
8. School Proiect
Reduction Factor (Unit water savings) Y
I( 9. Commercial and Industrial Water Conservation
Reduction Factor (Unit water saving)
Commercial water reduction results &om Best Management
Practices such as Interior and Landscape Water Audits, Plumbing
Codes, and Other Factors but exclude Ultra Low Flush Toilet
Replacement. (Includes savings accounted for in other BMP's)
Estimated reduction in gallons per employee per day in year 2000
use occurring over the period 1980-2000.
Industrial water reduction results &om Best Management
Practices, Waste Discharge Fee, New Technology, Water Audits,
Plumbing Codes and Other Factors, but exclude Ultra Low Flush
Toilet Replacement. (Includes savings accounted of in other Bh4F"s)
Estimated reduction in gallons per employee per day in year 200
use over the period 1980-2000.
10. New Commercial and Industrial Water Use Review
Rerlrction Factor ( Unit water savings)
11. Conservation Pricing
Reduction Factor (Unit water savings)
I Coverafe Factor (Installation andlor compliance rote)
Factor
NOT QUANTIFIED AT "IS TIME
NOT QUANTIFIED AT THIS TIME
12%
NOT QUANTIFIED
AT THIS TIME
NOT QUANTFELI
ATTHISTIME
-23-
EXHIBIT 1
I1 Best Management Practices
. Landscape Water Conservation for New and Existing Single
Reduciion Facior (Unit Waier Savings)
Coverage Facior (Installaiion anrtor compliance rare)
Reduciion Factor (Unit Waier Savings)
Reduciion Factor
15. Financial Incentives
Reduction Facior
Coverage Factor
16. Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement Programs
Reduction Facior
Coverage Facior
(1.6 gallons per flush maximum)
Factor
NOT QUANTIFIED
AT THIS TIME
NOT QUANTIFIU) AT THIS TIME
NOT QUANTIFIED
AT THIS TIME
NOT QUANTIFIED
AT THIS TIME
SEE EAWIBIT 6
-24-
EXHIBIT 1
SECTION D.
Potential Best Manage ment Pract IC@
This Section contains Potential Best Management Practices ("PBMPs") that will be studied
Where appropriate, demonstration projects will be carried out to determine if the practices meet
the criteria to be designated as BMPs. Within one year of the initial signing of this MOU, the
Council will develop and adopt a schedule for studies of these PBMF's.
1. RATE STRUCTURES AND OTHER ECONOMIC INCENTIVES AND DISINCEN
TIWS TO ENCOURAGE WATER CONSERVATION.
This is the top priority PBMP to be studied. Such studies should include seasonal rates;
increasing block rates, connection fee discounts; grant or loan programs to help finance
conservation projects; financial incentives to change landscapes; variable hookup fees tied to
landscaping; and interruptible water seMce to large industrial, commercial or public
customers. Studies on this PBMP will be initiated within 12 months f?om the initial signing of
the MOU. At least one of these studies will include a pilot project on incentives to
encourage landscape water conservation.
2. EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER USING APPLIANCES AND
IRRIGATION DEVICES.
3. REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WATER USING APPLIANCES (EXCEPT TOILETS
AND SHOWERHEADS WHOSE REPLACEMENTS ARE INCORPORATED AS
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) AND IRRIGATION DEVICES.
4. RETROFIT OF EXISTING CAR WASHES.
5. GRAYWATER USE.
6. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PRESSURE REGULATION.
7. WATER SUPPLIER BILLING RECORDS BROKEN DOWN BY CUSTOMER CLASS
(E.G., RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL).
SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CONSERVATION INCLUDING COVERS TO
REDUCE EVAPORATION.
8.
9. RESTRICTIONS OR PROHIBITIONS ON DEVICES THAT USE EVAPORATION
TO COOL EXTERIOR SPACES.
10. POINT-OF-USE WATER HEATERS, RECIRCULATING HOT WATER SYSTEMS
AND HOT WATER PIPE INSULATION.
1 1. EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
PROCESSES.
-25-
EXHIBIT 2
CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL
1, The California Urban Water Conservation Council (the "Council") will be comprised of a
representative of each of the signatories to the MOU.
2. The Council will be housed by California Urban Water Agencies ("CUWA"). The Council will
act independently of CUWA on all technical and policy issues. CUWA will be responsible for
the initial funding and ensuring that the Council's administrative and general office needs are
met. CUWA will retain the right to withdraw from this relationship at any time upon 180 days
written notice to the Council. The Council recognizes that its funding requirements may
exceed what CUWA is prepared to contribute and that alternative funding may be needed.
3, The Council's responsibilities and authorities include:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
I.
j.
k.
Recommending study methodologies for Best Management Practices ("BMPs"), including
procedures for assessing the effectiveness and reliability of urban water conservation
measures.
Developing guidelines including discount rate to be used by all signatories in computing
BMP benefits and costs pursuant to Exhibit 3.
Reviewing and modifying the economic principles set forth in Exhibit 3.
Collecting and summarizing information on implementation of BMPs and Potential Best
Management Practices ("PBMPs").
Adopting or modifying BMPs and PBMPs lists.
Adopting or modifying reliable water conservation savings data for BMPs.
Adopting or modifying the schedules of implementation for existing and new BMPs.
Adopting or modifying the schedules for research and demonstration projects for BMPs
and PBMPs.
Coordinating and/or making recommendations regarding BMPs study and demonstration
projects.
Accepting or denying requests for additional parties to join the MOU and assigning
additional parties to one of the three signatory groups as described in Section 1.3 of the
MOU.
Reviewing and modifying report formats
-26-
EXHIBIT 2
Making annual reports to the State Water Resources Control Board and the Council
Members on the above items based on the format described in Exhibit 5
1.
m. Within two years of the initial signing of this MOU, developing and implementing
procedures and a funding mechanism for independent evaluation of the MOU process ai
the Council and signatory levels.
Undertaking such additional responsibilities as the Members may agree upon n.
4. The Council will make formal reports to the State Water Resources Control Board and to the
governing bodies of all Council Members. Such reports shall include a formal annual written
report. Other reports such as status reports and periodic updates may be prepared as deemed
appropriate by the Council. Any Member of the Council will be entitled to review draf?
reports and comment on all reports. Such comments shall be included in any final report at the
Member's request.
5. It is anticipated that the Council will develop a committee structure, which will include a
Membership Committee as described in Section 7.2 of the MOU. A Steering Committee and
one or more technical committees may also be needed.
6. For purposes of the Council, signatories will be divided into three groups: water suppliers
("Group I"), public advocacy organizations ("Group 2") and other interested groups ("Group
3") as those terms are defined in Section 1 of the MOU. Members of Groups 1 and 2 shall be
members of the Council and shall possess all voting rights. Members of Group 3 shall not have
voting rights, but shall act in an advisory capacity to the Council.
7. Decisions by the Council to undertake additional responsibilities; to modify the MOU itself, or
to modif) Exhibits 2 or 3 require the following:
a. The Council will provide notice to all signatories giving the text of the proposed action or
modification at least 60 days in advance of the vote by the Council.
b. To pass the action or modification, there must be a vote in favor of the action or
modification by at least 23 of the members of Group 1 voting, including votes made in
person or in writing, and a vote in favor of the action or modification by at least 2/3 of the
members of Group 2 voting, including votes made in person or in writing.
8. All other modifications and Council actions shall be undertaken as follows: There must be a
vote in favor of the modification or action by a simple majority of the members of Group 1
voting, including votes made in person or in writing, and a vote in favor of the modification or
action by a simple majority of the members of Group 2 voting, including votes made in person
or in writing.
-27-
EXHIBIT 3
PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE PERFORMANCE OF
BMP ECONOMIC (COST-EFFECTIVENESS) ANALYSES
1. The total cost-effectiveness of a conservation measure will be measured by comparing the
present value of the benefits of the measure listed in paragraph 3 below to the present value of
the costs listed in paragraph 4. The measure will be cost-effective if the present value of the
benefits exceeds the present value of the costs.
2. The cost-effectiveness of a conservation measure to the water supplier will be measured by
comparing the present value ofthe benefits described in paragraph 5 to the present value of
the costs described in paragraph 6. The measure will be cost-effective if the present value of
the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs.
3. Total benefits exclude financial incentives received by water suppliers or by retail customers.
These benefits include:
a. avoided capital costs of production, transport, storage, treatment, wastewater treatment
and distribution capacity.
b. avoided operating costs, including but not limited to, energy and labor
c. environmental benefits and avoided environmental costs
d. avoided costs to other water suppliers, including those associated with making surplus
water available to other suppliers
e. benefits to retail customers, including benefits to customers of other suppliers associated
with making surplus water available to these suppliers
4. Total program costs are those costs associated with the planning, design, and implementation
of the particular BMP, excluding financial incentives paid either to other water suppliers or to
retail customers. These costs include:
a. capital expenditures for equipment or conservation devices
b. operating expenses for staffor contractors to plan, design, or implement the program
c. costs to other water suppliers
d. costs to the environment
e. costs to retail customers
5. Program benefits to the water supplier include:
a. costs avoided by :he water supplier of constructing production, transport, storage,
treatment, distribution capacity, and wastewater treatment facilities, if any.
b. operating costs avoided by the water supplier, including but not limited to, energy and
labor associated with the water deliveries that no longer must be made
-28-
EXHIBIT 3
c. avoided costs of water purchases by the water supplier
d. environmental benefits and avoided environmental costs
e. revenues from other entities, including but not limited to revenue from the sale of water
made available by the conservation measure and financial incentives received from other
entities
6. Program costs to the water supplier include:
a. capital expenditures incurred by the water supplier for equipment or conservation devices
b. financial incentives to other water suppliers or retail customers
c. operating expenses for staff or contractors to plan, design, or implement the program
d. costs to the environment
7. The California Urban Water Conservation Council (“Council”) will be responsible for
developing guidelines that will be used by all water suppliers in computing BMP benefits and
costs. These guidelines will include, but will not be limited to, the following issues:
a. analytical frameworks
b. avoided environmental costs
c. other impacts on the supply system that may be common to many water suppliers
d. time horizons and discount rates
e. avoided costs to non-water supply agencies
f. benefits and costs to retail customers
g. benefits of water made available to other entities as a result of conservation efforts
These guidelines will recognize the uniqueness of individual water suppliers and will therefore not
impose excessive uniformity.
8. Within these guidelines, each water supplier will be responsible for analyses of the cost-
effectiveness of particular Bh4Ps on its system. These analyses will be reviewed by the
Council.
9. The Council will also be responsible for periodically reviewing the overall framework set forth
in this Exhibit.
-29-
FORM OF LETIZR TO STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
W. Don Maughan, Chairman, and Members
State Water Resources Control Board
901 "P" Street
Sacramento, California 95801
Subject: BaylDelta Proceedings:
Urban Water Conservation
Dear Chairman Maughan and Members:
We are pleased to forward to you a copy of a "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Urban Water Conservation in California" recently entered into by many urban water suppliers,
public advocacy organizations, and other interested groups.
This Memorandum of Understanding was developed over a period of many months of fact-
gathering and intensive negotiations. It commits the signatory water suppliers to good faith
implementation of a program of water conservation which embodies a series of "Best
Management Practices" for California's urban areas. It also commits all of the signatories to an
ongoing, structured process of data collection through which other conservation measures, not
yet in general use, can be evaluated as to whether they should be added to the list of Best
Management Practices. Finally, it commits all signatories to recommending to this Board that the
Best Management Practices identified in this Memorandum of Understanding be taken as the
benchmark for estimating reliable savings for urban areas which utilize waters affected by the
BaylDelta proceedings. An important part of this program is the signatories' recognition of the
need to provide long-term reliability for urban water suppliers and long-term protection of the
environment
To cany out these commitments, please be advised that each of the signatories has endorsed
making the following recommendations to this Board:
1. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, implementation of the Best
Management Practices process set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding represents a
sufficient long-term water conservation program by the signatory water suppliers, recognizing
that additional programs may be required during occasional water supply shortages.
2. That for purposes of the present BaylDelta proceedings only, the Board should base its
estimates of hture urban water conservation savings on implementation of all of the Best
Management Practices included in Section A of Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding
for the entire service area of the signatory water suppliers and only on those Best Management
Practices, except for (a) the conservation potential for water supplied by urban agencies for
agricultural purposes, or (b) in cases where higher levels of conservation have been mandated.
-30-
EXHIBIT 4
3. That for purposes of the present BaylDelta proceedings, the Board should make its
estimates of future urban water conservation savings by employing the reliable savings
assumptions associated with those Best Management Practices set forth in Section C of Exhibit 1
to the Memorandum of Understanding. Measures for which reliable savings assumptions are not
yet available should not be employed in estimating future urban water use.
4. That the Board should include a policy statement in the water rights phase of the present
BaylDelta proceedings supporting the Best Management Practices process described in the
Memorandum of Understanding and should also consider that process in any documents it
prepares pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the present BaylDelta
proceedings.
It should be emphasized that the Memorandum of Understanding does not contain projections
of population for California and, accordingly, none of the signatories to the Memorandum of
Understanding are agreeing to recommend that any specific population levels be used by the
Board in estimating hture water demands. Furthermore, it should be noted that the signatories
have retained the right to advocate any particular level of protection for the BaylDelta Estuary,
including levels of f7eshwater flows, and that the Memorandum of Understanding is not intended
to address any authority or obligation of the Board to establish freshwater flow protections or to
set water quality objectives for the Estuary. The Memorandum of Understanding is also not
intended to address any authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Finally, as described in Section 5.1 of the MOU, the signatories have not Limited their ability to
propose different conservation practices, different estimates of savings or different processes in a
forum other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings or for non-urban water suppliers or for other
water management issues. Public advocacy organization signatories have not agreed to use the
initial assumptions of reliable conservation savings in proceedings other than the present
BayDelta proceedings. The signatories may present other assumptions of reliable conservation
savings for non-signatory water suppliers in the BayDelta proceedings, provided that such
assumptions could not adversely impact the water supplies of signatory water suppliers.
The Memorandurn of Understanding establishes an ongoing process for study and research in
the field of urban water conservation and an organizational structure to support this effort, which
is described in Exhibit 2 to the Memorandum of Understanding. The process is dynamic and
contemplates periodic revisions to the list of Best Management Practices, as well as refinements
to the savings assumptions based on continuing field studies. The California Urban Water
Conservation Council will forward updated lists of Best Management Practices and updated
savings assumptions to the Board as they become available. However, for the present BayDelta
proceedings, the measures and savings assumptions listed on Exhibit 1 should be used as
described above.
The Memorandum of Understanding is a significant accomplishment and one of which all the
parties are proud. We hope it will be of value to the Board in the complex and important
BayDelta proceedings. By copy of this letter, we are forwarding these recommendations to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
-31-
EXHIBIT 4
Very Truly Yours,
Name of Signatory
By:
cc: Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Regional Administrator, Region IX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
-32-
EXHIBIT 5
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION ANNUAL REPORT OUTLINE
1. Executive Summary
II. Implementation Assessment
Water Suppliers' Report
Findings
Comments
Progress
Public Advocacy Organizations' Report
Findings
Comments
Progress
LU. Survey Results for 199X
Summary of Survey Responses
Table _. Per Capita Usage [by region]
Table __ Status of BMP Implementation [by supplier]
Table __ Proposed Implementation Schedules
Interpretation of Survey Responses
Lack of Data
Climatic Influences
Implementation Difficulties
Evaluation of Results
IV. Trend Analysis
Comparison with Prior Years
Table -. Per Capita Usage [by region]
Projected Conservation
Table - . Schedule of Implementation
Updated Estimates of Future Savings [by region]
Evaluation of Progress
V. Studies of Best Management Practices
Assessment of Current BMPs
Table _. Evaluation of Effectiveness [by measure and region]
-33-
EXHIBIT 5
Assessment of Potential BMPs
Status of Current Studies
Proposed Future Studies
Revision of Lists of Current and Potential BMPs
Additions and Deletions
Other Modifications to MOU or Exhibits
VI. Recent Developments
Legislative Update
Program Funding
Case Studies
Residential Conservation
Industrial Conservation
Irrigation Efficiency
Legal Actions
National Practices
Technical Advances
Publications
W. Council Committee Activities
Vm. Funding Levels
M. Staffing Levels
X. Substantiated Findings by Signatory Water Supplier in Support of Use of Exemptions
XI.
Appendices
Substantiated Findings in Support of Use of Alternative Schedule of Implementation
List of Signatories [subcommittee members noted]
Key Correspondence and Comments
-34-
ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
FOR DETERMINING ESTIMATES OF RELIABLE WATER
SAVINGS FROM THE INSTALLATION OF ULF TOILETS
July 1992
Approved June 30,1992
California Urban Water Conservation Council
On June 30,1992, the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) adopted the assumptions
and me tho do lo^ described in this report for dekmhing estimates of reliable water savings 6om the installation
of ULF toilets. The Council votedto provide only a method for estimating ULF toilet conservation potential, not
specific estimates for different regions or agencies.
