HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-22; City Council; 10221; Encina basin water reclamation plan Phase ICrQOF CARLSBAD - AGENCQjBILL /?,
AR#'°r &eM
MTG 8/42/89
OEPT. U/M
TITLE:
ENCINA BASIN WATER
FACILITIES PLAN
RECLAMATION
- PHASE I
DEPT. HD.f^S
CITYATTYmH
CITY MQR.^U
O&
oz3
Oo
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Approve the report titled ENCINA BASIN WATER RECLAMATION
PROJECT, PHASE I PROGRAM, FACILITIES PLAN, and authorize
City staff to submit an application to the State Water
Resources Control Board for a low-interest loan to fund
up to $5 million in reclaimed water projects' engineering
and construction costs as recommended.
2. Authorize City staff to apply for funding assistance from
the San Diego County Water Authority and to prepare the
application for said State low-interest loan.
3. Authorize City staff to apply for reclaimed water sales
subsidies offered by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California with assistance and via the San Diego
County Water Authority.
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute reclaimed water
agreements being negotiated with the Vallecitos and
Leucadia County Water Districts for the sale of reclaimed
water to the City, and with proposed users of reclaimed
water within the City.
5. Approve in principle the Water Reclamation Mandatory Use
Ordinance and direct staff to prepare the appropriate
form of ordinance for City Council consideration.
6. Adopt Resolution No. 8~3'3O(j2 amending existing
consultant contract with Luke-Dudek, Civil Engineers,
Inc. dated February 7, 1989, (Resolution No. 89-35), who
is completing the City's Reclamation Master Plan, by the
addition of $10,000 for assistance to City staff in
completing items 1 through 5 above.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
BACKGROUND:
On August 16, 1988, City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-
298 appropriating $7,145 from the City's Sewer Enterprise
Fund to finance the City's share of the San Diego County
Water Authority (CWA) sponsored consultant study titled
ENCINA BASIN WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT, PHASE I PROGRAM,
FACILITIES PLAN (Facility Plan Report). The City was one of
seven local agencies funding together approximately one-half
the total Facility Plan Report cost, the other half being
funded by the CWA.
PAGE 2 OF AB#_
The Facility Plan Report is now completed and has been
reviewed and tentatively approved by the six local agencies
participating with Carlsbad and the CWA. The local agencies
(Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Leucadia County Water
District, Vallecitos County Water District, Olivenhain
Municipal Water District, Buena Sanitation District, and the
San Dieguito Water District) have also requested that the
City act as lead agency in requesting State of California
low-interest loan funding to construct the capital facilities
recommended in the draft report since those facilities are
located within the City boundary.
ENCINA BASIN WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT-FACILITY PLAN REPORT
The Facilities Plan Report provides a detailed engineering
program for specific reclamation facilities, markets,
associated economic analysis, reclaimed water pricing, and
environmental concerns. It doubles as an implementation plan
for large-scale reclamation in the southern portion of the
City and provides most the information required for the City
to apply to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
for low-interest loan funding.
a. Recommendations
The Facility Plan Report primarily recommends supplying
reclaimed water to the AVIARA development and the La Costa
Hotel and Spa for golf course and landscape irrigation from
the Meadowlark (Vallecitos County Water District) and Forest
R. Gafner (Leucadia County Water District) Water Reclamation
Facilities. Reclaimed water from these two plants would also
supply the CALTRANS Interstate 5 right-of-way in the City,
and agricultural properties managed by Frazee Flowers and
Ukegawa Farms. It was estimated in the Facility Plan Report
that a total of 2,354 acre-feet per year of reclaimed water
will be served to the markets described above by the combined
flows of the Meadowlark and Gafner plants.
The Encina WPCF was excluded from the analysis as a source
of reclaimed water since, unlike the Meadowlark and Gafner
plants, it is not expected to produce tertiary treated
reclaimed water in the near future. The City's Calavera
Hills Water Reclamation Facility was also excluded from the
recommended plan since the Facility Plan Report was generally
focused on the Encina Basin south of Palomar Airport Road.
However, the Encina WPCF and the Calavera Hills plant are
being considered as potential reclaimed water sources by the
City's Water Reclamation Master Plan consultant.
PAGE 3 OF AB#
b. Financial Considerations
The cost of capital facilities required to serve this amount
of reclaimed water in the City is estimated to be about $4.91
million. The City's share of the annual operation and
maintenance (O&M) cost was estimated to be about $233,000.
An important goal of the Facilities Plan Report is to provide
reclaimed water to users at a price equal to or less than the
price of potable water. The financial analyses conducted in
the Report considered the cost of building, financing,
operating, administering, and maintaining the new facilities
needed to distribute the reclaimed water to the users.
Project operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were also
assigned to those agencies that had built existing facilities
vital to the proposed project.
Also included in the financial analysis is the sale of 2,354
acre-feet per year of reclaimed water at about the price of
potable water, a rebate from the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California (MWD) amounting to at least $75 per
acre-foot of reclaimed water sold, and the City's receipt
of a $5.0 million low-interest (4.25%) loan from the State
to finance the needed capital facilities. The starting price
for the reclaimed water is set at $480 per acre-foot in 1991,
and escalates by 6% per year. Also, the present $75 MWD
rebate was escalated to $86 per acre-foot sold in 1991, and
continues increasing by 7% per year.
Running a computer financial model over twenty years using
the above assumptions, the Report shows that the program will
produce a positive cash flow of $11,547 in 1992, the second
year of operation. The positive cash flow increases to
$55,000, $102,000, and $151,000, etc., in following years.
The Report also shows that if conventional tax exempt
financing at 8.5% interest is used, the program will not have
a positive cash flow until the ninth year of operation.
The participating agencies have recommended that Carlsbad act
as lead agency in seeking a $5.0 million State low-interest
loan to construct the reclamation facilities. This loan
would pay for storage and distribution facilities located in
Carlsbad, and would also upgrade some necessary facilities
at the Meadowlark and Forest R. Gafner treatment plants.
To be economical for Carlsbad, the agencies supplying
reclaimed water to Carlsbad must agree to sell at or below
a price consistent with the financial analysis presented in
the Report, and the proposed users must agree to buy the
PAGE 4 OF AB#
quantities required at or near the price of potable water.
This assurance can best be achieved through a mandatory use
ordinance and the agreements now being negotiated between the
City, the proposed users, and the supplying agencies. An
additional step in assuring cooperation between the City an
the supplying agencies is the conceptual approval of this
Report by all parties.
c. Model Water Reclamation Mandatory Use Ordinance
In June 1989, the CWA Water Board adopted a model Water
Reclamation Ordinance recommended for use by all local
agencies in the County. The purpose of the model ordinance
is to both mandate the use of reclaimed water for irrigation
and industrial process purposes and to protect the quality
of the reclaimed water by implementing certain source control
measures. In addition to requiring the use of reclaimed
water in certain areas, the model ordinance also requires the
agency to prepare a reclaimed water master plan. The master
plan would include planned reclaimed water facilities,
markets and reclaimed water use areas, brine and other source
control measures, mandatory use areas, operational rules and
regulations, public awareness programs, and agency
coordination.
Brine controls/prohibitions will be similar to those in place
in the Calavera Water Reclamation Plant tributary area and
in the (City of Carlsbad) tributary areas for Vallecitos and
Leucadia County Water Districts.
The model ordinance presents procedures for determining which
existing potable water customers should be converted to
reclaimed water based on the findings of the reclaimed water
master plan. It also presents procedures for noticing
potential reclaimed water customers, including proposed
conditions and scheduling for compliance, and procedures for
objections and/or appeals.
For new development or other new customers, City staff would
review the master plan at the tentative map or land use
permit stage to determine if such development could be served
with reclaimed water. If so, the project would be
conditioned to use reclaimed water when available, and, if
necessary, the owner would be required to construct the
necessary dual-distribution facilities for reclaimed water
service.
Appropriate existing land uses would be required to connect
to the reclaimed water system when a reclaimed water supply
of appropriate quality is made available.
PAGE 5 OF AB#
For either new or existing customers, a reclaimed water use
application and permit would be required. Permit application
and approval processes are provided in the model ordinance.
Finally, the model ordinance presents wording for various
sanctions in regard to public nuisance, injunctive relief,
permit revocation, and penalties (up to $1,000 in fines).
City staff has reviewed the model ordinance and found its
wording generally appropriate except for City notification,
project review, and user application procedures. Staff
recommends the Council approve the model ordinance in
principle and direct staff to modify its wording specifically
to the needs of Carlsbad. The modified model reclamation
ordinance would then be brought back for Council
consideration at a future meeting.
d. City as lead Agency and Additional Work
The Encina Subcommittee members of WARAC have accepted the
Encina Basin Facility Plan Report and asked the City to act
as lead agency to secure the State loan funding. To
accomplish this, staff will need to complete the following:
Obtain agreements with the proposed suppliers and users
of the project reclaimed water,
Apply for the minimum $75 per acre-foot subsidy funding
from the MWD with the assistance of the CWA,
Complete any required environmental documentation for the
project in accordance with CEQA,
Submit the completed 1988-89 Encina Basin report,
environmental documentation, supplier and user
agreements, any required supplemental information, and
application from to the SWRCB as a loan application,
. Seek funding assistance from the CWA for the submittal
of the loan application to the State.
It will be necessary to amend the existing Water Reclamation
Master Plan consulting agreement with Luke-Dudek, Civil
Engineers, Inc. to provide assistance to City staff in
completing the above tasks.
PAGE 6 OF AB#
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommended action will result in the expenditures of
approximately $10,000 to prepare the applications for state
low-interest loans and the Metropolitan Water District
$75/ac. ft. reclaimed water subsidies. Funds are available
for this purpose in account number 511-840-6110-2479.
Further City Council action will be required should State
loan funding become available.
EXHIBITS;
1. Executive Summary: Encina Basin Water Reclamation
Facilities Plan-Phase I.
2. Model Water Reclamation Mandatory Use Ordinance.
3. County Dept. of Public Works Letter
4. Leucadia County Water District Letter
5. Olivenheim Municipal Water District Letter
6. Carlsbad MWD Resolutions
7. Resolution
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY
This chapter contains a summary of the information presented in detail in
Chapters 3 through 13.