The methodology presented here was explicitly developed to balance simplicity and accuracy. The method
allows a water agency to customize the estimate of conservation potmtial by using servicearea-.spaSc information on household demographics, composition of housing stock, and turnover rates of real estate. Agencies lacking
service area specific information can use regional averages. Given the large supply of conserved water that ULF
toilets represent, the Council feels that the method's adjustments of estimated conservation potential for different
local conditions is well worth the extra effort.
The fust step required to estimate a given area's conservation potential is to assess water savings likely to
result per ULF toilet retrofit. We provide a scheme for adjusting estimates of water savings that were realized
by fust-year participants in the Los Angeles and Santa Monica toilet rebate programs to make these estimates
suitable for other service areas. Wafer savings estimates for participating households in Los Angeles and Santa
Monica were derived through sophisticated statistical models based on data provided by over 23,000 households
covering a seven year period'. These reliable estimates of conservation form the best basis for extrapolating to
other service m. These estimates should not be used dudy, but must be adjusted for three service-area-specific
facton: 1) people per household; 2) toilet retrofits per household and 3) the mix of pre-I980 and post-1980 toilets.
ThemethodandassumptionspresentedhaeapplytothreeseparateULF-toilet-relatedBestManaganenthactices
(BMPs) in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
BMP 2.4 requires enforcement of water conserving plumbing thue standards including requirement for Ultra-
Low-Flush (ULF) toile& in all new mhuction beginning January 1,1992. Note that BMP 2A is now a state
law.
BMP 2B requires support of State and Federal legislation prohibhg sale of toile& using more than 1.6 gallons
per flush. Such a regulation is presently being considered in the California State Legislature. Water savings
estimates pertaining to BMP 2B should be considered applicable if and when the legislation passes.
See The Co nservidffect o f Ultra Lo w Flush Towate Prom- , Chesnutt, T., A. Bamezai, C. 2
McSpadden, A & N Technical Services, June 1992, and related reports listed in Appendix A.
-35-
requires water suppliers to implement programs for replacement of existing high-water-using toilets
with ultra-low-tlush toilets (1.6 gallon or less) in residential commercial, and industrial buildings. As per BMP
16, such programs should be at least as effective as offering rebates of up to $100 for each replacement that
would not have occurred without the rebate, or requiring replacement at the time of resale, or reqlllnng replacement
at the time of change of savice. BMF' 16 lists three alternatives that indicate compliance. The Subcommittee
selected the second alternative, a bill requiring replacement of non-ULF toilets with ULF toilets wzhen a propert?
exchanges hands, as a quantifiable way for demrmmn g each service area's water conservation target. Furthermore,
this framework allows the assessment of both the total water conservation target for each service area and
the rate at which these targets must be met. BMP 16 differs from other BMPs in that it is defined in terms
of water savings instead of a level of activity.
Fkstated, water savings tar@ implied by BMP 16 come from calculating the effect of ULF replacement of
all non-ULF toilets at the time of resale or exchange. This requires combining information about estimated per-
household water savings with information about housing turnover rates and the natural toilet replacement rate.
We present detailed analyses for a hypothetical service area to describe the methodology in detail.
..
According to the MOW, water suppliers will commit to saving water that is implied by BMP 16 through ULF
toilet retrofit programs. This should not be interpreted to mean that such a legislation will actually be in place.
It is a hypothetical scenario that is to be used for determining urban water conservation targets for each service
area. Any water conservation program will be acceptable as long as it saves water that is implied by BMP 16; these program choices rest solely with each service area3. Water suppliers will calculate the amount of water to
besavedfor BMP 16usingthemethoddesaibed~imdthen~ethattargetedamwntusingaULFprogram
of their own choice.
As stated in the MOW, the Council voted and agreed that estimates of- savings potential are to be used.
The Council agreed that the reliable estimate lies in the 50 percent to 90 percent range of statistical codidence.
The Council did not reach consenm on the exact level of reliability to be used in calculating estimates of ULFT
conservation potential. This issue is to be resolved at the next plenary session in September. Until such time as
a precise level of desired reliability in estimated savings can be formally addressed by the Council, it should be
noted that the magnitude of ULFT CMlsavation potential does not change substantially under Merent assumptions.
Due to the high @ty of the statistical data, the agreed 50 to 90 percent range iranslates to a Merence in estimated
Consavation of only three pacent. The Council recognizes that the estimates of reliable savings can be changed
as better information become available.
The Council has decided to postpone a fd recommendation on estimates of ULFT conservation potential
for Ihe Commercidindusbial retrofits. Presently available data is too weak to support a reliable estimate. Studies
are. mUy lmdaway to address the consavation potential of commerciaUiidusbial ULFT rewofits, and the Council
expects to address this issue next year.
' For example, although a legislation that requires ULF retrofits upon resale or exchange implies that aU non-WF toilets in a hane must be replaced when it is sold, this need not be the actual goal of a toilet retrofit
program. The evaluation of ULF toilet rebate programs shows that the fist toilet retrofit in a home is far more
effective than subsequent retrofits, and that retrofits in multiple family complexes are more effective than retrofits
insinglefanulyhou&olds. Thus,byincreasingthe covmgeofWL.Ftoilet rebateprograms insteadofwithin-household
penetration, and emphasizing retrofits in multiple family complexes over retrofits in single family households,
a water supplier may be able to achieve water savings implied by BMP 16 using a smaller number of ULF toilet
replacements.
-36-
I. INTRODUCTION
TkreareseveralwaysthatatmntlyproposcdBMP's~producesavings~ULFto~ets. The 1991 plumbing
code requires installation of ULF toilets (BMP 2A) in new construction. Additionally, if the State of California
enacts legislation banning the sale and installation of non-ULF toilets (BMP 2B), the result will be the natural
replacancnt ofexisting toilets with ULF toilets as and when existing toilets begin to malfunction, are damaged,
ar hoseholds decide to remodel their bathrooms. Programs that affect the replacement of non-ULF toilets with
ULF toilets (BMP 16), would additionally affect the existing housing stock.
This report describes a methodology for quantifylne the conservation targets under BMP 16. In particular,
the ULF Toilet Subwmmittee has seleued ULF rcplarwent.upcn-nsalGorzxchange legislation as a quantifiable
wayfor- . . g ULF cOtlSQvation targets (der BMP 16) over a period of 10 yeas. The calculations required
to quam& this legislation, and hence. BMP 16, also yield information on the water saving potential of the other
ULF-dated BMP's. To keep csbnats of ULF ccmsavation potenhal accurate, it is important not to double count
conservation &om the different types of ULF programs.
Our basic method can be described as multiplying how much water ULF toilets save in a household by the
number of households affected. Both of these quantities wili vary in different service areas and are discussed in
tum.
First, the quantjty ofwatcr llkcly to be savcd by a ULF to& rQoMwill vary in diffmt service areas because
of diffaenccs inhousehold&aw4msb ' .cs dageofthebousirgstock s&tionLl describes how we estimate water
savings hm ULF retrofits for ditfaent service areas.
Second, the number of affededhrmcs will vary in diffamtsavice ~nas due to diEamces in housing turnover
rats and diffexmces in the rate at which toilets arc naturally replaced because of either damage, malfunction, or
bathroomremodeling. Sincc,atthetimcofmalfimctionabrcakdownsometoilets arclikelytoberetrofittedwith
ULF toilets, the net water saving effect of BMP-16 will Lw overstated ifthis is not taken into account. Section
III deals with this secouI(1 set of issues. Sedion lV contains illustrative calculations for a hypothetical senice area.
-31-
II. ESTIMATING PER-HOUSEHOLD WATER SAVLNGS
The household water saving estimates are based on the evaluation of Los Angeles' and Santa Monica's ULF
toilet rebate programs. Using the dts of this evaluation it was possible to quantify how household water savings
vary with the numbex of people that reside in a household, the number of toilets that are retrofitted in a home, and
the type of toilet replaced Thus, to cxbapolate wata savings estimates to other service areas requires thrw pieces
of information at the service area level:
Average number of people per household
Average number of toilets per household
Mix of px-1980 and post-1980 toilets
To simplify the calculation of how thcse factors are related to expected bousehold water savings, planning
tables are pvided for single and multiple hily haJscholds. Table 1 shows expected average water savings per
single family household per day corresponding to different service area characteristics (persons per household
and toilets per household.) Table 2 shows similar information for multiple family Units. So, for example, if in
a savice area the average number of people that reside in single family homes is 2.7 and the average number of
toilets per singe family home is 2, then approximately 43.3 gallons of water will be saved per day if both toilets
are replaced with ULF to+ts'.
The wata savings stimatcs shown in Tabla 1 and2 makeno ad~ushncnt for diffumces in the mix of pn-1980
and post-1980 toilet?. Ifinformation abcut thc Pristing mix of toilets is available the water saving estimates can
be furthanfined The default valus implied bythcplarmiagtabk Rflca thc mnbd expaience ofh Angeles
and Santa Monica--ly 7.5 paant of all toilets replaced in single family households and 12.5 percent
replaced in multiple family units wcrc of the post-1980 (3.5 galidflush) variety. If water planners how how
thdrsaviceareaditfps6wnthismixof~thcfallowingsectiondsrribcshowtoinootporatethatinfamation
*in a dce ma, the average number of pcople residing in single family homes exceeds 3, we recommend
choosing a wata savings dmatc 6wn Table 1 asuming thc average is 3. This is because we had only a handful
of households that qorted having greats than 3 rcsidarts and therefore we were unable to derive reliable estimates
of water savings for thse larga households. 'Ihe amr this approximation is likely to produce is minimal bemuse
we fmd that, in general, water savings grow less than lmearly as population density increases in a household.
%ffective January 1,1978, all new dwelling units and lodging rooms in California were required to have
toile@ that used no more than 3.5 gallons pa flush. lboughtherewasno gwepaiod in the law, it is widdy believed
that implementation and dormnat of this law was initially spotty. We have selected 1980 as the effective year
of implanauation The mqkmat for 3.5 galloo-pa-nush toh was exteded to virtually all new construction,
effective lanumy 1,1983. (An exemption was allowed for blowout toilets used in some public restrooms.)
-38-
EXHIBIT 6
Based on the data available firm the first year of ULF rebate programs, we estimate that rebotitting a post-1980
(3.5 gl./fl& toilet) saves 20 percent less than renofitting a pre-1980 toilet6. If one does know the proportion of
post-1980 toilets in a service area, then thui information can be used to adjust any of the estimates of conservation.
Si the overall mean net conservation provided in Tables 1 and 2 is a weighted average of pre- and post 1980
toilets, we can back cut separate savings estimates for pre-1980 and post-1 980 toilets. These estimates can then
be applied to the proportion of the housing stock that has each type of toilet.
The adjustment factors come from dining our knowledge of the proportion of post- 1980 toilets (7.5 parmt
in single family homes) with how much Iss water n3rofits of post-80 toileis save relative to pre- 1980 toilets (about
20 percent). We state the following two equations:
- - - - NsF+ (.8*.075+.925) - NSF * 1.015 - - Npreeo - N,, * 1.015 * .E - NsF * .E12 NPSCBO
Changing for the proportion of post-80 toilets in the multiple family sample (about 12.5 percent), we can find
the comparable relationships between the multiple family overall savings and pre-/post-80 toilet saving: - - - - Nm + (+8*.125+.875) Nm * 1.0255 - (2) - Npreso
Npsteo - Nm * 1.026 * .8 - NHF * .E205
Thus, if- is infdon on tkmixof~~-198OtoikLs in asavict area, thc ovwll mean watasavings
gim in Tables 1 and 2 should be scparatcdiatoits nvo components: themean for prc-1980 toilets and the mcan
for post-1980 toilets. For single family households, the mean for pre 1980 toilets can be derived by multiplying
thcd mean hn Table 1 by 1.015 and thc- for post-1980 toilets can bedpivcd by multiplyingthc overall
mean from Table 1 by 0.812. For multiple family households, the mean for pre-1980 toilets UUI bc derived by
muItipiyingtheovezaU mean hn Table 2 by 1.0255 and tk mcan forpost-1980 toilets can be daived by mulhpiying
the overall mean from Table 2 by 0.8205.
'Our stimate is an cmpmcal one bascd on observed retrofits in Los Angeles and Santa Monica. It can diffa h theoretical calculations bascd upon design specifications of toilets meting the 1980 plumbing code versus
those that do not for several msons. Toilets may use Iss on average if they were designed conservatively or thcy
may use mon if the mlia 198o-coqliant designs dted in more dwble flushes. Many supposedly 5-7 gl./flush
toilets actually use 4-5 &/flush in laboratory tests. Furthumore, the average rate at which toilets develop leaks
and the preexisting installation of toilet dams or bags can alter theoretical calculations. Since no one knows, or
can know, the true average amount of water used per flush across the mix of installed toilets in a service area, we
believe this issue is moot.
-39-
I- 90!2
mmu
YS4 nl-m mmm
s' -9:
m%m
-Y &mZ NNN
222
NNN
2
2
u
0
0: In U
: U
9 m U
u! - u
9 0 U
Y
m 00
2
z
:
x
m
m
0
m
Y 0 m
00 od N - & N
uuuuu
-40-
Table 2 Planning Table For Estimating Water Savings in Service Areas with
Different Household Characteristics-Multiple Family
(Gallons per Unit per Day)
Persons
per Unit
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0 -
Toilets per Unit
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
30.7 33.0 35.0 36.7 38.1 39.2
31.8 34.2 36.3 38.0 39.5 40.6
32.9 35.4 37.5 39.4 40.9 42.1
34.0 36.6 38.8 40.7 42.3 43.5
35.1 37.8 40.1 42.0 43.6 44.9
36.2 38.9 41.3 43.3 45.0 46.3
37.4 40.1 42.5 44.6 46.3 47.6
38.5 41.3 43.8 45.9 47.6 49.0
39.6 42.5 45.0 47.2 49.0 50.3
40.7 43.6 46.2 48.5 50.3 51.7
41.8 44.8 47.4 49.7 51.6 53.0
42.8 45.9 48.7 51.0 52.8 54.3
43.9 47.1 49.9 52.2 54.1 55.6
45.0 48.2 51.0 53.4 55.4 56.8
46.1 49.4 52.2 54.6 56.6 58.1
47.2 50.5 53.4 55.9 57.8 59.3
Note: Above figures are accurate within *5 percent of model
estimated water savings.
-41-
EXHIBIT 6
Reliabilitv
The estimates given in Tables 1 and 2 represent the expected value of household savings in an
entire service area-i.e., there is a fifty percent chance that the realized savings will exceed the estimate
and a 6fly percent chance that the realized savings wiU be. less than the estimate. Suppose that a different
kind of estimate is desired-one that can be met or exceeded 90 percent of the time. The second estimate
incorporates the idea of reliability; sometimes 50/50 odds of being right or wong are not good enough.
The charter of many public utilities requires them to provide a public good in a reliable fashion. Also,
the MOU on Water Conservation calls for the use of "estimates of reliable water savings" for water
resource planning that incorporates urban water conservation achievements. If a water utility wants
to incorporate estimates of the water saved through ULF toilet programs as a means of reliably meeting
future water demand, then the water utility needs an estimate of water savings that incorporates the
desired level of reliability.
The estimates in Tables 1 and 2 can be adjusted to reflect any desired level of reliabity. We estimate
a within-sample standard error surrounding the estimates in Tables 1 and 2 of about two and a half
percent. AstandardnormalZtablecanbeused to translate thedesiredlevel ofreliabilityintoaZ-value-the
number of standard errors away from the expected value that one must move to attain a higher level
of reliabity. A desired reliability of 90 percent, for example, implies that the expected value of household
savings should be lowered about 1.28 standad errors. In our case, this translates into an estimate that
is (1.28*2.5 percent =) 3.2 percent lower. In other words, there are sufficient data in this case so that
this expression of "reliable savings" is quite close to the expected values shown in the tables. However,
estimates of water savings likely to be achieved from other BMPs may be much less well defined and
as a result may differ significantly from the expected values. In such cases, the concept of planning
for reliable savings will assume qualitatively more importance.