2.1 WATER RBCLAMATICN MARKET ASSESSMENT
Major potential users of reclaimed water, such as golf courses,
agricultural enterprises, parks, and other large landscaped areas, were
identified within the Study Area on the basis of field investigations and
utilization of available governmental information. Telephone, or personal
contact was then made establishing the level of interest for each of the
identified potential users.
Following the telephone survey, promising candidates were mailed a
questionnaire in order to establish the individual users' needs with
regard to quantity, quality, and level of service. Based upon the
responses to the questionnaires, 42 potential users were identified.
In addition to the icV?n*'if1rvft"'f'n of potential users, the market
assessment also defined the boundaries of the water service agencies
serving the Encina Basin Study Area.
2.2 REGULATORY CCNSIDERATICNS
Reclamation and reuse of wastewater is regulated by various State and
Federal agencies to protect the public health, safety and general
welfare. In the State of California, all wastewater treatment and
disposal facilities are regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, through its enforcement arm, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The Study Area falls within the jurisdiction of the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Each Regional Board determines the water quality objectives for its region
and establishes the requirements for effluent discharge. The San Diego
Regional Board adopted the Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan to
identify the beneficial uses of the surface and groundwaters within the
Region and to establish the water quality objectives necessary for the
protect im of these beneficial uses.
Within the Study Area, the beneficial uses and subsequent water quality
objectives vary from each hydrographic subarea to the next, depending on
the characteristics of the surface and underlying waters. For most of the
Study Area, the water quality objectives allow for the use of reclaimed
water. However, in the central and northeast portions of the Study Area,
the reclaimed water must be demineralized prior to use for spray
irrigation.
The treatment process requirements and bacteriological quality for a wide
range of uses of reclaimed water are established by the State Department
of Health Services, and are outlined in the California Administrative
Code, Title 22, Division 4. These requirements are administered by the
Regional Board in cooperation with the State and local health departments.
2-1
EXHIBIT 1
John s. murk engineers, inc.
The highest level of treatment required for reclaimed water includes
oxidation, coagulation, clarification, filtration and disinfection. This
level of treatment, is required for unrestricted use of reclaimed water,
such as for spray irrigation of food crops, landscape irrigation in
residential areas and for non-restricted recreational irnpoundments .
Further, to protect the water resources of the State, the State Water
Resources Control Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
adopted policies for the non-degradation of groundwater and surface water
resources. The intent of the State's Non-degradation Policy and the
Federal Antidegradation Policy is to protect the existing and potential
uses of the water resources and to maintain the existing level of water
quality where existing water quality exceeds water quality objectives
unless reduced water quality is found to be consistent with the maximum
benefit to the people of the State.
2.3 PLANNING, DESIGN, ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRITERIA
The quality of a facilities planning effort is only as good as the
assumptions that are used in the preparation of the plan, therefore
planning, design, and monetary criteria and assumptions are presented and
discussed.
The ogfraKi i afipont- of a reasonable delivery schedule and delivery pressure
was made using input received from the potential users. A ten-hour
delivery schedule is proposed, along with 75 pounds per square inch
pressure at the point of metering the reclaimed water flow into the user's
irrigation system.
Die effective use of reclaimed water is directly related to the quantity
of storage that is available to store water on both a seasonal and diurnal
basis. Siting difficulties and high cost prevent the provision of
seasonal storage, which balances the constant year-round production of
reclaimed water with the rirsf'ft'-'i.rm'i iy different winter to summer demands
of the users. Diurnal storage, which can be provided cost effectively, is
necessary to balance the daily output of the treatment plants with the
peak daily demands of the users.
Appropriate monetary factors, such as cost indices, cost of money
parameters, and the useful life of project components are proposed. These
factors are based upon current market conditions, and experience gained on
other wastewater projects.
2.4 EXISTING RECLAMATION FACILITIES
Three reclamation plants were identified as potential sources of reclaimed
water for the Phase I Program; the Meadowlark Water Reclamation Plant,
owned by the Vallecitos Water District; the Gafner Water Reclamation
Plant, owned by the Lrararila County Water District; and the Shadowridge
Water Reclamation Plant, in the Buena Sanitation District.
2-2
lohn s. murk engineers, inc.
The production and storage capacity of each facility is as follows:
Production Capacity Storage Capacity
Facility (mgd) (mg)
Meadowlark WRP 2.00 54.0
Garner WRP 0.75 0.8
Shadowridge WRP 1.16 3.0(a)
(a) Under construction.
Each of these plants is also connected to the Encina Water Pollution
Control Facilities ocean outfall by a series of pipelines , ccmnonly
referred to as ocean outfall failsafe pipelines.
Both Meadowlark and Shadowridge WRP's are capable of producing reclaimed
water which complies with the highest standards as set forth in Title 22
of the raiifnrm-a Administrative Code, Wastewater Reclamation Criteria.
2.5 ALTERNATIVES AND PHASING
A determination most be made with respect to the use of existing
facilities relative to the arklitinn of new facilities for the Phase I
Program. This determination affects both the potential market that can be
served as well as the cost of providing such service.
Therefore, the existing facilities were evaluated with respect to the
level of treatment, transmission f^psbi 1 i t i *y* , and available storage.
Due to the existence of a market that exceeds the production capacity of
the existing facll ittlp*?, the location of this market along existing
transmission pipelines, and the limitations of providing other than
diurnal storage, it is proposed that the Phase I Program not consider the
of ma JOT I'" rirfr yrfcJQin anri tvrangm-jsgion faai ~\ ]-t--\iafs . Jt is proposed
only to npgr?ric> treatment at the Qa-fntyr WRP, augment existing transmission
n i I-M «a« and ariri fHirrnai storage at the users ' sites .
2.6 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
The development of alternatives was guided by the fact that landscape and
agricultural irrigation was cannon to all of the major potential users.
This fact limits the use of reclaimed water produced on an average annual
basis because the supply is produced at a constant rate year-round, and
the use is extreme in the hot, dry summer months, and very limited in the
cold, wet winter months.
The list of 46 potential users was refined to a list of 7 candidate
users. The prime considerations in reducing the list were the quantity of
reclaimed water noodod by the user, the immediacy of the need, and the
potential for a long-term use. The candidate alternatives were also
limited by the yal of utilizing the existing facilities to their maximum
potential.
2-3
s. mark engineers, inc.
A decision was mads to provide reclaimed water to the users on a demand
basis, in other words in the manner that they are currently being served
potable water. This decision was made to establish a "user friendly"
system, which is thought to enhance the i iVaiifrnrri of voluntary user
'-'i on .
The demand system could be implemented in two different ways. The first
by meeting the needs of a l^mi-md number of users exclusively with
reclaimed water. The second by meeting the needs of an expanded number of
users by using reclaimed water supplemented with potable water during
periods of peak use. Several subalternatives to these general service
concepts were developed and analyzed.
The subalternatives were screened using a combination of quantitative and
qualitative criteria. The quantitative criterion was the performance of
an economic analysis on all of the identified subalternatives. The
qualitative analysis included the following criteria:
o Institutional Issues
O Poqi^ ai-o-ry Pcrni i
o User Acceptance
o Flexibilityo Ability to Accommodate Future Users
o Protection of Aesthetics
o Use of Existing Facilities
o Timingo Public Acceptance
o Environmental Impacts
The use of these quantitative and qualitative criteria led to the
selection of Alternative B-3 as the recommended alternative. The B-3
Alternative uses potable water supplementation of the reclaimed water
supply to meet the needs of five users. A summary of the B-3 Alternative
is presented in Table 2-1.
2.7 ECGNCMIC VIABILITY OF REOCMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
An economic analysis was performed on the B-3 Alternative to determine
whether it is a viable project from a monetary standpoint. The standard
against which the B-3 Alternative was judged was the cost of developing an
alternative source of water for the Encina Basin, viewed from a State-wide
A computer model established the Net Present Cost of reclaimed water
generated by the B-3 Alternative at $234 per acre-foot. The actual cost
to develop alternative water for the Encina Basin, based upon the work of
others, is on the order of $840 per acre-foot, thereby clearly justifying
the B-3 Alternative as an economically viable project. .
2.8 FINANCIAL PLAN AND REVENUE PROGRAM
Given the economic viability of the project, a means of funding the
project and generating sufficient revenue to support the project
throughout its useful life was developed. Due to the uncertainty of the
appropriate funding agency, a fictitious agency, the Phase I Program
Authority (PIPA) was created to fund the project for the purposes of this
report.
2-4
jolm s. murk engineers, inc.
>•*••'
TABLE 2-1
ALTERNATIVE B-3
SUMMARY
Raclaimed Water Supply Projected
Source; Water Production
Meadowlark Water Reclamation Plant ........... 1,850 acre-feet/year
Water Reclamation Plant ................. 504 acre-feet/year
TOTAL ................................... 2,354 acre-feet/year
water Users; Projected Reclaimed Water Use
Aviara 1,214 acre-feet/year
La Costa Resort Hotel & Spa 695 acre-feet/year
Caltrans (Interstate 5 Irrigation) 80 acre-feet/year
Frazee Flowers 316 acre-feet/year
Farms. 49 acre-feet/year
TOTAL 2,354 acre-feet/year
2-5
The need for short-term financing was identified for the funding of the
design of the project. Long-term financing options, in the form of either
revenue bonds or the State Water Resources Control Board's Reclamation
Loan Program, were selected as the most appropriate from the funding
sources identified, and were simultaneously evaluated. While the
significant monetary advantages of the 'State Water Resources Control
Board's Reclamation Loan Program make it the financing mechanism of
choice, funding from this source is limited and may not be available,
thereby necessitating the dual evaluation.
As there is extensive use of the existing reclamation facilities owned by
the Vallecitos Water District and the Leucadia County Water District, a
method of reimbursement for the use of these facilities is proposed. It
is proposed to reimburse each district for the facilities they contribute
to the Phase I Program on a prorata basis depending on the use of the
facility by the Phase I Program relative to the capacity of that
facility. Reimbursement would be made using the original cost of the
far?-}]iti*** to the districts, and amortizing that cost over the useful life
of the project.