-42-
EXHIBIT 6
111. ESTIMATING TOILETS REPLACED BECAUSE OF HOUSING
TURNOVER
Existing non-ULF toilets can be replaced with ULF toilets for reasons other than a legislation that
requires retrofit upon resale or exchange. For example, toilets break down, malfunction, and are usually
replaced when households remodel their bathrooms. Gwen that the State of California is considering
another separate piece of legislation that would ban the sale and installation of non-ULF toilets in the
state, it is very likely that a large number of old toilets will be replaced with ULF toilets purely as a
result of the normal toilet replacement cycle. If this is not taken into account, one will overstate the
water-saving deztiveness of a legislation that requires retrofit upon resale or exchange. To account
for these complexities, we estimate the water-saving effectiveness of retrofit upon sale or exchange
legislation by calculating the water that will be saved if it were in place and the amount of water that
would be saved anyway in the absence of such legislation. There are at least seven factors that can
affect estimates of net water savings attributable to a legislation that requires ULF toilet retrofits upon
resale or exchange.
Housing demolition rate
Housing turnover rate
Natural toilet replacement rate
Existing mix of toilets
Type of new toilet used for replacement
Average number of people and toilets per household
Changes in household size over time
Ofthese seven factors, changes in average household size over time can be safely ignored because
it isunlikelytochangeappreciablyoveraperiod oftenyearswhichisthefocusofthisdysis. Information
about the average number ofpeople and toilets per household, and the existing mix of pre-1980 and
post-1980 toilets are required to forecast per-retrofit water savings-this was discussed in detail in
Section 11.
For the remaining factors-that is, the housing demolition rate, the housing turnover rate, the natwal
toilet replacement rate, and type of new toilet used for replacement-water planners should use data
that is relevant to their own service area. Although some amount of uncertainty naturally surrounds
estimates of the above factors, it is largest in the case of the natural toilet replacement rate and the
type of new toilet that is likely to be used for replacement. To assess the extent to which this uncertainty
affects estimates of the water-saving potential ofBh4P 16, we performed detailed sensitivity analyses.
A total of six scenarios were considered for the sensitivity analysis.
It is generally agreed that, on amage, a toilet lasts anywhere from 20 to 30 years, although some
claim to have seen toilets as old as 50-60 years. Assuming that toilets are replaced at an annual rate
of 3 percent implies that after 30 years approximately 40 percent [( I-0.03)T of toilets of this vintage
would still be around; with a replacement rate of 7 percent this number declines to 1 1 percent [( 1-0.07)7
which can be considered the other end of the rarge. We performed sensitivity analyses assuming the
natural toilet replacement rate is 3 percent, 5 percent and 7 percent. The sensitivity analysesals0 considered
-43-
EXHIBIT 6
two additional scenarios corresponding to each natural toilet replacement rate that pertain to the type
of toilets that are likely to be used to replace old malfunctioning toilets. In the first scenario we assume
that all toilets that are naturally replaced are retrofitted with 1.6 gallon ULF toilets. This is a very likely
scenario given that legislation banning the sale and installation of non-ULF toilets is being considered
in the state of California @MP 2B). In the other scenario, we assumed that 50 percent of toilets ~turally
replaced are retrofitted with UL.F toilets in the base year and that this proportion increases to 100 percent
by the end of the IO-year analysis period. We found that the results were relatively insensitive to these
assumptions. The 10-year cumulative water savings derived fiom these six scenarios were within *15
percent of the average.
The U" subcommittee proposes that service areas use a nahu;il toilet replacement rate of 4 percent
and assume that all toilets naturally replaced will be retrofitted with 1.6 gallodflush ULF toilets for
their area-specific calculations. The next section describes illustrative calculations performed for a
hypothetical service area.
-44-
EXHIBIT 6
IV. SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR A WPOTHETICAL SERVICE AREA
In this sectiols we present detailed calculations for a hypothetical service area to demonstrate the
method of calculating conservation targets. Single family and multiple family homes are analyzed
separately. This scenario is based on a natural rate of toilet changeout of 4 percent per year, and that
all new retrofits are of the 1.6 gallon-per-flush variety (i.e., BMP-2B that bans sale of non-ULF toilets
in the State of California is in effect.)
Table 3 shows the data used for this sample calculation. For example, in this service area, publicly
available data on real-estate sales suggest that 30 percent of all single family homes and 42 percent
of all multiple family complexes were sold at least once in the last five years. This is typically the format
in which real-estate transactions data are available. This five-year estimate can be transformed into
an annual turnover rate using the following formula:
(1 -P>’=(l -s)
where S is the proportion of the stock that was sold at least once during the five year period and P
is the annual turnover rate. We apply a different turnover rates for the single family and the multiple
family housing stock
Table 3 Data Used in Sample Calculation
Parameter
I Average toilets per household I 2.16 I 1.20
NOTE: Homes already with 1.6 gallodflush toilets are excluded from the analysis.
Mer establishing the home turnover rate, the next step is to estimate average water savings per
household per day using information contained in Section 11. For single family households (Table I),
average household water savihgs corresponding to 3.25 people per household (refer footnote 1) and
-45-
EXHIBIT 6
2.16 toilets per household is approximately 43.4 gallons per day. As mentioned eartier, estimated water
savings represent a weighted mix of pre-1980 and post-1980 (3.5 gl./fl.) toilets. To illustrate how to
adjust these estimates for a specific service area, use the relations listed in Section I1 to incorporate
the service area specific data in Table 3. From Equation (1) for single family homes, pre-1980 toilet
retrofits are estimated to save approximately 44 gallondday and post-1980 toilets are estimated to
save 35.2 gallondday. For a 90 level of reliability, these estimates are lowered 3.2 percent to 42.6
gallodday and 34.1 gallons per day. The similar calculation for multiple family complexes uses Table
2 and Equation (2), savings pre-1980 toilet retrofits are estimated to save approximately 48.2 gallodday
and post-1980 toilets are estimated to save 38.6 gallondday. Changing this expected value to a 90
percent reliable value gives 46.7 gallons per day and 37.4 gallons per day.
We iirst calculate water savings assuming no retrofit-upon-resale legislation is in effect and that
all savings result 60m the normal cycle of toilet replacements (Tables 4 and 6). These results can be
interpreted as savings that would result hm a legislation that bans the sale and installation of non-ULF
toilets in the State ofCalifornia (BMP 2B). Next we estimate water savings that result 6om the combined
effect of natural changeout combined with a retrofit-upon-resale-or-exchange legislation (Tables 5
and 7). The difference between the two then is the net water-saving effect of a legislation that requires
replacement of non-ULF toilets with ULF toilets at the time of resale or exchange (BMF' 16).
Table 8 shows these estimates of net water comervation (or conservation targets) that the particular
Service area in question will have to achieve over the course of the next 10 years. For example, in 1993
the total target is (2822 single family net + 3026 multiple family net =) 5848 acre feet. In the next year,
additional consemuion of (2412 single family net + 2487 multiple family net =) 4899 acre feet is added
to the previous year's target for a total cumulative savings target of (5848 AF + 4899 AF =) 10747
acre-feet. Figures 1 through 3 plot the amulatm . Savings targets for BMPs 2B and 16 over the course
of 10 years. Note that the Collsenaton targets implied by BMP16 (Figure 3) has a curved shape. This
is a complete resuit of the assumed ULF retrofits-in the later years, more and more of the homes that
are sold have already been retrofitted with ULF toilets.
Note that the conservation targe-ts are listed m acre-feet per year not toilets per year. To meet the
water conservation targets, that amount ofwater specified in Table 8 must conserved through ULF
efforts. Since multiple family retrofits save more than single family retrofits and the first toilet retrofit
per household saves more than the second or third retrofits, it is possible to design ULF conservation
programs that conserve the same amount of water using fewer toilets. Thus, issues of program design
are intimately linked with the don and costs that will have to be incurred to meet these conservation
targets.
46-
Housing
Year Stock
1992 950,000
11 1993 I 912.190 I 37.810 I 81,670 I 1,709 1 1,709 11
Homes Toilets Annual Annual
Naturally Naturally Water Savings Cumulative
Retrofitted Retrofitted (AF/yr) Savings (AF/yr)
0 0 0 0
I 3.350 11 11 1994 I 875.885 I 36.305 I 78.419 I 1.641
~
11 1995 7 841.025 I 34.860 I 75.298 I 1.576 1 4.926 11
~~
666,483
775.41 1 32,141 69,424 1.453 7,891
~
28,454 6 1,460 1,286 11,912
11 1999 1 714.917 I 29.633 I 64.007 I 1.339 I 10.626 11
2001 659,142 27,321 59,014 1.235 13,147
2002 632,908 26,234 56,665 1,186 14,333
I I I I . _. . ..
Year
1992 I 950,000 1 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 0
Housing Homes Home Total Total Annual Annual
Retrofitted Retrofitted Retrofitted Savings Savings
IAFIvr) IAFlvr)
Stock Naturally Turnover Homu Toilets Water Cumulative
1993
1994
~ ~ ~___~~~ ~ ~~
849,758 37.810 62,432 100,242 216,522 4.531 4,531
760,094 33,820 55,844 89,665 193,675 4,053 8,584
II I , I
I995 679,890 30,252 49,952
11 1998 1 486.580 1 21.650 1 35.749 1 57,399 1 123.983 I 2.594 1 20.947 11
80,203 173,239 3,625 12,209
II I I I I I I I II
11 1996 608, I 50 27,060 44,681 7 1,740 154.959 3,243 15,452 I
-47-
1999
2000
200 I
2002
~~ ______~
435,237 19,366 3 1,977 51,343 110,900 2,321 23,267
389,312 17,322 28,603 45,925 99,198 2,076 25,343
348,232 15,495 25,585 4 I ,079 88,731 1,857 27,200
3 I 1.488 13,860 22,885 36,745 79,369 1.66 I 28,861
EXHIBIT 6
1995
1996
11993 I 604926 I 25074 I 30089 I 1224 I 1224 11
557732 231 I8 27741 1129 3528
535534 22198 26637 1061 461 1
II II
1993
1994
1995
11997 I 514220 I 21314 I 25577 I 1040 I 5652 n
542943 25074 61983 87057 104468 4250 4250
461916 21609 53418 75027 90032 3663 7912
403257 18623 46036 64659 77591 31% 11069
1998 I 493754 I 20466 I 24559 I 9991 6651 n
~
1999 474103 1%51 23582 959 7610
2000 455233 18869 22643 921 853 1
2001 437115 18118 21742 884 9416
1996 341533 16050 3%75 55724 66869 2720 13789 I 11 1997 I 299509 1 13832 I 34192 I 48024 I 57629 I 2344 I 16133 11 I1 II
Ii I I I I II
EXHIBIT 6
1994
1995
1996
1997
ISF+MF)AFh Single Family Savings Multiple F@ Savings
1641 4053 2412 1175 4663 2487 2816 7715 4899 5749 164% 10747
1578 3625 2050 1129 31% 2028 2704 6782 4077 8453 23276 14824
1513 3243 1730 10&1 2720 1637 2597 5963 3366 11050 29241 18190
1453 2901 1448 1040 2344 1304 2493 5245 2752 13543 34485 20942
~ ~
Nafunl Net Natunl Natural Net Nalunl Natunl Net + S.vmg0 + +
TWmW TUlllOW Tumom
BMP BMP BMP BMP BMP BMP BMP BMf’
28+16 16 2B ZB+16 16 2B ZB+ 16 16 K I I I II
01 01 01 01 01 01 0 I 011 111992 I 0 I I1 8 II 11 1993 I 1709 I 4531 I 2822 I 1224 I 4250 I 3026 I 2833 I 8781 I 5848 I 2933 I 8781 I 564611 II I I1
U I1
111998 I 1395 I 2594 I 1200 I 999 I 2020 I IO21 I 2394 I 4615 I 2221 I 15837 I 39100 I 2316311 U I I I I I I I I ll ~ ~ ~
1999 1339 2321 981 959 1741 782 2299 4082 1763 18236 43162 24826
2000 1286 2076 790 921 1501 579 2207 3578 1389 20443 46736 26295
2001 1235 1857 622 884 1283 409 2119 3150 1031 22583 49888 27326
-49-
EXHIBIT 6
~~. . . . . . . . . . . . ---
\
........... -.."..^.- ^...
j\\
I Replacement Only (BMP2B)
-50-
EXHIBIT 6
\
-51-
EXHIBIT 6
\
-52-
V. ESTIMATING WATER SAVINGS FROM NEW CONSTRUCTION (BMP 2A)
Theanalysisdescribedabovecanbe~~toevaluate watersavingsthat will be achieved from new construction.
For this analysis each service area will be required to forewt the rate of growth of new construction by type (single
family, multiple family, and so on). The water savings calculations would be based on installation of 1.6 ULF
toilets, assuming the implementation of the 1991 plumbing code, as opposed to installation of 3.5 gallordflush
toilets.
-53-
EXHIBIT 6
Appendix A. Overview of the ULF Toilet Rebate Evaluation Reports
There are several reports that document MULF toilet rebate evaluation in Los Angeles and Santa
Monica. Each has a different focus and different intended audience.
llltra Low Is For Water Manuwad
planners. This is an overview report that presents the key lindings fiom Los hgeles and Santa Monica
related to ULF program design, justification, and evaluation.
~. This report contains the summary
of findings about how much water was saved by the Los Angeles and Santa Monica ULF toilet rebate
programs. This study requires no technical background and presents the evaluation and its findings
in plain English.
Water Demand. This technical report
documents the formal structure of the models of household water demand used in the evaluation of
the Los Angeles and Santa Monica ULF toilet rebate programs. This study should be of interest to
a technical audience concerned with statistical and analytic issues involved in estimating household
water demand models fiom billing system data.
;. Thistechnical
report presents an empirical approach to quanrifying the consewation potential of ULF toilet retrofits.
The analysis presented in this report can be used to provide quantitative answers to such questions
as how much water would be saved by differently designed programs, or how much water ULF retrofit
programs would save in other service areas. This study should be of interest to water planners and
program managers interested in estimating the wmon potential ofULF retrofit programs in other
service areas.
..
of the Low F-
proaamS. This backup report presents the inspection and telephone survey instruments that were
used to collect the data, as also the tabulations of responses.
-54-
EXHIBIT 7
BYLAWS
OF
CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Adopted December 7,1994
-55-
EXHIBIT 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE 1 Name. Principal Oflice. Purpose and Restrictions
1.01 Name .............. ..
1.02 Principal Office ... ........... 1.03 Purpose ......... ...........
2.0 1 MOU Signatory Groups .................
1.04 Reseictions ...........................
ARTICLE I1 MOU Signatory Groups
2.02 Water Supplier Group ...................
2.03 Public Advocacy Organization
2.04OtherInterestedGroup ...... 2.05 Representatives ........................
2.06 Membership ...........................
3.01 Fees .................................
4.01 BoardofDirectors ...................... 4.02 Composition .......................... 4.03 Term of Office ......................... 4.04 Meetings .............................
4.05 Notice ............................... 4.06 Quorum .............................. 4.07 Board Action ..........................
5.01 Executive Committee ...................
5.02 Composition, Selection and Term ..........
5.03 Vacancy ..............................
5.04 Number of Meetings ....................
5.05 Notice ............................... 5.06 Quorum .............................. 5.07 Committee. Action ......................
6.01 Officers ..............................
6.02 Qualifications ......................... 6.03 Selection and Term of office 6.04 Duties ............................... 6.05 Vacancies .............................
ARTICLE111 Fees
ARTICLE IV Board of Directors
ARTICLE V Executive Committee
ARTICLEVI Oflicers
.............
ARTICLE MI Indemnification and Insurance
....
....
.... ....
....
.... ....
....
....
....
....
....
....
..
.... ....
.... ....
.... .... .... .... .... ....
....
.... .... .....
.. ..
..
........ .............. 57
.............. 57
................. 57
........................ 57
........................ 58
..............
......................... 58 ............................ 58
.............. 58
................... ..... 58 .............................. 59 .............................. 59 ........................................ 59 ........................................ 59 ............ ........................ 59 ........................................ 59
............................. ....... 60 ........................................ 60
........................................ 60 .................... 60 ............ ........................ 61
........................................ 61 ........................................ 61 ........................................ 61 ........................................ 61 ........................................ 61
.............................. .................
7.01 Indemnification ................................................................. 62 7.02 Insurance ...................................................................... 62
8.0 1 Policies and Rules ............................................................... 62
8.02 Interpretation ................................................................... 62
9.0 1 Non&scnnunatlon ............................................................... 62
10.01Adoption ..................................................................... 62
ARTICLE VI11 Policies, Rules . Interpretation
ARTICLE IX Nondiscrimination
ARTICLE X Adoption of Bylaws
....
-56-
EXHIBIT 7
BYLAWS OF CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
ARTICLE I Name, Principal Ofice, Purpose and Restrictions
The name ofthe corporation is California Urban Water Conservation Council, a California
nonprofit public benefit ccrporation (Council).
The Board of Dindars (Board) shall determine the location of the principal office ..
of the corporation.