Two sources of revenue for the Phase I Program were identified: user fees
and the Metropolitan Water District's Local Projects Program subsidy. The
proposed revenue program incorporates the goal of establishing the price
of reclaimed water at a price equal to, or less than, that of potable
water.
The results of the proposed financing plan and revenue program are
presented in Table 2-2.
As is shown in Table 2-2, either method of financing yields a cost of
production that is less than the revenue that would be received from the
users and the Metropolitan Water District's Local Projects Program
subsidy, with the users paying for reclaimed water at the forecasted rate
of potable water.
A sensitivity analysis performed on the financial model indicated that as
long as Aviara, La Costa, and Caltrans, participate in the program, the
program will be viable. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis indicated
that the breakeven supply of reclaimed water relative to need forecasts
for the State Water Resources Control Board's Reclamation Loan Program and
for revenue bond financing were 94% and 74%, respectively.
2.9 INSmUTICNAL ARRANGEMENTS
The successful implementation of the Phase I Program will depend to a
large degree on the ability to formulate viable institutional arrangements
for production, transmission, and sale of reclaimed water. This
consideration is exaggerated by the number of agencies involved, and the
overlapping of jurisdictional boundaries.
The establishment of a financing agency will be the first hurdle to be
cleared. The establishment of a financing agency may be extremely
critical because there is currently a $5,000,000 limit on funds issued by
the State Water Resources Control Board's Reclamation Loan Program. It
therefore may be necessary to devise a means of implementing the project
whereby the various participants fund portions of the project in amounts
less that $5,000,000 each, or that the project is implemented in a series
of stages.
2-6
faint s. murk engineers, inc.
TABLE 2-2
AEflERNATIVE B-3
FINANCIAL MCCEL FORECASTS
Source of Long-Term Funding
SWRCB Loan Program Revenue
Net Present Cost of
$15,618,000 $18,538,000
Net Unit Cost of Water
Supplied $332 $394
(per acre-foot)
Net Present Worth of
Revenue $19,077,000 $19,077,000
Net Unit Price of
Revenue $405 $405
(per acre-foot)
2-7
Ihe location of all the proposed Phase I Program users in the City of
far-l sbad points tO the ogfrahl i aVyncipt- of the City Of far-l ahari aa the
reclainsd water urveor/ and the Vallecitos Water District andrecains water purveyor/
County Water District as the reclaimed water wholesalers.
ray! shaH as the reclaimed water purveyor accomplishes two
goals. First, it removes the potential price competition between the
potable water purveyor and the reclaimed water purveyor, and second, it
simplifies the billing of the users, as they are already customers of
fa-rl aVvyj T
Draft agreements setting forth the relationships between the wholesalers
and the retailer, and the retailer and the users, based upon the concepts
proposed in the study, are included in the appendices of the report.
aririi^ jonally, the suggested use of a mandatory use ordinance is presented
and is intended to encourage reclamation in the Encina Basin beyond the
Phase I Program.
2.10 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The initial action in implementing the Phase I Program is to obtain firm
cuuiuiLmmiLs f mm the proposed users. A two step process is suggested,
with the first step being the acquisition of Letters of Intent, which
would establish the parameters of the users' needs. The second step would
be the negotiation of an agreement spelling out the terms and conditions
of the supply and use of reclaimed water.
An operations plan, which would define the duties and responsibilities of
the participating agencies is necessary, and would be developed early on
in the implementation process. Decisions with regard to the establishment
of the funding mechanism(s) and agency(ies), the development and
acceptance of standards to be used, and the administration of the Phase I
Program would all comprise the operations plan.
Compliance with the T**jTi i^gm^nta of the California rvvtgfai Commission, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region, and the County
Department of Health Services is essential to the project, and must be
planned for, and accomplished in a timely manner.
The State Water Resources Control Board Reclamation Project Loan Program
affords the Phase I Program an extremely attractive means of funding the
project. While the use of this funding mechanism is encouraged, it is nota sure thing, and the use of revenue bond funding is suggested as abackup.
Barring major unforeseen circumstances, it is expected that the Phase I
Program could be on-line and operational within 30 .to 32 months of the
start of the implementation effort.
2.11 ENVTRCNMEMIRL CCNSIDERftTICNS
The most significant potential environmental effect of using reclaimed
water as proposed in the Phase I Program would be to the underlying
groundwaters from lanrterapft and agricultural irrigation. However, in
2-8
fnlm s. murk engineers, inc.
order to avoid this issue, all proposed Phase I Program users are located
within basins that have at most a 3,500 mg/1 total dissolved sol ids (IDS)
limitation. . This precludes the use of costly Hom-ind-aiivj¥t-irml or the
need to amend the Basin Plan.
Recommendations are made suggesting revisions to the Basin Plan for
Hydrographic Subareas 4.31 and 4.32, which cover the area between El
Camino Real and Highway 78. It is suggested that the TDS limitation be
revised to the level of 3,500 mg/1. This would encourage the cost
effective use of reclaimed water in these basins in future phases.
The proposed Phase I Program is in compliance with existing
non-degradation policies established by the state and federal
governments. A case would have to be made for establishing conformance in
Hydrographic Subareas 4.31 and 4.32 for future phases.
A City of Carlsbad Environmental Impact Assessment Form has been
completed, in preliminary draft form, for use by the Phase I Program
participants. A review of the completed form indicates that there appears
to be no significant environmental issues that will have to be mitigated,
unless site specific examinations of pipeline routes and storage sites
prove otherwise.
2-9
jolm s. murk engineers, inc.
ff- -
*>«-„•'
May 16, 1989
MODEL WATER RECLAMATION ORDINANCE
AS APPROVED BY SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
Ordinance No.
An Ordinance of the
Establishing A Water Reclamation Master Plan
And Implementing Procedures
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)
WHEREAS, conservation of all available water resources
requires the maximum reuse of wastewater for beneficial uses of
water; and (Water Code Section 461)
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) (City) (County)
does hereby ordain:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
The state policies described above are in the best interest
of the . 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 that reclaimed water
EXHIBIT 2
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 LAKE: 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 BUILDING: 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 SYSTEM: 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
limited to, golf courses, cemeteries, parks and landscaping.
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, or construction, including any facility
regulated by the industrial waste discharge ordinance of
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.
SECTION 4: WATER RECLAMATION MASTER PLAN
4.1 GENERAL: Upon adoption of this ordinance/ the
shall prepare and adopt 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 shall include, but not be limited to, 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,
based on the criteria set forth in Section 2 and the
information derived from Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, of
the areas within the 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 DESIGNATE TRIBUTARY AREAS. For each water
reclamation facility identified in the Master Plan,
designate proposed tributary areas. Within such
areas, discharges to the sewage system shall be subject
to permitting, monitoring and control measures to
protect public health, safety and public and private
property. Designation of tributary areas shall be
adopted by ordinance, and may be included in the Master
Plan. Prior to designation of tributary areas,
appropriate notice shall be given to property owners
and residents of the area.
4.2.4 QUALITY OF WATER TO BE RECLAIMED. For each
water reclamation treatment facility, evaluate water
quality with respect to the effect on anticipated uses
of reclaimed water to be served by each treatment
facility. Evaluate sources of waste discharge and
sewer inflow that may, directly or cumulatively,
substantially contribute to adverse water quality
conditions in reclaimed water.
4.2.5 TRIBUTARY PROTECTION MEASURES. Develop
recommended control measures and management practices
for each designated tributary area to maintain or
improve the quality of reclaimed water. Such control
measures may include capital improvements to the sewer
collection system and waste discharge restrictions for
industrial, commercial and residential discharges.
4.2.6 MANDATORY RECLAIMED WATER USE. For each
reclaimed water service area, evaluate whether
greenbelt irrigation, agricultural irrigation,
commercial office buildings, filling of artificial
lakes, or industrial processes shall be limited to the
use of reclaimed water. As appropriate, 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, in accordance with the procedures
described in Section 5. Identify resources and adopt
measures to assist water users in the financing of
necessary conversions.
4.2.7 RULES AND REGULATIONS. Establish general rules
and regulations governing the use and distribution of
reclaimed water.
4.2.8 PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAM. Establish a
comprehensive water reclamation public awareness
program.
4.2.9 COORDINATION AMONG AGENCIES. An examination of
the potential for initiating a coordinated effort
between the 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
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 schedule for
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.
5.1.3 OBJECTIONS; APPEALS. The water customer may
file a notice of objection with the
within (30) days after of 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. Staff (to be specified) shall
review the objection and shall confirm, modify or
abandon the preliminary determination. Upon issuance
of a final determination by staff, customer may appeal
the determination as follows: (The desired appeal
process should here be described.)
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 [ or for new or altered
water service {Note: Applicable to water districts
only}], the 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 [or
service.(Note: Applicable in water districts only; such
Conditions should normally be placed upon projects at
the earliest possible stage, e.g. subdivision map
c o
approval.) ]
5.2.2 ALTERATIONS AND REMODELING. On a case by case
basis, upon application for a permit for the alteration
or remodeling of raulti-family, commercial or industrial
structures (including, for example, hotels), the
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 approval of the
development application [or application for water
service ( Water districts only.) ]. (Note: Since in
most cases, development conditions can be negotiated or
appealed through established procedures, no new process
is provided here.)
5.2.4 REQUESTED SERVICE. On a case by case bases,
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 above, the 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 that a property shall be
served with reclaimed water, or adoption of a condition of
development approval [or water service (Water districts
only) ] requiring use or accommodation of the use of
reclaimed water, the water customer, owner or applicant
shall obtain a reclaimed water permit.
5.3.1 PERMIT CONDITIONS. The permit shall specify the
design and operational requirements for the applicant's
water distribution facilities and schedule for
compliance, based on the rules and regulations adopted
pursuant to Section 4.2 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 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 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 the
determines that the applicant is in
compliance with the permit conditions.
5.4 TEMPORARY USE OP POTABLE WATER: At the discretion of
the , potable water may be made available on a
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
at least thirty (30) 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 .
SECTION 6: REGULATION OP WASTE DISCHARGE TO SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
6.1 INTENT: The 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 sewerage 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 service.