Pyrpnsr. Tk purpose of the colmdl is to implanent the Mmrorandum of Understanding Regarding
UrbwWaterComavationmCalifomia~Septcmber1991,as~~~~timetotime, among signatories compnscd of wata supplim, public advocacy organizations and other interested groups
(the MOW.
RsmebonJ. AU policies and activities of the Council shall be consistent with and limited by the
MOU and shall also be consistent with:
a.
b.
..
Applicable fcdcral, state and local antitrust and trade regulation laws;
Applicable taxunnptim quhnmts iachding that no part of the Council's net earnings inure to the benefit of any private individd, and
C. AUothalegal~includingtheCalif~NoltprofitCorpwahonLawlmder~~
the Council is incapaatcd and to which its operations are subject, as amended from time
to time.
-51-
ARTICLE n
MOU Signatory Groups
2.01 torv Grow. All participants in the Council must be signatories to MOU. Eligible
signatories are: (1) water supplim, (2) public advocacy organizahons, and (3) other interested groups,
as defined below.
-her Grow . This group ("Group 1") mists of water suppliers, defmed as any entity,
including a city, which delivm or supplies water for urban use at the wholesale or retail level.
2.02
Advo-. This group ("Group 2") consists of public advocacy
organizations. A public advocacy &on is defined as a nonprofit organization whose primary
missionis proPectioo of thear~rmrmmf orwboIm a clear inlast m advancing the Best h4anag-t
Me., and wime primary Mon is not the representation of trade., industrial or utility entities.
-. This group ("Group 3") includes other organizations with an interest
in the purposes of the Council which are not included in Group 1 or Group 2.
.. 2.03
2.04
2.05 ~EachMOUsignatcdyshalldsignsteoncrcprsmtati. Thesignatory
shall be. nspaasible for informing the Council of the identity of its representative at all appropriate
tims. Sigeatarismayalson~~~~~~~mpl~ofthe~~~
repdve. Substitute reprcscntatves have the same voting rights as the designated reprsattatve,
but may not take. the placc of an officex of the Council. Only one representative hn any signatory
may vote within the hd, the Executive Cornmince or any other Council committee at any he.
Designated and substitute representatives may be referred to collectively as "representatives".
m. This corporation shall have no members. 2.06
ARTICLE Ill
Fee
3.01 Eaes. The Board of Diredors may recommend fces and assessments and set the terms of payment,
which will be voluntary to the signatories.
-58-
EXHIBIT 7
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
ARTICLE IV
Board of Directors
-. The. Board of Dircdon is the governing bcdy of the Council and has authority
and respoosibility for the supervision, contml, and diraction of the Council. The Board may employ
an Executive Director and other staff to perform such duties as described and agreed upon by the
Board. A meeting of the fill Board may be refared to as a "Plenary session" or "Plenay meeting".
Comoositinn. The Board shall consist of the representatives of Group 1 and Group 2 signatories.
Repnscntativcs of Group 3 signataies shall be advisory directors. Advisory directors may attend
and participate in meetings, but do not have a vote.
All representatives will me until replaced by the. signatory they represent
m. The President, the Vice-president, the Secrtrary or 10 pacent or more of the directors
of each of Group 1 and Group 2 may call meetings of the Board. The Board shall hold its annual
meeting at the time and place it selecs and may hold other regular meetings each year at the time
and place it selects.
The Beard mayhddrcgulare witbad additional notice ifthc time and place of such
meetings has been fixed by the Board and communicated to all Board members. The Board may
or by telephone or elcctmnic media.
QWUJUL A qwnnn of thc Board shall be at least 30 representatives with voting rights, provided
that at least 10 percent of the dimtors hm each of Group 1 and Group 2 are present.
&ad&t&nAetion. Any &ision by the Board to undaake responsibilities in addition to those listed
in Exhibit 2, Section 3 of the MOU; to me the MOU itself; or to modify Exhibits 2 or 3 of the
MOU must be carried out according to the. prodms in Exhibit 3, Section 7 of the MOU.
All other Board actionS, including modifKatiw of MOU Exhibits othm than Exhibits 2 or 3 and
modification of the Bylaws, require that a quorum be present at a properly noticed meeting of the
Board, that a majority of the dimtors voting from Group 1 vote in favor of the action, and that a
majority of he directors voting h Group 2 va~ in favor of the action.
The Board may modify the Bylaws and take otha actim only to the extent that such actions are
consistent with the then CUrrcILt version of the MOU.
holdsperial~~uponscvcndaysnoticebyfirstclassmaila48hollrsnoticedetivaedpasonally
-59-
EXHIBIT 7
ARTICLE V
Executive Committee
5.01 The. Board may delegate any of its authorities to an Executive Committee,
provided the Conunitwe. shall report its actions to the Board at its next mating. The Exmuve
Committee may be refd to as the "Steenng Committee".
p . The Wve conrmitke shall consist of voting and non-voring
signatory membas as follows: Board members representing Group 1 signatories shall select from
among themselves up to eight signatories, whose representatives shall serve as voting members
of the Executive Committee. Board mcmbers representing Group 2 signatories shall select from
among themselves up to eight signatories, whose representatives shall serve as voting members of
theExeam'veCunmmx ' . Advisory Board members representing Group 3 signatories shall select
6umamongtbanselvesuptofoursignatoris,whosc nprescntativesshallsaveasnon-votingmembas
of the Executive Committee.
In addition, all of6m of tbe Gnmcil are members of the Executive Committee and have the same
voting rights on the Committee as othm repressentatives of their respective Groups. The numbers
of manbers of the Eu&utin canrmttce ' shall be increased by the number of officas, except when
one or more oficers have been independently selected as members of the Executive Committee.
Exeam'vem ' mmbas shall be scleded at the first Board meeting of the calendar ycar and
shall immediately assume office fa a term of two ycsrs. However, adjushna@ m terms may be made
in order to allow staggeiing of terms. Unlimited collsccutive terms may be served.
YpEanCr. Ifa v~c~llcyorrms on tbe Executive Cawnittee for any reason, the remaining members
of the af€ectd Group will sekt a replacement for the unexpired tam, subject to approval by the
Executive Committee.
.. 5.02
5.03
5.04 NumberofMeetinenTheRsidmtofdw:~adanyotkpc~nsdesignatedbytheExeam've
Committee, may call meetings of the Executive Committee.
~MeetinenExccutivcCcmmua& ' may hold regular meetings without additional notice if the time
and place of such mcaiogS has been fmed by the Executive Committee and communicated to all
manbas of the Wve Committee. The Executive Committee may hold special mtings upon
scvcndayswticebyfirstclassmailor48harrsnoticcddivaedpasonaY.abytelephmaclechoaic
media.
QUQLUOJ. A quaum ofthe Executive Cutunittee shall be at kast SO?/mf the total number of Group
1 and Group 2 Executive Cunmittee members, provided that at least 2 members are present from
each of Group 1 and Group 2.
5.05
5.06
-60-
EXHIBIT 7
5.07
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
c&Jjjg& Am 'on. AU Executive mmmittee actionsrequire that a quom be present. that a majority
of the Executive Committee members voting &om Group 1 vote in favor of the action, and that a
majority of the Executive Committee Members voting from Group 2 vote in favor of the action.
The Executive Committee may also act without meeting provided that (1) the taking of the vote
has previously been authorized by the Executive Committee; (2) the vote has received seven days
notice by 6rst class mail or 48 hours notice delivered pasmally or by telephone or elecwonic mda;
and (3) the proposed action is approved by 50% or more of the Group 1 and 50% or more of the
Group 2 members of the Executive Committee voting.
The Executive Committee may take action without seeking Board approval only where the Board
has delegated such authority to the Executive Committee and only to the extent that the action is
consistent with the then cumnt version of the MOU.
ARTICLE VI
Officers
-. The 05m of the Council are President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. The
President and VicGprcSident may be referred to as Convener and Vice-Convener, respectively.
QlleliCutions. only designated representatives of signatories may serve as officers. In addition,
the offices of President and Vice President may only be held by directors repmting Group 1 or
Group 2 sipnatories. No pemon may hold more than one. office at the same time, except that one
person may hold the offices of Secretary and Treasurer concurrently.
The 05- shall be selcdtd by tk Board and immediately assume
offim at the ht Plenary mQng of tk calmdar year for a tam of ollc year. Thc o&es of President
and VicaPrsidmtshaUmtbebddby dsignes iiK!mthcsam Group. Tbeofsct of prsident shall
altematebcrwrm Group 1 &Group 2. 'Ibc Boardmay- that the Secretary andlor Treasurer
will be members of Group 3. If so, thco Group 3 will select these officers, subject to approval by
the Board.
Rulk. Tlbe 05m perform those duties that are usual to their positions and that are assigned to
as adopted by thc Board hm time to time. In addition, the President of the Cod acts as Chair
of the Board and the Executive Committee; the Vice-President acts in place of the F'resident when
the President is not available; and the Treasurer is the chief financial officer of the Cod.
than bythc Board, induding tbosc duties that ale set folth in the position dseriptioas for cachofficer
Ifa vac~ocy oaaus among the officers, for any reason, the Executive Committee shall
elect another designee h the same Group for the unexpired porbhn of the tnm. Signatmies wime
designee suves as an officer may not substitute another individual into that office.
-61-
EXHIBIT 7
ARTICLE VI1
Indemnification and Insurance
7.01 Indemnification. To the fullest reasonable sdent pernutted by the law, the Council shall indemnify
and hold hannlcss any agents subjected to a claim by reason of any alleged or actual action or inadion
in the performance of their duties performed in good faith on behalf of the Council. "Agent" for
this purpose shall include Directors, officers and employees.
Insurance The Council shall have the right and shall purchase and maintain insurance on behalf
of its agents against any liability asserted against or incurred by the agent in such capacity arising
out of the agent's status as such.
7.02
ARTICLE VI11
Policies, Rules, Interpretation
8.01 Policies and Rules. The Board may establish policies, prwedures and rules that are consistent
with these Bylaws for the governance of the Council and its programs.
Interuretation. These Bylaws should be interpreted consistent with the Cdiiomia Nonprofit
Corporation Law and must be interpreted so as to conform with that Law, as it is intapretcd and
amended &om time to time. In cases of conflict betwen these Bylaws and the MOU, the language
of the MOU shall prevail.
8.02
ARTICLE Ix
Nondiscrimination
9.01 Nondiscrimination. The corporaton shall ensure equal employment opportuniw for all pcrsons,
regardless of racc, color, religias sq national origin, age, physical condition or disability, or othcr
wnditim within thc limits imposed by law. Thcsc principles shall apply to all employment practices,
to selectioo of consultants, Conhadors, and supplim, and to all othcr applicable business practices
of the corporation.
ARTICLE X
Adoption of Bylaws
10.01 AdODtion. "he. Bylaws may be sdopted, provided that: (1) a quorum of the Signatories, as defined in Sdm 4.06 of the Bylaws, is pnscnt at a meeting notid dg to the requiranents of Section
4.05 of the Bylaw; (2) a majority of the directors voting ficin Group 1 vote in favor of adoption;
and (3) a majority of the directors voting from Group 2 vote in favor of the adoption.
These Bylaws wae adopted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council on December 7,
1994 and were last amended on (none).
-62-
Appendix C
Ordinance No. 30 and No. 31
An Ordinance of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District
ORDINANCE NO. 30
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
FINDING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY WATER MANAGENENT PROGRAM TO kEPLACE ORDINANCE NO. 28
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board Of Directors Of the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District as follows:
SECTION 1. Declaration of poiicv. California Water Code
Sections 375 et seq. permit public entities which supply water at
retail to adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by the people therein for the purpose of conserving the water supplies of such public entity. The Board hereby establishes a comprehensive water conservation program pursuant to California Water Code Sections 375 et seq., based upon the need to conserve water supplies and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future shortage.
SECTION 2. Findinas. The Board finds and detemmes that a water-shortage could exist based upon the occurence of one or I more of the following conditions: 1
(A) A general water supply shortage due to increa.-ed demand
(B) Distribution or storage facilities of San Diego County %--
(C) A major failure of the supply, storage and distribution facilities of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the San Diego County Water Author- ity, or of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District occurs.
The Board also finds and determines that the conditions prevailing in the San Diego county area require that the water resources available be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent tn which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented and that the conservation of such water be encouraged
with a view to the maximum reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interests of the people of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and for the public welfare.
or limited supplies.
Water Authority or other agencies become inadequate.
SECTION 3. CEOA Exemption. The Carlsbad Municipal Wa-ter District finds that this Ordinance and actions taken hereafter pursuant to this Ordinance are exempt from the California Envi- ronmental QL%lity Act as specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency pursuant to public Resources Code Section
21080(b) (4) and the California Environmental Quality Act Guide- ! lines Section 15269(c). The Manager of the District is hereby authorized and directed .to file a Notice of Exemption as soon as possible following adoption of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. ADD lication. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all persons, customers, and property served by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
SECTION 5. Authorization. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District's General Manager, or a designated representative, is hereby authorized and directed to implement the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Water Conservation Staaes. No Customer of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District shall knowingly make, cause, use, or permit the use of water supplied by the District for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, governmental, or any other purpose in a manner contrary to any provision of this Ordinance, in an amount in excess of the amounts authorized by this Ordinance, or during any period of time other than the periods of time specified in this Ordinance. At no time shall water be wasted or used unreasonably. The following stages shall take effect upon declaration as herein provided.
-
(A) STAGE 1 - VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE - WATER WATCH. STAGE 1 applies during periods when the possibility exists that the Carlsbad Municipal Water District will not be able to meet all of the demands of its customers. During STAGE 1, all elements of STAGE 2 shall apply on a voluntary basis only.
(B) STAGE 2 - MAN DATORY COMPLIANCE - WATER ALERT. STAGE 2
amlies durina DeriOdS when the Probability -exists that tL& Carlsbad kunicipal Water .Dis'trict wilf not be able to meet all of the water demands of its customers.
During STAGE 2, the following water conserration mea- sures shall apply EXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED:
1. Lawn watering and landscape irrigation, including construction meter irrigation, is permitted only on designated irrigation days and only between the hours of 6:OO p.m. and 6:OO a.m. the following morning FXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED. Watering is permitted at any time if the hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle is used, a hand-held faucet-filled bucket of five (5)
gallons or less is used, or a drip irrigation system is used. A "designated irriga-tion day" is determined by the last digit in the street address. Properties with addresses ending in an even number may use water on even numbered days and addresses ending in an odd number may use water on odd
numbered days.
fined in the Metropolitan Water District Code are exempt from Stage 2 irrigation restrictions, but will be required to curtail all nonessential water use. The watering of livestock and irrigation of
2. Agricultural users and commercial nurseries as de-.
-2-
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
propagation beds are permitted at any time.
Washing of autos, trucks, trailers, boats, air- planes and other types of mobile equipment is prohibited except on designated irrigation days between the hours of 6:OO p.m. and 6:OO a.m. the following morning, EXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS m. Such washing, when allowed, shall be done with a hand-held bucket: or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle for quick rinses. Washing is permitted at any time on the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. Further, such washings are exempted from these regulations where the health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables.
Filling or refilling swimming pools, spas, ponds, and artificial lakes is permitted only on designated irrigation days between the hours of
6:OO ~.m. and 6:OO a.m. the followina mornina. UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND ITS uiE I
PERMITTED. I
Watering golf courses, parks, school grounds and recreational fields is permitted only between the hours of 6:OO p.m. and 6:OO a.m. the following morning, except golf course greens, UNLESS.-
The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting and related activities, for construction activities, or other activities necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public.
Water shall not be used to wash down sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or other paved areas, except to alleviate immediate
RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND ITS USE PERMITTED.
fire or sanitation hazards, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND ITS USE PERMITTED.
Restaurants shall not serve water to their customers except when specifically requested.
The operation of any ornamental fountain or similar structure is prohibited UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND ITS U5E PERMITTED.
(C) STAGE 3 - MANDATORY COMPLIANCE - WATER WARNING. STAGE 3
applies during periods when the Carlsbad Municipal Water District will not be able to meet all of the water demands of its customers. During STAGE 3, the following
-3-
water conservation measures shall apply EXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Lawn watering and landscape irrigation, including construction meter irrigation, is permitted only on
designated irrigation days and only between the hours of 1o:OO p.m. and 6:OO a.m. the following morning, EXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED. A "designated irrigation day" is determined by the last digit in the street address. Properties with addresses ending in an even number may use water on even numbered days and addresses ending in an odd number may use water on odd numbered days.
Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall use water only between the hours of 6:OO p.m. and
6:OO a.m. the following morning, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED. The watering of livestock and irrigation of propagation beds are permitted at any time.
Washing of autos, trucks, trailers, boats, air- planes and other types of mobile equipment is prohibited, EXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED. Washing is permitted at any time on the immediate
premises of a commercial car wash. The use of water by all types of commercial car washes NOT
be reduced in volume by 20%. Further, such washings are exempted from these regulations where the health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables.
Filling or refilling swimming pools, spas, ponds,
and artificial lakes is permitted only on designated irrigation days between the hours of
1O:OO p.m. and 6:OO a.m. the following morning, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED.
Watering golf courses, parks, school grounds and recreational fields is permitted only between the hocrs of 1O:OO p.m. and 6:OO a.m. the following morning, except golf course greens, UNLESS
The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting and related activities, or other activities necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public.
Water shall not be used to wash down sidewalks,
driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or
USING PARTIALLY RECLAIMED OR RECYCLED WATER shall
RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED.
-4-
other paved areas, except to alleviate immediate
! *-
fire 0; sanitation hazards, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER
IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED.
8. Restaurants shall not serve water to their customers except when specifically requested.
9. The operation of any ornamental fountain or similar
structure is prohibited, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED.
10. New construction meters or permits for unmetered
service will not be issued. Construction water shall not be used for earth work or road construction purposes, UNLESS RECLAmD WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED.
(D) STAGE 4 - MAN DATORY COMPLIANCE - WATER EMERGENCY. STAGE
4 applies when a major failure of any supply or distri- bution facility, whether temporary or permanent, occurs in the water distribution system of the State Water Project, Metropolitan Water District, San Diego County
Water Authority, or Carlsbad Municipal Water District' facilities. During STAGE 4, the following water conservation measures shall apply EXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED:
1. All outdoor irrigation of vegetation is prohibited,.
2. Use of water for agricultural or commercial nursery purposes, except for livestock watering, is prohibited, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED.
3. Washing of autos, trucks, trailers, boats, air- planes and other types of mobile equipment is prohibited, ,EXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED,
Washing is permitted at any time upon the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. The use of water by all types of commercial car washes shall be reduced in volume by 50%. Further , such washings are exempted from these regulations where the health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as
garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables.
4. Filling, refilling or adding of water to swimming pools, spas, ponds and artificial lakes is prohibited, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED.
1
UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED. --
5. Watering of all golf course areas, except greens,
-5-
is prohibited, EXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED.
watering of parks, school grounds and recreation fields is prohibited (with the exception of plant materials classified to be rare, exceptionally valuable, or essential to the well being of rare animals), UNLESS RECLALMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED.
6. The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting or related activities necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public.
7. Water shall not be used to wash down sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or other paved areas, except to alleviate immediate
fire 0; sanitation hazards, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMI-.
8. Restaurants shall not serve water to their customers except when specifically requested.
9. The operation of any ornamental fountain or similar structure is prohibited, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTE D.
10. New construction meters or permits for unmetered service will not be issued. Construction water shall not be used for earth work or road construction purposes, FXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED.
11. The use of water for commercial, manufacturing or processing purposes shall be reduced in volume by
50%, EXCEPT WHEN RECLAIMED WATER IS USED.
12. No water shall be used for air conditioning purposes, UNLESS RECLAIMED WATER IS AVAILABLE AND PERMITTED.
SECTION 7. Mandatorv Conservation Phase ImDlementation. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District shall monitor the projected supply and demand for water by its customers on a daily basis. The Manager shall determine the extent of the conservation required through the implementation and/or termination of particular conservation stages in order for .the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District to prudently plan for and supply water to its customers. Thereafter, the Manager may order that the appropriate stage of water conservation be implemented or terminated in accordance with the applicable provision of this Ordinance. The declaration of any stage beyond STAGE 1 shall be made by public announcement and notice shall be published a minimum of three (3) consecutive times in a newspaper of general circulation. The stage designated shall become effective
L
i
-6-
immediately upon announcement. The declaration of any stage - beyond STAGE 1 shall be reported to the Board of Directors at its next regular meeting. The Board of Directors shall thereupon
ratify the declaration, rescind the declaration, or direct the declaration of a different stage.
SECTION 8. Penalty. As provided in Water Code Section 377, any violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor. Upon conviction thereof such person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail €or not more than 30 days, or by fine not
exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000)1 or by both. In addition to any other remedies which the Carlsbad Municipal Water District may have for the enforcement of this Ordinance, service of water shall be discontinued or appropriately limited to any customer who willfully uses water in violation of any provision hereof.
SECTION 9. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall become effective as of the date of adoption and shall be published within ten days of adoption, pursuant to the California Water Code Section 376.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District at a regular meeting duly held on December 6, 1989 by the following roll call vote:
.. AYES: Directors: Bonas, Greer, Henley, Maerkle and Woodward
NOES : Directors : None
ABSTAIN: Directors: None
ABSENT: Directors: None
L
-7-
ORDINANCE NO. 31
~n Ordinance of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (District) Mandating Use of Reclaimed Water
WHEREAS, the people of the state of California have a primary interest in the development of facilities to reclaim water containing waste to supplement existing surface and
underground water supplies and to assist in meeting the future water requirements of the state: and (California Water Code
Section 13510): and
WHEREAS, conservation of all available water resources requires the maximum reuse of wastewater for beneficial uses of water: and (Water Code Section 461): and
WHEREAS, continued use of potable water for irrigation of greenbelt areas may be an unreasonable use of such water where reclaimed water is available:
NOW, THEREFORE, the District does hereby ordain:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS
The state policies described above are in the best interest of the District. The majority of jurisdictions in San Diego County have adopted measures to promote water reclamation. This ordinance is necessary to protect the common water supply of the region which is vital to public health and safety, and to prevent
endangerment of public and private property. San Diego County is highly dependent on limited imported water for domestic agricultural and industrial uses. The reliability of the supply of imported water is uncertain. By developing and utilizing
reclaimed water, the need for additional imported water can be reduced. In light of these circumstances, certain uses of potable water may be considered unreasonable or to constitute a nuisance where reclaimed water is available or production of reclaimed water is unduly impaired. Reclaimed water would be more readily available in seasons of drought when the supply of potable water for nonessential uses may be uncertain.
SECTION 2: WATER RECLAMATION POLICY
It is the policy of the District that reclaimed water shall be used within the jurisdiction wherever its use is economically justified, financially and technically feasible, and consistent with legal requirements, preservation of public health, safety and welfare, and the environment.
.-
SECTION 3: DEFINITIONS
The following terms are defined for purposes of this ordinance:
3.1 AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES: Agricultural purposes include the growing of field and nursery crops, row crops, trees, and vines and the feeding of fowl and livestock.
3.2 ARTIFICIAL LAKES: A human-made lake, pond, lagoon, or other body of water that is used wholly or partly for landscape, scenic
or noncontact recreational purposes.
3.3 COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS: Any building for office or commercial uses with water requirements which include, but are not limited to, landscape irrigation, toilets, urinals and decorative fountains.
3.4 RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: A piping system intended for the delivery of reclaimed water separate from and in
addition to the potable water distribution system.
3.5 GREENBELT AREAS: A greenbelt area includes, but is not'
3.6 INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WATER: Water used by any industrial facility with process water requirements which include, but are not limited to, rinsing, washing, cooling and circulation, ox
construction, including any facility regulated by the Industrial- Waste Discharge Ordinance regulated by Chapter 13.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
3.7 OFF-SITE FACILITIES: Water facilities from the source of supply to the point of connection with the on-site facilities,
normally up to and including the water meter.
3.8 ON-SITE FACILITIES: Water facilities under the control of the owner, normally downstream from the water meter.
3.9 POTABLE WATER: Water which conforms to the federal, state and local standards for human consumption.
3.10 RECLAIMED WATER: Reclaimed water means water which, as a result of treatment of wastewater, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or controlled use that would not otherwise occur. (See Water Code Section 13050(n).)
3.11 WASTE DISCHARGE: Waste discharge means water deposited,
released or discharged into a sewer system from any commercial, industrial or residential source which contains levels of any substance or substances which may cause substantial harm to any water treatment or reclamation facility or which may prevent any use of reclaimed water authorized by law.
limited to, golf courses, cemeteries, parks and landscaping. I
-2-
SECTION 4: UATER RECLAMATION MASTER PLAN
4.1 GENERAL: Upon adoption of this ordinance, the District shall prepare and adopt by resolution a Water Reclamation Master Plan to define, encourage, and develop the use of reclaimed water within its boundaries. The Master Plan shall be updated not less
often than every five years.
4.2 CONTENTS OF THE RECLAMATION MASTER PLAN: The Master Plan will include the following:
4.2.1 PLANTS AND FACILITIES. Evaluation of the location and size of present and future reclamation treatment plants, distribution pipelines, pump stations, reservoirs, and other related facilities, including cost estimates and potential
financing methods.
4.2.2 RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE AREAS. A designation of the
lands within the District service area that can or may in the future use reclaimed water in lieu of potable water. Reclaimed water uses may include, but are not limited to,
the irrigation of greenbelt and agricultural areas, filling
of artificial lakes, and appropriate industrial and commercial uses.
4.2.3 QUALITY OF WATER TO BE RECLAIMED. For each water reclamation treatment facility, an evaluation of water quality with respect to the effect on anticipated uses of reclaimed water to be served by each treatment facility.
4.2.4 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION MEASURES. Recommended
control measures and management practices to maintain or improve the quality of reclaimed water.
4.2.5 MANDATORY RECLAIMED WATER USE. Within the reclaimed
water service area, a description of where greenbelt irrigation, agricultural irrigation, commercial office buildings, filling of artificial lakes, or industrial processes can be limited to the use of reclaimed water. This information can be used by District officials to mandate construction of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities in new and existing developments for
current or future reclaimed water use as a condition of any development approval or continued water service if future reclamation facilities are proposed in the Master Plan that
could adequately serve the development.
4.2.6 RULES AND REGULATIONS. Establish by resolution,
general rules and regulations governing the use and
distribution of reclaimed water.
1
.J
-3-
,-- 4.2.7 COORDINATION AMONG AGENCIES. An examination of the potential for initiating a coordinated effort between the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District and other regional agencies to share in the production and utilization of reclaimed water.
SECTION 5. PROCEDURES
5.1 EXISTING POTABLE WATER SERVICE:
5.1.1 PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION. Based upon the Master Plan, upon the designation of each reclaimed water service area or the commencement of the design of new reclaimed water facilities, the District shall make preliminary determinations as to which existing potable water customers
shall be converted to the use of reclaimed water. Each water customer shall be notified of the basis for a determination that conversion to reclaimed water service will be required, as well as the proposed conditions and of the need for a plan of implementation for such conversion.
5.1.2 NOTICE. The notice of the preliminary determination: including the proposed conditions and time schedule for compliance, and a reclaimed water permit application shall be sent to the water customer by certified mail.
i i
5.1.3 IMPLEMENTATION. The water customer shall be requirea to submit a plan of implementation to the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District's General Manager within ninety (90) days after receipt of the notice of preliminary determination. The plan of implementation shall describe in detail how the water customer intends to retrofit his water facilities to
use reclaimed water in accordance with all Federal, State and local laws and public health guidelines. Staff shall provide the water customer upon request a copy of its vvRules and Regulations for Reclaimed Water Servicevv for use in preparing the required plan of implementation. Carlsbad Municipal Water District's General Manager shall have the authority to approve the water customer's plan of implementation within thirty (30) days after it is submitted to the District. Once approved, the plan of implementation must be implemented within one (1) year by the water customer. If more than one (1) year is required by the water customer to implement the required plan of implementation, an appeal may be made to the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District's Water Commission for their recommendations to the Board of Directors by submitting such appeal in writing to the General Manager of the District.
5.1.4 OBJECTIONS; APPEALS. The water customer may file a notice of objection 'with the District within thirty (30)
-4-
-
i
_-
I
days after any notice of determination to comply is delivered or mailed to the customer, and may request reconsideration of the determination or modification of the proposed conditions or schedule for conversion. The objection must be in writing and specify the reasons for the objection. The preliminary determination shall be final if the customer does not file a timely objection. The General Manager or his designee, shall review the objection with the
objector, and shall confirm, modify or abandon the
preliminary determination.
5.2 DEVELOPMENT AND WATER SERVICE APPROVALS:
5.2.1 CONDITIONS. Upon application by a developer, owner or water customer (herein referred to as "applicant") for a tentative map, subdivision map, land use permit, or other development project as defined by Government Code Section
65928, staff shall review the Master Plan and make a preliminary determination whether the current or proposed use of the subject property is required to be served with reclaimed water or to include facilities designed to accommodate the use of reclaimed water in the future. Based upon such determination, use of reclaimed water and
provision of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities for the use of reclaimed water, and application for a permit for such use may be required as a condition of approval of any such application, in addition to any other conditions of approval.
5.2.2 ALTERATIONS AND REMODELING. On a case by case basis,
upon application for a permit for the alteration or remodeling of multi-family, commercial or industrial
structures (including, for example, hotels), staff shall review the Master Plan and make a preliminary determination whether the subject property shall be required to be served
with reclaimed water or to include facilities designed to accommodate the use of reclaimed water in the future. Based upon such determination, use of reclaimed water and provision of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities for the use of reclaimed water, and application
for a permit for such use, may be required as a condition of approval of the application.
5.2.3 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. A notice of the basis for the preliminary determination, proposed conditions of approval and schedule for compliance shall be provided to
the applicant prior to approyal of the development aplication.
5.2.4 REQUESTED SERVICE. On a case by case basis, upon application for a permit to use reclaimed water on a property not covered by Sections 5.1.1, '5.2.1, or 5.2.2
-5-
..-
1
above, staff shall review the Master Plan and make a determination whether the subject property shall be served with reclaimed water. Based upon such determination, the application for the permit shall be accepted and processed
subject to section 5.3.
5.3 RECLAIMED WATER PERMIT PROCESS: Upon a final determination by the General Manager that a property shall'be served with reclaimed water, or adoption of a condition of development
approval requiring use or accommodation of the use of reclaimed water, the water customer, owner or applicant shall obtain a reclaimed water pennit.
5.3.1 PERMIT CONDITIONS. The permit shall specify the design and operational requirements for the applicantls water distribution facilities and schedule for compliance,
based on the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to Section 4.2.6 and shall require compliance with both the
California Department of Health Services Wastewater Reclamation Criteria (see California Code of Administrative Regulations, Title 22), and requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
5.3.2 PLAN APPROVAL. Plans for the reclaimed and non-' reclaimed water distribution systems for the parcel shall be reviewed by the staff and a field inspection conducted before the permit is granted.
5.3.3 PERMIT ISSUANCE. Upon approval of plans the permit" shall be issued. Reclaimed water shall not be supplied to a property until inspection by staff determines that the applicant is in compliance with the permit conditions.
5.4 TEMPORARY USE OF POTABLE WATER: At the discretion of the General Manager, potable water may be made available on temporary basis until reclaimed water is available. Before the
applicant receives temporary potable water, a water reclamation permit, as described in Section 5.3, must be obtained for new on- site distribution facilities. Prior to commencement of reclaimed water service, an inspection of the on-site facilities will be conducted to verify that the facilities have been maintained and are in compliance with the reclaimed water permit and current requirements for service. upon verification of compliance, reclaimed water shall be served to the parcel for the intended use. If the facilities are not in compliance, the applicant shall be notified of the corrective actions necessary and shall have sixty (60) days to take such actions prior to initiation of enforcement proceedings.
5.5 RECLAIMED WATER RATE: The rate charged for reclaimed water shall be established by resolution of the Board of Directors.
-6-
SECTION 6. REGULATION OF BRINE DISCHARGE TO SEWAGE SYSTEMS
6.1 INTENT: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District recognizes that to maintain adequate wastewater quality for water reclamation treatment processes, and to protect public and private property, restrictions may be required on certain industrial, commercial, and residential waste discharges to a sewerage system that is located within a designated tributary area of an existing or planned reclamation facility.
6.2 ADOPTED TRIBUTARY PROTECTION MEASURES: Waste discharges to the sewage system from any industrial, commercial, or residential source, may be restricted or prohibited upon a finding, following
a noticed public hearing, that the type or class of discharge involved is capable of causing or may cause substantial damage or harm to any sewage treatment or reclamation facility or to any significant user or users or potential user or users of reclaimed water within an area which has been planned for reclaimed water services.
SECTION 7. SANCTIONS
7.1 PUBLIC: Discharge by any person or entity of wastes or the use of reclaimed water in any manner in violation of this ordinance or of any permit issued hereunder is subject to
prosecution for a misdemeanor.
7.2 INJUNCTION: Whenever a discharge of wastes or use of reclaimed water is in violation or threatens to cause a violation of this ordinance, the District's attorney may seek injunctive relief as may be appropriate to enjoin such discharge or use.