SECTION 7. SANCTIONS
7.1 PUBLIC NUISANCE: Discharge of wastes or the use of
reclaimed water in any manner in violation of this ordinance
or of any permit issued hereunder is hereby declared a
public nuisance and shall be corrected or abated as directed
by . Any person creating such a publicnuisance is guilty of a misdemeanor.
7.2 INJUNCTION: Whenever a discharge of wastes or use of
reclaimed water is in violation of this ordinance or
otherwise causes or threatens to cause a condition of
nuisance, the 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
m&y 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 a nuisance.
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, 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.
GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN
DIRECTOR
(619) 694-2212
(LOCATION CODE 75O)
(Etmntg af JSan
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
5555 OVERLAND AVE. SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92123-1295
^-'" •—.<? or
COUNTY ENGINEER
COUNTY AIRPORTS
COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
COUNTY SURVEYOR
FLOOD CONTROL
LIQUID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
June 27, 1989
City of Carlsbad
Utilities and Maintenance Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1519
Attention: Mr. Ralph Anderson
Subject: Encina Basin Water Reclamation Project, Phase I Program Facilities
Plan
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Reference is made to the Encina Subcommittee meeting of June 13, 1989, during
which the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Project - Phase I Program Facilities
Plan was approved by the members. During that meeting, the City of Carlsbad
asked that each member agency issue a resolution approving the "plan" and
authorizing the City of Carlsbad to be the lead agency for the project in order
for you to present this issue to the city council by July 11, 1989.
The Buena Sanitation District's Board of Directors shall be meeting on July 18,
1989. Accordingly, we will not be able to obtain such resolution by July 11.
However, staff is preparing a letter to be heard on July 18, 1989 by our Board.
In that letter, staff will request that the Board approve the facilities plan
and a resolution authorizing the City of Carlsbad to be the lead agency on the
Phase I program. Attached you will find a draft of said Board letter.
If you have any questions, please contact George M. Khoury at 694-2129.
Very truly yours,
,ROGER F. WALSH, Chief Deputy Director
Department of Public Works
Enclosure
RFW:GMK:jn
5/7-003
EXHIBIT 3
BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN Dt^GO
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
16OO PACIFIC HIGHWAY. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101-2472
TELEPHONE (619) 531-52SO • LOCATION CODE 73O
AGENDA ITEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BRIAN P. BILBRAYFIRST DISTRICT
GEORGE F. BAILEYSECOND DISTRICT
SUSAN GOLDINGTHIRD DISTRICT
LEON l_ WILLIAMS
FOURTH DISTRICT
JOHN MACOONALD
FIFTH DISTRICT
SUBJECT: Acceptance of the Encina Basin Water Reclamation
Project - Phase I Project Facilities Plan Report and
Authorizing the City of Carlsbad to be Lead Agency in
this Project
SUPV DIST: 5
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
This is a request to receive and accept the Encina Basin Water
Reclamation Project - Phase I Program Facilities Plan Report, and
to adopt a resolution authorizing the City of Carlsbad to be the
lead agency in the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Project.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive and accept the Encina Basin Water Reclamation
Project Phase I Program Facilities Plan Report.
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City of Carlsbad to be
the lead agency in the Encina Basin Water Reclamation
Project - Phase I Program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This funding source is Buena Sanitation District. If approved,
this request will result in $ -0- current year cost, $ -0- annual
cost and will require the addition of -0- staff years.
BOARD POLICY(IES) APPLICABLE:N/A
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: N/A
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
June 29, 1989
LOIS HUMPHREYS
President
STEPHEN DEEDING
Vice President
ELAINE SULLIVAN
Director
JUDDirS°N Honorable Mayor Claude Lewis
and Members. City CouncilWILLIAM™ CITY OF
,«.urr,rr,u.nJOA™ART Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Reclaimed Water Agreement
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have reviewed the draft Reclaimed Water Purchase Agreement prepared
for the City by Luke-Dudek Engineers. Your staff has requested the Directors of
the District approve the draft so that it may be considered by the Council on
July 11.
While we are most anxious to move forward to make reclamation a reality
in the City, I cannot recommend the draft agreement in its present form to the
Leucadia Board. As we have discussed many times with City staff, the State
Office of Recycling requires, as a condition to our loan, an agreement, which
specifies the quantity to be purchased. In correspondence from the State dated
December 1, 1987 (copy enclosed), Richard Wasser, Chief of the State Office of
Water Recycling stated:
"PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE, USER
CONTRACTS WILL BE REQUIRED COMMITTING USERS TO USE AT
LEAST 50% OF THE ELIGIBLE SYSTEM DESIGN CAPACITY DURING
THE FIRST YF.AR OF OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND
LETTERS OF INTENT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE REMAINDER OF
THE USERS."
Mr. Nick Kontos of the Office of Water Recycling informed us on June 23
that while only 50% of the reclaimed water must be used in the first year of
operation, 100% of the water must be used by the fifth year.
The draft you submitted states, "...the volume cf reclaimed water that
can[ ^e delivered^ (not, 'will be delivered') to CITY will be about 450 acre-feet
per year, but that the actuaT~volume per year will vary according to seasonal
needs for irrigation water." We understand that during wet years, the end user
may require less than the minimum of 450 acre-feet and that during dry years
they may require considerably more. We addressed this issue in ourjjraft
agreement which you have reviewed, which provides for "banking" concept ^off-
set the changing annual needs.