7.3 PERMIT REVOCATION: In addition to any other statute or rule
authorizing termination of water service, the District may revoke
a permit issued hereunder if a violation of any provision of this ordinance is found to exist or if a discharge of wastes or use of reclaimed water causes or threatens to cause violation of this ordinance.
7.4 PENALTY: Any owner and/or operator who violates this ordinance shall, for each day of violation, or portion thereof, be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000. In addition, potable water service to the property may be discontinued.
SECTION 8. VALIDITY
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
-7-
SECTION 9: The District finds that this Ordinance and actions
taken hereafter pursuant to this ordinance are exempt from the - California Environmental Quality Act as actions taken to assure the preservation and enhancement of water resources in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308. The General Manager of the District is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Exemption as soon as possible following adoption of this ordinance. I
SECTION 10: This ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption. It shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation within the District within ten (10) days of its adoption. This Ordinance shall remain effective until repeal
by the Board of Directors of the District.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District at a Regular Board Meeting held this 8th day of May, 1990, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Board Members Lewis. Kulchin, Mamaux and Larson
NOES : None
ABSENT: Board Member Pettine
...
ATTEST:
/ Secretary of the Board
J
-8-
Appendix D
San Luis Rey Water Rights
BJUORE TBE DIVISION OF WAl'EE HIiSOURCES
DE'- OF PUBLIC WORKS
STA!I'E OF CAL1H)BNIA
000
In the matter of Application 8156 of Fallbrook F'ublic Utility District,
Application 8418 of the City of Oceanside to
appropriate Prom San Luis Rey River, tributary to the Paaifio Ocean in
San Diego County.
Applioation 8208 of Carlsbad Mutual Water Company, and
000
DECISION A. 8156, 8206, 8418 D 43 2
000
APPEARAKCES AT -Ex: EXLD AT OCEANSIDE ON SEPJ!ZLZ%E 25th AND KECOYVENER AT
OCEANSIDE ON OCTOBER 16th, 17th MD 226 AND mDTEMP3tR 13th. 14th AND 15th, AND
AT LOS AW3ELES OX ITOVEUBEE 18tht 19th AND 20th, 1935s.
c Tor Applicants
IPallbPook Irrigation Distriot - hedecessor in interest Of Fallbrook Public
Carlsbad Mutual Wmter Company
Gity of Ooeanalde Walter F. EMS
Ray 0. Eberhrcd Walter S. Clayson
Utility Distriot
ldaurids Y. Meyers and
Tor Protestants Clamline 0. Spaulding
J. 6. Alvarado 1
Pay T. and Betty Lampher 1
William Fletcher 1
Pearl Jones 1
Verna If. Bltzpatrick 1
Kate Johnson 1
Louis 0. Hubbert 1
Ben F. Hubbert 1
Daisy C. Fickeisen 1
Peter Berges 1
Ed Starr 1
Donald Mills )
Bmoa Mueller 1
Bnma Stokes
Cora Wakeham
Edward C. put Alberta R'Ogal )
Stephen Davies - -
KQI. w. Lorett, Jr., ma
Francis D. Tappaan
A. W. Rutan
Richard B. Williams
R. Y. Williams
San LUIS Rey Development (fonpany
San Diego Corinty Water Company
Sen Diego Water Supply Oompany
Henshaw Investment Company
W. E. Gird
E. E. Eonass Eunice M. Jones Illr. and MPS. F. G. Barnard
Ibr. and ma. John Gordon Ross
Grace Porteons
A. E. Stokes
Bellle Vllson
C. R. Wllson
Clara Woodruff
Herbert D. and Marguerite mrn
8aau Salgado
Jemiaa Kltchlng
W. Ir. Spear
Mra. M. Koglsr
Ca~ollna Y. Winston August 0. and Henley Y. Jaeaohka
Katherlne L. Johnson Pearl Jones
Ilr. and Mrs. Baustlne t. Poussat Dewitt Barlow
Charles E. Oooper William L. Waters
as. Edith Gilbert Oharles T. Speer George P. Hart
Louis D. Lighton
lbilton W. Demon
Xaamra. M. ClfilkCQy
"6. J. P. W8ozrlson
B. Y. Villlams
Wright , Konroe, Thomas
by Leroy A. Wright
and Glem
Rorlck, &Keen and
by L. W. Cottingbam
Oottingham
UO appearance
' XAMIRga: Harold Conkling, Deputy in Charge of Water Bights, Division of
Water Resources, Department of Public Works, State of California.
000
-2-
-
OPIPIOH -------
GENERAL DISCRIFTION OF moms PROwsED
Appliaation 8156 as presented at the hearing by the Fallbrbok
Irrigation District proposed to dlyert waters of the San Luis Ra]r aver
throughout the year from B wellr wlthin the S?f& of Section 11 and fra@
5 wells wlthin the
the San Luis Rey Basin, at a rate not to exaeed 90 aubla feet per secant%,
the bot& amaunt BO ditezted not to exceed 10,000 aare feet per annum.
It was also proposed to aonatruct a dam mlthln the
T 10 S, R 9 I, S.B.B.M. for the purpose of dlvertillg 15,000 Bare feet
pes annum fnm Ootober 1 to July 1 of each season to underground storage
in the so aalled "Middle Baain" of the San Luis Rey Biver whlch applicant
alahd had a superficial area of approximately 1,750 aares and wuld re-
quire a water plane 53.67 feet below the surfaoe to aocomodate the 15,000
aare feet. Storage ma to be irduaed by come- the mter through =in
oanals and numerous dltahes aontrolled by gates and weirs, spreading through
of Section 80, T 10 8, B. 3 W., S.B.B.M. dthin
of Seation 18,
-
?--
bruh and hpoundlw In mall ponds where aonditiona
rate of aharge to underground baslna me proposed at
second whenever that amount of water waa available.
were favorable. The
500 cubic feet per
Applicant proposed to
irrigate 10,OOO aares of land an& to me the rater for domestic purposes
dthin boundaries of the Ballbrook Irrigation Mstrlat.
In June 1938, Application 8166 was assignsd by the Fallbrook
IlTigation Mstrict to Fallbmok Public Utility Dlstrlct and on AugQst 16,
1938, an amended Appliatltion 8156 was received fromthe assigned which now
proposes to eppropriete 10 cubla feet per second but not to exceed 5,000
- Bore feet per annum from San Luis Bey River at a group of wells within
the west half of SW& of Section 11. T 10 9, R 3 W, S.B.B.W.
of use is upon 4,278 aores in present and proposed boundaries of Fell-
brook Publio Utility District and the use is for irrigation and domestic
purposes.
The place
The storage feature was eleminatad from the application ex-
oept It is indicated that at a future time the 10 second feet appropriated
may at times be charged 'into underground storage in plaoe of being applied
to inmediate we.
Under Agpllgation 8805 the Carlsbad Mutual Water Company proposes
to appropriate water from 9an Luis Bey River either by direct diversion or to
storege in a resemoir to be constructed on Cslavera Creek; the simultaneous
c
diversions to be made at a rete not to exoeed 6 cubia feet pr second and the
amount of water to be stored in Calavera Reservoir not to exoeed 1,022 acre
feet to be oollected from November 1st to April 30th of each season.
divereion is proposed throughout the entire year. It is proposed to apply the
full 5 cubic feet per eeaond to direct beneflclal use during the periods of
full demand and to divert to atorage at such times a8 tke demand may fall below
this amount.
area 850 feet by 870 feet aithin the
S.B.B.ddb. and we it for irrigntion and domestic purposes within the town of
Carlsbad and territory adjacent thereto. As the diatriot develops, the pro-
portion of domestio use to irrigation use will gradually inorease in favor or
domestic use and ultimately there may be a greater demand for water for domes-
tio purposes than for irrigation purposes.
Mrect
Applioant proposes to pump water from nlls within a reatangular
of €M& of Section 10, T ll 9, R 4 W,
4
Under Application 8418, the Oity of Oaeanaide proposes to appropriate
12.6 cubic feet per second by direct divereion throughout the year from the
waters off the San Luia Rey River. Of this amount it is proposed to divert 5
-4-
,--
cubic feet per second iron two or its present wells located in the a a
Section 13, T 11 8, B 5 8, and 7.5 cubic feet per second rrom three wells lo-
cated within the Narf * Section 4, T ll 8, E( 4 W, S.B.B.W. The water will
be conveyed to a regulatory reservoir (already aonstruoted) fromwhioh it will
be distributed to the City's main8 and used for municipal purposes within the
city limits or Oaeanside.
.-
The iolloring table sets forth the names of the protestants and
the applications protested by eaah or them.
Protestants
Fallbrook Irrigation Di8triot
Carlsbad Mutual Water Company
city or Ooeanslde
Wm. $drard and Hlna Allen Qlrd
San La8 by Dovelopent Company
F. 0. Barnard and Nita Barnard
Hsnabaw Invssfment Oompany
San Mego Kater Supply Company
San Mego County Water Oompany
Nellie Wilson
0. B. Wilson
J. 9. Alvarado
Bay T. and Betty Lampher
Willlam Fletcher
Pearl Jones
Clara Woodruff
Herbert D. and Marguerite Brom
John Gordon and Ulinnie Mary Anne Boss
8asu Salgado
Verna N. Ntzpatrlck A. E. Stoke8
&lma stolces
Kat e Johneon
Cora Wakeham
Qraoe L. Porte0118
Ernest Bonsee
xolma M. Clanap
Jemim Kitohing Eunice M. Jones
Edward C. and Alberta Fogal W. F. Speer
Camline C. Spauldlng
Appllcationa Frotested
: 8156 : 8205 : 8418 :x :x :x: zx
:x :x: :x:
:x: :x :x :x :x
:x: :x :x: :x
:x: :x
:x:
:x:
:x: :x
:x: :I
:I :x :x
:x :x :x :x :x:
:I: :x :x :x :x :x: :x: :x
IX :x :x :x :x :x :x: : :x: :x
:x :x :x :x: :E
:x: : :x: :x :x:
:x :x :x :x: :.I
:x :x :I
Protestants
Mrs. M. Kogler
tOUIs 0. Hubbert
Ben C. Hubbert
Carolina Id. Winston August F. and Henley X. Jaeschh Daisy C. Plokeiaen
Stephen Davies
Peter Bergea
Ed Starr
Richard B. and B. Y. Willlame
Mrs. J. F. Morrlson
Katherine L. Johnson
Donald Ml11s
Pearl Jones
Mr. and Yh.8. Faastine L. Poussat
DeWltt Harlow
Charles E. Cooper William L. Waters
Mrs. Mlth Gilbert
Charles T. €3~-r f3eorge E. Hart Eama #%elJ.er LOUIS D. Ligh*on
Milton W. Damron
Walter 5. Clapson
FZay 0. EberhaM
Emice hf. Jones
ADplicatlona Protested
: 8156 : 8206 : W6
:I I :z
:I :x ::
: I : s':
:I: :x :I
:x:
:I: :x :I
:s :z :s
:I :z
1 I '2 :x
: is
I tZ : .: I
SI :z
: :z
:I :z
:I. :s :I.
:I :z :x
I :I
:z 22 I
The protestants are, for the most part, owners of lands alox&? the 1.
San Wa Rey Biver below Bonsall end claim rights to water by virtue of ri-
pi~lan ownership and appropriative rlghte Initiated prlor Po %he effeotive
date of the Water Codsslon Aot. In general It Is alleged In effect that
ahouM@e proposed appropriations be approved, it would reeult la the dim-
inution of the surface and underground flow of the San LUIS
Its basin to such M extent as to deprive proteetats of water fo whloh they
are entitled and render their lands practloally valueless; tha% the water
table would be lowered to suoh an extent that It would Increase the pump
ing costs; and that there would be an infiltration of salt water from
the ocean.
aver and
-6-
-
H34RING HELD UMlER 33GTION la OF THT WTFR OOJIMISSION AOT
Applications 8156, 8205 and 8418 were completed in accordance with
the Water Comnission Act and the requiremnts of the Rules and Regalatione of
the Division of Water Resources and being protested were set for public healc
ing in accordanae dth Section 1% of the Water Commission bat on September 25,
1936, at 1O:OO o'cloalr A.M. at the Oounoll Ohamber of the City Hall, Oceanaide,
Oalifornia.
lbth, 17th end 2% and November 13th. 14th and 15th and at Lo8 melee on
November 18th. 19th and 20th. 1995. of this hearing applicants and record
protestant8 were duly notified.
Subsequently the hearing was redonvened at Oceanside on October
JURISDICTION OF DIVISION OF WATER BESOUBCES
The Diviaion of Mater Resources administers the Water CorrPrdssion
Act as one of its duties. Section 11 of the Water Conmission Act defines
the waters of the State oP. California which are subjeat to appropriation.
Section 42 limits the juridiction of the Division to surface waters or
water underground "flowing through known end definite channels."
authorizes the Division to accept protests egainst approval of an application
to appropriate.
Division shall act on it only after hearing.
tions by municipalities for use of water by said municipalities for domestia
purposes shall be considered firet in right irreepective of whether they are
first in time. Seation 16 authorizes the Divieionto inaert term and conditions
in a permit which will in the judgment of the Division best utilize in the pub-
lic interest the water sought to be appropriated, and to reject an application
when in the judgment of the Division the proposed appropriation would not best
conaerve the public interest.
very broad and Uhe section is here quoted in full.
Seation 16
Section la_ provides that if an application is protested the
Seation 20 provides that applica-
The powere given under Section 15 are apparently
-7-
.-
"Sac. 15. The state rater commission shall allow, under the
provisions of this act, the appropriation for beneficial purposes
of unagproprlated water under such terms and condlt1ons.as in the
Judgment of the canmission nil1 best develop, conserve and utilize In the public interest the water mught to be appropriated. It is hereby declared to be the established polioy of this state that the
we of water for domestic purposes is the hlghest use of water and
that the next highest use is for irrigation.
tions to appropriate water the cdseion shall reject an appllca- tion when in its Judgment the proposed appropriation wouid not best
conserve the public interest."
In acting upon applica-
This section ha8 been interpreted by the court in Xast Bay Iduniciml
Utility Dietrict vs. Department of Fublio Works, 1 Cal. (2d) 476. 35 Pac. (a) - 1027.
Municipal Utility District for a power development near the canyon mouth of
kkelumne River, a condition that this appropriation should be subordinate in
right to future domestic and irrigation appropriations was upheld.
The action of the Division in inserting in a permit to the East Bay
Obviously the public interest is best conaervad by development of
*e Statels natural resouroes.
with. It is not of internet tb the State ðer one or another mkae this
development but it is of i?t?ers;t t3at the development be mede at the earliest
date there is Justification for it. The ecoMmic phases of a development while
interesting are not usually of direct importance to action on an application
to appropriate water.
In this case water is the natural resource dealt
However desirable the utilization of water may be, it should be rith- \
out infringamsht of rights already vested in others, find the Division elearly
has power to so oondition any permit it issues that any developtent made under
the permit shall be/without unreasonably jeopardizing prior rights.
canno% be so conditioned, and if the stream oannot be administered in accord
with conditions which will insure this result, cone~tion of the project
would result in 8 situation contrary to public interest and it would be the
duty of the Division to deny ycrrnit.
made If a permit
/ /
-8-
VEEKD RIGHTS ON Stw LUIS REY RIVER
All rights above the area of Bonsall Sector which may be affected
by the proposed pumping of Fallbrook Utility District may be disregarded for
the purpose of this decision. Thoee presently ereraised may continue to be
exercised without interference from permittees below, and those now unexer-
cised but superior to rights of permittees can likedse be exercised in the
future when their owners so desire.
Vested rights from the area of Boneall Sector which may be affected
by the pumping of Fallbrook Utility District to the ocean are in a different
situation. Then, are about 2160 acres in Bonsall Sector now using water and
many acres riparian to the underground stream not using water at present. In
Mission Sector there are the appropriative rights of the City of Ooeanside and
Carlsbad gutual Water Company which are claimed to be greater than present
use.
ground stream and the riparian lands.
-- - -
In addition, there are the vested rights of the area overlying the We-
Hater which is not in use under some valid claim of right is subject
to appropriation.
water this portion may be taken and used by the new appropriator subject to the
later taking by the owner of the paramount right when the need arises.
plies equally to riparian, appropriative and overlying rights.
the Water Commission Act should be read in the light of numerous court deci-
810~ in this and other jurisdictions and particularly in the light of the re-
cent California decisions in Paabody, et al, v. City of Vallejo 2 Gal. (26)
951; Tulare Irrigation Diatrict. et el., v. Undsay-Strathnore Irrigation
District, et al., 45 Fac. (2d) 972, and the Senta ikrgarita Rancho V. Val1 96
Cal. Dec. 84.
If a paramount right attaches to any portion of such unused
This ap
Section 11 of
The Division does not have legal power to withhold fram an appli-
cant uae of water now wasting, eicept as outlined previously in discussing
- 9-
public welfare.
DESCRIFTION OF SAii UlIS REY BASIN
Sari Luis Rey River rises in the highest part of the Bninaular Range
of mountains and flows in a generally western direction to the Pacific Ocean.
The drainage area is 565 square miles.
taine is an area of mesas probably orlginelly fairly flat but now dissected
by the main stream and ita tributaries.
rest of the coastal part of San Mego County, has in past geolagioal ages been
rt8ing and falling in elevation.
the major stream systems, including San Luis Rey River, carvad deep, bmad
canyons or valleys into the mesa in which they now flow.
now partly refilled wlth recent alluvium.
From the ocean eastward to the mom-
This general area, together with the
At Borne period when the terrain was rising
!These canyons are
L
Various structural features divide San Luis Bey basin somewhat in-
deflnltely into sectors, particularly below Monserate Narrors, called locally
in their order from east to west; Warner Basin, Pala Basin, Bonsell Basin
and &.salon Basin. In this decision, for clarity of description, the term
"sectorw has been adopted to indicate the several stream or basin sectiona
and the narrow bottcmserea between Boneall and Mfssion Sectors is called the
Nsrrows or Narrows Sector.
bottoms.
The names ap24 mare particularly to the fiver
Henshaw Dam is at the outlet of Warner Basin. Other possible dam-
sites occur at Monserate Harmwe, situated between Pala Sector and Boneall
Sector, and at Bonaall Rarrows situated between Bornall and Mission Sectors,
which indicates thelr narrowness. Between Mission Sector and the oceen is a
similar narrows. -
This decision concerns the river below Monaerate Narrows primarily.
The bottoms of Bonsall Sector are six and one-quarter miles long with an ex-
treme width of 3800 feet. They average 2,400 feet in width between the toes
of the bordering hills or mesa Pmich rise 200 to 500 feet above the flood
plain.
width of 6,500 feet.
rise less steeply and are lwer than those bordering the bottoms of Bonsall
Basin. The bottoms of Narrows Sector are about five miles long and average
aboat 600 to 700 feet in width althowh considerably wider just above the
lower end.
The bottoms of Mission Sector are five miles low and have an extreme
They average 3,300 feet in width and the bordering hills
The average depth of recent alluvium in Bonsoll Sector is estimated
from the few well logs available, to be 70 feet.
any well log is 100 feet.
alluvium is mch deeper.
depth but the deepeat record shows over 200 feet.
The greatest depth found in
In the river bottom of Mission Sector the recent
Wcll logs are not adequate to estimate the average
The recent alluvium in both basins is water-bearing and the gravels
are most of the time full of water to or near the surface. Almost all the ma-
terial in the bottom of Bonsnll Sector is sand and gravel, and wells give
good yields forirrigation.
Narrows and Yiseion.Sectoza : and wells in those sectors also give good yields.
However, over a large part of the bottoms of the letter is found a cap of "sea
mud" about 20 feet below the suriaco and with a thiclmess of 85-100 feet. Above
this cap is sarid and gravcl and below is a thick stratum or sood gravel. Testi-
mony given at the haarlng indicates that s channel 300 feet in width hu been
cut by the river entirely tkough the "ssa mud" dividing it into txo parts 80
that the water bearing material above.and below is connected.
ably connected in other places. In any ovsnt it is not impervious. FmCfiC-
ally all puoipiw is done from the strata below the rcud.
Similar material is found in the bottoms of the
It is presum-
..
Profiles across the flood plains of the sectors show almost level
ground surface except for the present and former shallow stream channels cut.
as the stream wandered over the valley floor.
Sector bottoms supports a growth of cottonwood, guatamto, willovs and a amall
amount of mrsh grass and tules. Similar growth oocurs in Mlssion Sector bot-
toms but a amaller proprotionate area is covered. In the Narrows a large part
of the bottom land la thus occupied.
of the transverse section of the recent alluvium where the almost flat nater
table approaahes the surface mosP olosely.
The mjor portion of Bonsall
This grcRth le found in the lorest part
AN ~~RCJUND SFGWf IN A DZFINITE CSWE
A eection at aay point across the valley of the San LUIS Re:. River
below Monserate Narrows, except where the broad tributary canyons enter and
make bays in the hills, muld show the bedrock hills of granite or other ma-
terial descending sharply to the trough and definitely marMng the banks.
801118 places the width between these banb my be not more than a few hunlred
feet, in other places half a mile, and in the extreme this wiBth may broaden
to more than a mile but with an average as previously noted.
would be found to oontinue aoross the bottom at depths varying from about 70
feet to aver 200 feet below the alluvium dch ha8 fllled the original channel.
A short distance beneath the surface of the alluvium water is found from bank
to bank, 1.e.. across the width of the canyon or valley froii hill to hill.
presence is indicated by the water lovia8 vegetation growlng in pbrts of the
bottom lands but forming a continuous band nr area from Sonaerate Narrows and
above, almost to the ocean where salinity prevants its growth.
of underground flow is also proven by the wells which have been dug.
slope of the underground stream is about 10 feet per @le imediately above
-
In
The aatne bsdrock
Its
The presence - The
-1%
the
Narrowa. Movement downstream is very slow but can be deduced from the fact
that although the channel is dry above,watsr appears on the surface at Mon-
Serate Narrous, Old Bonsall Crossing, Boneall Narrows and Oaeaneide narrows,
and during the wlnter when evapotranspiration losses are small. forms a stream
of considerable proportions which may again dieappear below.
appears beoauae the underground channel at these points is too narrow to aarry
the flow which is moving through the wider an4 deeper ohannels above and below.
gmduany inareasing upstream to about 14 feet per mlle at Nonserate
The water thus
D!Bm ixwmlibm
Eenshaw Dam controls the entire discharge from the 206 square miles
The iqiounded rater is a??ropriated and usve to an extent in Pala ahove it.
Sector but the major portion usjd is exported to the Aecondido area and Vista
Irrigation District. Zsomdido 2.utual Xater Co~pany a130 diverts some of the
discharge occurring below %nsha* DtiE st a point in the cznyon above the ir-
ripble areas or Pala Sector. The City of Ocsanside znd the Carlsbad Xutuol
Water Company are exporters fron Mission Sector, t-klng from the underflmv.
Thoy both sarve areas on che south side of tho rivcr and fronting the ocean.
-
Falo Sactor contalns Pala end Paw Indian Reservations. The Cooper
Ranch, in a broad side valley merging with the bottoms of Bonsall Sector, is
the only single development of mgnitude in thet sector, but there tire scattered
Irrigated areas on tributari9s and side hills xhich aggregate, alth the urea
in the bottom, 3589 acres. Kuch of this is on tributaries far distant from
the main stream, the water supgly is mall and the draft on the stream dischorge
is considere& to be about equivalent to 1100 acres at a duty of 1.6 ecro feet
per acre.
exportations are made to the south. All irrigated fime except a pert of that
- In Misalon and Narrows Soators 1500 acres of land &re irrigated and
-19-
in Pala Seator is watered by pumping from the underground supplies.
above given for irrigated areaae as of 1934.
The figures
Most of the pumped supplies are 8eoured from alluvial bottoms, but
individuals in Fallbrook Irrigation Mstrict have secured water in the dis-
integrated residual granite underlying the district.
estimated at about 700 acm feet annually by snglnaers of the Dietriot.
The aggregate amount is
Gaging Stations
Stations have been maintained at many places for various periods and
records are sufficient to make estimates of missing years and to estimate the
runoff in years prlor to beginning of runoff records.
3traam Discharge
This is highly erratic as is cnaracterietic of all strew in San
Disgo County. In Bulletin 46 of the Division of 3ater Resources publishad in
1934 und antitled “%n Rego County Investigation“ the disGharge at Ooaanside
for 1915-16, the highest gear, is estimted ut 353,000 acre fat and for
1399-1900 the lowest year, at 5500 acre feet.
In that bulletin the estimated full natural discharga of San Luis
Bey aver undupleted by exportations or by draft for the irrigated area is
estimated for the period 1667-1933.
No. 2 as givcin in that bulletin referred to is 55,800 acre feet. This in-
cludes the 29,300 acre fest estimated to originate above ;lenshaw Gam, mst of
which is now alienated fromthe basin. In adaition to the flow at Bonsall No. 2
the estimated annual water orop oetsean them and the oc9cln is given 68 3,370
acre feet.
29.000 acre feet.
The av3r-e annual discharge at Bonsall
Thus, the avsrage present annual waste into the ocean approximates
Underground Water
mile the underground water is concluded to be a definite stream,
yet the bottoma along the river constitute reservoirs of some magnitude just
as are found in a surfaoe stream In Its wlde, deep and slow ving reaches. 9
EFFEOl' OF OPZRATION OF
.&P.FLICirKTS
The dlsoharge of 9an Luis Bey Elver is so erratic that thasafe
yield of water wlehout cyolio etomge is small oompwed to runoff.
Eenshaw Dam, storage spaoe oocws in the gravels in the bottom of the channel
and this 1s filled by percolation from the stram, inf'low from the sides both
visible and invisible, and ileep permlation of rainfall on the valley floor.
All miter supplies below Konserate %arrows are saoured by puinplng from this under-
ground SUpply.
Below
The project proposed by Fallbrook Tubllc Vtllity District wuld lower
L the water table In the Bonsell, ?Tsrrovs, and Eliselon bottom End thus induce
greater peroolation from the river.
would reduce the flow to the bottoms of Narrows and Hlssion Sectors and unless
operation =re restricted by proper Fermlt terms muld In the drler gsers cut
off entirely that part of It originating 3est of Old Bornall Crossing and thus
tend to 19aVe the water rights below In those years even more thsn at ?resent
fully dependent on the blscharge originsting below the "voaeing and on the
usable storegd in th? bottom.
Sarlsbad Vutual %ater Co. nil1 effect tte water table in Weslon Sector pri-
marily and perhaps to an extsnt in the lower end of Narrows Sector. This Stor-
age would, however, $c replenished In the next wet year or series of wet years.
Lowering the water table In Bonahll bottoms
Additional taking by the City of Oceanslde end
The broad questions whloh must be answered here are: "Are the in-
tervels between tfie years of plentiful dlscharge sufficiently short so that
the draft for paramount rights In Bonsell, Narrows and Vission Sectors can be
-
maintained if tho Fallbrook project 18 developed?" and "If this draft CaIUlOt
otherwise be mnaintolnad, what practicable Rteps con ba tnken In case Foll-
-7 6-
.I
.- brook receives a permit such that peramount rights whether used or unused.
will not be jeopardfred?' Similu questions must be answered for Mission
Sector in considering the applications of Oceanside snd Carlebad Mutual later
Company.
Present use. plus proposed uee by applicants. constitutes a consider-
able percentage of the averege anuual supply below Henab and therefore the
amount of storage available in the gravels is important as no surface storage
is proposed.
below Yonserate. In Bonsall bottoms it is believed that if the water table is
lowered 33 feet below the ground surfhoe, the mount of water which nay one
pump can secure where the depth of dluvial fill is the average will be de-
creased about 50 per cent, due to shellomess of tha gravel fill.
case. while water would still be available. yet with present information it
aould seem that no greater lowering thM this 33 feet ehould be allowed.
a negligible mount of the storage in the bottoms of the so-called Hsrrone Sec-
tor is naturally available to Mission Sector even if the water table in the
latter is lowered considerably. because the length of Narrows Sector (about
five miles) and the slow travel of water underground would preclude much of it
from reaching Uission Sector in time of drought.
The storage available is not the full capacity of the gravels
In such
Only
The bottoms of Mission Seetor are believed to have less usable cap8c-
ity than would appear from their superficial area of 2775 acres and the depth
of recent alluvium--about 200 feet.
hearing that about 60 per cent of this area is occupied by the cap of "sea mudn
previously referred to. In general it appears from the testimony that this is
85 to 100 feet in thickmess and its water yield may not be an great as from
sand and gravel. In addition to space occupied by the cap just mentioned. a
large part of the capacity of the gravels of Mission Sector lies below sea
It appears from testimony given at the
-16-
-
level and is connected with the ocean by the recent sediments filling Ocean-
sido Harrows which is cut about 130 feet belor sea level. Consequently. if the
water table in the gravels of Mission Sector is lowered too much. sea water
rill infiltrate into it.
others in the qy no101 8hor chloride content up to about 400 p.p.m. but it
was not ohom at the hearing that this is be to sea water infiltration.
Aualyses of water prupsd from Oceanside's wells and
Sea rater in general is about 24 per cent heavier than fresh rater
and it is assumed to have the 8-e weight off the Sari Mego Coast.
when the fresh rater elevation is not greater than sea level, water from the
8ea penetrates into the gravels of the basia.
moves upetream dong the bottom and fresh rater floats upon it.
eaat of Oceanside Plurows is from an elevation 125 feet below sea level, the
As a result,
The sea water in such caw first
If pumping
.- fresh rater table must be kept 4.1 (2& per cent of 125) feet above sea level.
As Porping is done from below the cap of 'rea mudm this indicates that the weter
so pumped comes from an elevation not higher than the 125 foot level and there-
fore the water table should not be drsrn down even to sea level brthq bottom
itandsa= if danger from selt water infiltration is to be avoided. However, if
plffplng were concentrated at 80- distance from the ocean and if the area near
the ocew $ere not pumped it would be possible without influx of salt water to
lower the w&ter table in the upper part below sea level for a period of years,
or until the hump in the rater table betreen the pumped area and the ocean
flattened out due to flow both seaward and upstream.
While the elevation of the contact line between fresh water and sea
water may be theoretically calculated. yet there is a certain mount of dlf-
funion Md very diluted sea water might reach a higher elevation than calcu-
lated elthough upward dlffusion would be very limited. Only about .. two - -- to three
per cent of the chloride found in sea water will make weter fapotable end toxic
to many crope.
-1 7-
L
To detedne whather permittees' projects and especially Ballbrook's
projeot can funCtiOn 68 planned with safety to the water supply of presently
used rights .Id unused prior rights below is not easy. To Q so involves a
very complex analysis in which mauy of the baaic faotors muat be asnsllmeb from
erperience elsewhere M they have not been deterrlned by investigationd rork
for local conditions. The results of the dysis would therefore depend pri-
marily on values assigned to theee factors. Consequently, the Division hae
first directed itti attention to the Tdidity of ha aoetuptions made in the
studies which nre mentioned below.
At the hearing. studies mre presented an to the effect 02 operation
of Fdlbrook project on water supplies for others by both Pallbrook Irrigation
District predecessor of applicant. and by the City of Oceanside aa protestant.
Likewise more cr less complete studies were presented by other protestants.
Hone of these stndies exactly filled the requirements of the Mvision of Water
Resources.
In preaeding paragraphs the situation (IO to the reoent alluviums below
Yonserate. and especially as to Mission Eectbr, which sakes it improbable that
there 1s a large amount of ueable storege spece in the bottoms. have been dis-
cussed.
an estimate of more than 13.000 acre feet 8vaLlable storage specs in the portion
of Bonsall Sector bottoms affeckd by tallbrookts project. that not more than
8,000 acre feet should be estimated 811 available in Rarrows Sector and that
the avdlable storage in Mission Sector is sdl as compared to apparent capac-
ity and has been taken at 12.000 aore feet.
It is the jtvignent of the Division tht information does not warraat
The Division found it desirable to aake an analysis of the problem - based on asrmptions which it deemed justified with present informstion.
-18-
CONCLlJSI om
The analysis made by this office leads us tentstlvely. and until ad-
ditional infornurtion indioates otherwiee. to conclude as follows:
1. There is surplus or unappropriated rater available for appropriation
under Applications 8156. 8205 and 8418 which rater nay be taken with reason-
able precaution without undue interference with prior and existing rights.
2. Increase in prenent draft upon the source belov Monserate Aarrows,
including that by prerentlp unused rights vhich ere prcmount to those which
may be claimed under these applications, should not exceed 6,000 acre feet per
annum.
3. With such a deum increase in draft under proper control. the under-
ground water supplies below Monserate Narrows would have been seriously depleted
in only one sequence of years in the perlcd studied (1883-1937).
began with winter 1896-97 and continued for six yews through winter 1901-02.
during which period the shortage was extreme.
however, would have been smd.1 because only a s~ll amount of water would have
been available for mch rights.
This sequence -
The depletion by new rights,
4. If the static water level is not reduced more than 33 feet in the Bon- - -. -
ad1 and Xarrors sectors below the ground surface of the alluviums of these
sectors. P full supply of underground water will be aveilable to paramount
rights in those sectors.
5. &cords of dhchtwge by the U. S. I)sological Surrey at Bansall indi-
cate that in dry years the gravels of Mission Sector now receive, and in the
past have received. very little replenishment, and hence the dlverterfi of water
within this Sector are largely dependent in such yeare upon storage in the
gravela.
I
6. Auy increme in the draft in the Bonsall Sector, and above, will first
-19-
, .I
-
reduce the supply avnilable to Mission Sector, but excessive depletion in
Mission Seotor may be prevented by an appropriate by-pass, either naturally
or othenise. of nrter from the Sectors above.
7. Decrease in the amount of water which. without pump5ng under Applica-
tion 8156. would othsnise naturally reach the underground rater supply of
Mission Sector. can be nllowed in small 8m-t in the preliminary stages of
dmrelopment under e permit, or until draft on Mirsion Baain increases by 2000
aare feet annually above preaent draft. but direreions should be so managed
after developrent ha# rewhed a certain stage that depletion is Bads up with
only samll lag,provided however thnt before permittee under Application 8156
should be required to deliver rater by -ping or otherwise into Mission Sector
to prevent excessive depletion it is deem4 proper that mer8 ri thin that
Sector should install and operate at their own cost snd expense such spreading
uorks 88 cen be constrwted aad operated at reasonable cost within said sector,
if they are found to be desirable and necessary to prevent waste.
c
8. Diversions Wer Applications 8205 snd 84l8 should not be peraitted
k, lam? the ground later level in Mission Sector to lesa than 10 feet above
meen sea level at the pomp8 of permittee. unless the static water level be-
tween said pnnps and the oceem ia such ar to insure egainat Lntrasion of sea
water should further recession occur.
9. Due to the conrtant draft by native vegetation below Bonsall Sector
only 2000 -re feet of the total of 6000 -re faat which is appsrently avail-
nble below Henshew Dam is found in Mission Sector while the remaining 4OOO
acre feet CM be de avnilable in Bonsall Sector.
edge ie available diverdona under Application 8158'should be limited to e nmch
amaller emount than calculations indicate are available in Bonaall Sector.
%waver. until mre knowl-
-
10. To insure egeinst unreasonable interference with use of rater under
rights which are parmount to those under Applications 8166, 8205 and 8410
suitable limitations and conditions should be inserted in any permits issued
approving said applications. which lidtations and conditions should be sub-
ject to modification from tine to time as dovelopaant proceeds on San Luis Bey
River. or as additional information uscomes available, md diversions under
said peraits should be under the supervision and control of the Division of
Water Resources.
ORDER -----
lpplioations 8156. 8205 and 8418 to appropriate water having been
cospleted and being protested. a hearing upon arid protests having been held
and the Mvision of Water Resources being now fully advised in the premises.
IT IS HEKEBY OBDBJBPD that Application 81% be approved snbdect to such
of the usual terms and conditions as nsy be appropriate and Bnbject to the fol-
lowing special terms and conditions. to-wit:
1. Pending the entry of further order by the Division of Water Resources
diversions under said Application 8156 shall not exceed 2500 acre feet
per annum, and together with diversions under Applicstione 8205 and
8418. plus increase in diversion vder rights which are paramount to
said applications, shall not exceed 6.000 acre feet per annum.
Operation of permittee shall mt cause unreasonable lowering of the
static water table at any point in Bonsall and Mrrons Sectors where
a well is operated to sapply a water right paramount to that of per-
mi ttee.
a.
2.
Bonadl Sector extends from the east line of Township 3
Best. S.B.B.U.. kmm as Uonserate Barrors to the former
highway crossing opposite the poet office known, or for-
merly known. as Bonsall. Barrows Sector extends from the
former highway crossing to the westerly boundary of Sec- tion 3. Township 11 South. Bange 4 West. S.%B.&JI.. which
is a point about one-half mile doanstream from the north-
west boandary of Guajome Ranch.
b. Unreasonable lowering of the static water table is defined
as any lowering in excess of thirty-three (33) feet below the
average elevation of the surface of the alluvial bottom land
in the vicinity or a well used for a parz%nount nater right.
-21-
', . I
-.
C. Operation by permittee which would cauee the static water
table to recede below the elevation noted in Item 2-b is
defined 18 pumping by permittee under the provision8 of
Sections 4. 5 and 6 of this permit in any calendar year
in excess of that quantity which in addition to pumping
br paramount rights in the #me yeear would cause the static
water table in that year to rea& below the elevation noted
in Item 2-b.
8. Operation by permittee shall be such ea to Insure that the supply to
the oaderground water in the recent alluviums of Nisslon Sector shall not be unrelrsonnbly deureeaed from that which would naturally reach
the underground supply of that seotor If permittee were not operating.
a. Useion Seotor oxten& from the lower end of Hsrron Sec- tor to the ocean.
ll8ter mturallg rraohiag the nnbrgrounb water In the re-
cent alluviums of Usston 8ector is befinad as underflow from the lower end of Ilrrrowa Sector plus the percolation
which would lvrturnlly occur from the =turd surface flow
of the river after it haa ps8ed the lower end of Narrows
Sector, plus percolation from tributesies entering Mission Snctor.
1. lirtnril SdMO flow at the lmr end of Harrows
bctor is defined M the surfme water which would
reach this point batween July 1st of the year in
question and June 30th of the swcesdiw year if
persittee were not operating.
b.
c. IYatd slufsoe flaw at the lower end of Narrow6 Sector shall
be determined as followe:
1. To the discharge at Bonsall No. 2 from the date in the runoff year in question when water from Yoneerate
Blarrowe first reaches it at the beginning of the flood
season to the last dare on rhlah water from Monserate Barrows reaches it et the end of the flood seaon
Am
a. The larger of the two quantities copImted as outlined under (1) and (a) fellowing-:
(1) the total pumpage of pernittee fro.
the date in the spring of the preceding
mff year on which permittee starts
using water or the date in the preceding
runoff year at the end of the flood sea- son on which water from Yonaerate Narrows
ceases to reach Bonsall No. 2 gaging sta-
, ., ,
.- tion. whichever is the lrtest. to the
date in the -if year in qgestion when
the discharge at Yonserate Harrows ce&es
to reach Bonsall No. 2 &ng station.
the additional percolation above the esstern
limit of Kission Sector cased by permittees
operation. This shall be determined 88 fol-
lows:
lends affected br operrtions of permittee
the elevation of wster table shall be &tor-
mined ia the fall by measurements at suffi-
ciently sdl intervals of time Eo that the
approximate elevation just before the date
of the first flood of the runoff year in
question. pmaing Konsernte Ilurows can be
calculated.
which would have obtained if permittee had
not been operatolg ahall also be calculated giving consideration to the accumulated ef-
fect of operations in years preceding ths
ysar in pueetion. The volume of water be-
tween the two water tables just noted shall
bo calculated on the bssis of 25% specific
yield in the allmiua and the quantity so
found is the quantity to be added.
(2)
In the puts of the alluvial bottom
The psi tlon of the wster table
SWBTEUT
b. phe decrease in consumptive use by native vsgetation
in the name period described in Section 3-c-a-1 in Bonsall Sector caused by operations of permittee.
This shall be cdlculated an follows until further
knowledge indicates a better basis: Divide Bonsall
Sector into as maw segments an found advisable and
dlvide the year into as .eny divisions as found ed-
vioable. ror nreaa affected by permittees' draft
and eupprting vegetation dependent on a high water
table for its exietence. the consumptive use shall
be calculated for the observed water table 8s fel-
fora:
be at the rate of three (3) acre feet per annum when
vater table is one foot below the average surface of
the alluvial valley fill in any segment selected. at
the rate of tm (2) -re feet per annum when water
table is four (4) feet below the said alluvial sur-
fMe. Md LerO (0) when the water tsble is twenty
(20) feet below said alluvial surface. and that the change in consumptive use is proportional to the
depth below the deptb just noted. On the banis of
26% specific yield in the alluvial fill calculate the water table which would have exlsted had there
Assume consumptive use of underground water to
-23-
6
e.
4.
5.
been no extractions of permittee from the under-
ground supply and calaulate the aonsumptive use
which would hae occurred with that elevation of
water table, in a similar way. The dlfferenoe
between these two quantities io the quantity to
be subtraated.
2. Prom the due found in Seation 8-0-1 subtract the de-
orease ln flow of water after pmslng Boneall &. 2
brought *ut by draft to supply prlor water rights axd srrpo-tra~mpiration losses in the portion of llsrrors
Sector between Boned1 No. 2 and lower end of Xarrowr
Seator.
%turd percolation of 8an Luis by Rintr in Mission Sector shall
be determined from meaanrementr 02 depth to water table and from
reoords of the U. 8. Qeologioal Survey at Bo~sall Ho. 2 and at Oceansib. and other inforsation until more exsct deteralnationr of percolation from the river in Hission Seotor proper me made, after which the latter determinations shall be used.
Beanonable deoreape in the amount of water reeching Mission Seo-
tor ia defined ae. allowing the following;
be required to transfer water from Bonsall Sector to Mission
Sector aa described in Section 5 following until one of the fol-
lowing occurs.
1.
Permittee shall not
Passaga of three years from the date permittee starts operating its projeot.
2. Permittees' draft exceeds 2.000 acre feet per annum.
3. Craft on Bonsdll Sector exceeds 3.000 wre feet per
&Ula adutiolld t0 dr8ft Of 1838.
4. Draft on Mission Sector exeeeds a000 &ore feet per
annam additional to draft of 1938.
6. Draft on Xirsion, IIrurows and Bonsall Sectors exceeds
4.000 acre feet additlonal to draft of 1938.
On or about April 1st of each year the Division of later Resources shall
notify permittee by registered nail as to the tentative total amount of water which permittee pump for its land prior to Apil 1st of the
snoceeding year without emeeding the permlrsible draft as limited by Seations 2 and 3. eion of Water Besourcer as the season advances.
Xi, on June 1st of any year, it is found that operations of permittee
hare bpleted the underground supply of Mission Sector. exoept as de- scribed in Section 3-e, the Division of llater Resources shall notify
permittee by registered mail on or about that date advising the amount
The quantity so estimated pay be revised by the Mvi-
-24-
of depletion. Subject to the limitation of Seation 2. permittee
shall within seven (7) dnys after receipt of such notice begin
pumping water to Mission Sector from any point below Yonserate
Narrows and above the lower end of 3iarrows Sector to which lt has
right of eccess at a rate which will replenish all accrued depletion
by April 1st of the succeeding year provided that such pumping may
ceolle if the water table in Mission Ssotor rises to full position
prior to April 1st from aoy cewei end provided further that the
Mvision of Water Resources may reduce the total quantity to be de- livered by permittee by the extent that waste to the ocean right
have been lessened by the constmation and operation of spreading
works at reasonable cost. the construction of which shall have
been previously recommended by the Division of Water Resources.
If on Jnne 1st of any year it shall appear to the Mvision of Water
Resources that opsrations of permittee will cause the static water
table at any point in Barrows Sector where there is a well rued by
a water right or water rights paramopnt in right to that of permittee to be lowered Bore than thlrty-three (35) feet below the average elsva- tion of the durface of the allurial fill in the vicinity of the well
supplying the paramunt right, the Mvision of Water Reeonrces shall
so notify perndttee by registered letter on or about that dste. ad-
vising the aaonnt in acre feet which it is estimated that its opera-
tions will lower the water table at such point or points below an
elevation thirty-three (33) feet below the ground surface and subject
to the limitation of Section 2 permittee shall deliver sufficient water at points in Harrows Sootor to be designated by the Mvision of
Water Resources, to maintain the water table at any point where a well
used by a paramount right is located in Harrows Sector at a position not lower than thirty-three (53) feat below ground surfaoe until the
arsount of water estimated by the Division in its mtifioation to per-
mittee shall have been delivered provided it 1s not so maintained by
a lesser amount.
Monserate Barrows as described in Section 5.
At the close of each irrigation seaeon the additional area which has
been placed under irrigation since the close of the preceding irriga-
tion sewon in the entire watershed of Sen Luis Bey Elver and the addi-
tional &aft on the water supply caueed thoreby and dso by additionel
diversions of water out of the watershed of said river, shall be deter-
mined.
Subject to the basic condition that any changes which shall be made
shall not materially impair the supply for paramount rights and shall
not unreasonably lncresle their pumping cost. the Mvision of Water
Resources may. dter hearing. held after due notice, eliminate or re- vise any OM of the foreming conditions or may add others as a--
tional information or changed conditions spar to warrant auch elieina- tions. revisions or additions aud it may in its discretion call such
hearing either on its own motion or on petition of any uaerd. surface
or subsurface water from San Luis Ray River below Ldonserate Narrows.
6.
Punping for this purpose may be from any point below
7.
8.
-25-
. .. T
- 9. Permittee osy not use water under this permit to supply the area in its district now ser~ed by water from Santa Ysrgarita River unless
full use is being mada of the water of Santa Hargarita River in that
area under any water right which permittee tm~ have at the time of is-
suauce of ms permit.
IT IS BEBpBy fllBTHEB 0"OD that Applicstion 8205 be approved subject
to such of the aaual terms md conditions an may be appropriate and subject to
the following special teras and conditions, to-wlt:
1.
2.
3. -
4.
5.
6.
Pending the entry of further order by the Division of later Resources
not more than seven heed fifty (760) aore feet may be diverted
=der Application 820s in any year beginning April 1st except as pro-
vided In Section 6.
If diversions by permittee under Applicstion 8205 at any tlme re-
duae mtatic water table at wells of permittee to less than ten (10)
feet above mean aea level, permittee sh6ll cease operations under
this permit unless the static water table shall be at least ten (10)
feet above mean sea level st the lorest pint don& some oms8 section
of the alluvial bottoms between permittee's pumps and the ocean.
On or about April lmt of each year the Divislen of Water Resources
shall notlfy permittee. by registered dl (ID to the estimated araoont
which pernittee msy pump during the ensuing par under the special
conditions of this perait. which estinmte of supply aailable to per- mittee may be revised by the Division of Water Besources as the sea-
son advnnces.
Subject to the mic condition that any ohanges which may be de
shall not mataridly iapir the supply for prior and Sisting rights
and sM1 not unreasonably increase their pumping coat. the Division
of Water Resources may. after hearing with due notice. called either
upon its own motion or upon petition of any user of the surfam or subsurfme flow of Ssa Ma Jby fliver belor Boneall Barrows. elid-
nate or revise my of the foregoing limitations and conditions, or
add other limitations and conditione. as changed conditions or ddi- tional information seem to warrant.
At the close of each irrigation 80MOn the aAdltiona1 area which has
been placed under irrigation since the close of the precedlng irriga- tion season in the entire watershed of San LUIS Bey River and the addi-
tional draft on the water supply caused thereby and also by additional
diversions of water out of the watershed of said river. shall be deter-
mined.
Permittee may pump water in emess of the awunt designated in Section 1
during any time such pumping reduces in like amount the water flowing into the ooeau.
-26-
.- , IT IS AlEBFBT mEEI4 ORISRED that Application 8418 be approved subject
to such of the usual terms Md conditions as may be appropriate and to the fol-
lowing special terms and uonditions. to-wit8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Not more than 1250 acre feet may be diverted under Applioation
8418 in any year beginning April 1st.
If dlversions by permittee under Application 8418 at asp. time re-
duce static water table at wells of pernittee to less than ten (10)
feet above mean sea level. permittee shall cease opercrtions under
this permit uuless the static water table shall be at least ten (10)
feet above meen sea lffel at the lowest point along soae oroas section
of the alluvial bottoms between permittee's pumps and the ocean.
On or about April 1st of each year the Division of Water Resources
shall notify perrpittae by reglatered mall. as to the estimated saount
which said permittee may pump during the ensuing fler under the
special conditions of this permit, which estlplete of supply avail-
able to permittee may be revised by the Division of Water Resources as the season advances.
Subject to the basic condition that auy changes which shall be made shell not mete riel^ impair the supply for prior and existing rights
and shall not unremonably incresse their pumping cost, the Mvirion
of Water Resources mey, after hearing called either upon its own
motion or ups petition of any user of the surface or subsurface flow
of Ssn Luis Rey River below Bonsall
aq? of the foregoing limitations and conditions. or edd other limita-
tions and conditions. as changed condltions or additional information
amy men to warrant.
At the close of each irrietion season the additional area which has
been placed under trrigation since the cloee of the preceding irriga- tion season in the entire wetershed of San Luis Rey River and the addi-
tional drdt on the water supply caused thereby and also by additional
diversions of water out of the watershed of said river. shall be deter-
mined.
Nrrrom. elfininate or revise
WI'PI4ESS my hand tmd the real of the Department of Public Korks of the