EXHIBIT 4
District Office: 1960 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92009 • P.O. Box 2397, Leucadia, California 92024-0954 • (619) 753-0155
Printed on recycled paper.
'"•*»%
'**•'*
Honorable Mayor Claude Lewis
and Members, City Council
June 29, 1989
Page two
The draft also contains other provisions which we would like to discuss
with you. Hopefully, we can work out an agreeable solution in time to enable
the District to proceed with the project. As the Encina Basin Study indicates,
obtaining LCWD's loan and a loan to the City from the 1988 State allocation
is critical to the success of the project.
We are now working on several revisions to the agreement as submitted
and will contact you soon for discussions.
In the meantime, at a meeting held June 28, the Board affirmed their
intention to enter into an agreement with the City of Carlsbad for the sale of
reclaimed water from the Gafner Plant provided the agreement contains provisions
acceptable to the District and the State Office of Water Recycling for the
issuance of a loan to construct the required facilities.
The Directors also approved the City of Carlsbad as purveyor of
reclaimed water for the Encina Basin Plan project; and accepted the Murk Study
with the understanding the quantities, reimbursements to agencies and costs
will be negotiated satisfactorily prior to implementation.
For your convenience, I am providing you copies of the draft agreement
provided by Luke-Dudek and the prior draft we proposed.
Yours very truly,
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
J&&H.
Joan R. Geiselhart
Secretary-Manager
JRG/bls
encls.
cc: Manager, City of Carlsbad
Attorney, City of Carlsbad
Engineer, City of Carlsbad
Luke-Dudek Engineers
Olivenrfain Municipal Water District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
June 21, 1989
Mr. Ralph Anderson
Utilities & Maintenance Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008 COPY
RE: Encina Basin Water Reclamation Project Phase I Program Facilities Plan
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The management of Olivenhain Municipal Water District intends to recommend to
the Board of Directors at the regularly scheduled July Board meeting that the
Board formally approve the following:
A. Recognize and accept as completed the Encina Basin Water Reclamation
Project Phase I Program Facilities Plan by John S. Murk Engineers.
B. Direct management to advise the City of Carlsbad City Council that
Olivenhain approves of and encourages the City of Carlsbad to act as the
lead agency to implement Phase I of the Encina Facilities Plan.
C. Urge and encourage the City of Carlsbad City Council to move ahead as
quickly as possible with implementation of the Encina Basin Facilities
Plan.
The Olivenhain Board of Directors has actively and agressively pursued
development of water reclamation projects within the bounds of Olivenhain
Municipal Water District. This includes adopting one of the first mandatory
use ordinances in the County. Subsequently the San Diego County Water
Authority has developed a sample mandatory use ordinance.
The Olivenhain Municipal Water District wishes to encourage the Carlsbad City
Council when considering the City's mandatory use ordinance, to insert a
stringent brine prohibition. Additionally, the District urges the Carlsbad
City Council to consider revising their mandatory use ordinance to deal
specifically with the subject of self-recharging water softeners. Studies by
the San Diego County Water Authority have shown self-recharging water softeners
to be a significant contributor to the salt content of sewer effluent.
Vallecitos Water District and the Leucadia County Water District have had
ordinances prohibiting the use of self-recharging water softeners in their
respective service areas for many years. Please give serious consideraton to
imposing this prohibition in the City of Carlsbad.
EXHIBIT 5
Mr. Ralph Anderson
June 21, 1989
Page Two
The County Water Authority model ordinance requires a brine permit and
imposition of an annual brine fee. In the opinion of the Olivenhain Municipal
Water District, this is virtually impossible to administer and provides no
"spring board" for the City to encourage voluntary compliance as would the
specific and strict prohibition of self-recharging water softeners.
Thank you very much for your consideration. Please keep the District posted on
the development of your mandatory use ordinance.
Sincerely,
David C. MoCollom
Assistant Manager
1km
cc:Peter MacLaugin, San Diego County Water Authority
John S. Murk, J.S. Murk Engineering
RESOLUTION NO. 624
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
APPROVING DRAFT ENCINA BASIN WATER RECLAMATION
PROJECT FACILITIES PLAN - PHASE I PROGRAM
AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROCEED AS THE LEAD AGENCY
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of water conservation
and water reclamation that a plan of action be taken for the
benefit of the citizens of Carlsbad.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
That the Board of Directors of Carlsbad Municipal Water
District hereby approves the draft Encina Basin Water
Reclamation project Facilities Plan - Phase I Program as
approved and recommended by the Water Authority
Reclamation Advisory Committee - Encina Subcommittee,
and
That the Board of Directors of Carlsbad Municipal Water
District hereby agrees that the City of Carlsbad should
make application for a low interest loan to the
California State Water Resources Control Board and
recommend that the City of Carlsbad proceed as the lead
agency .
1989.
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 21st day of June,
Emmett J
Presiden
CARLSBAD
u£ DiTTectors
ICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Margaret' J. Bonas
Secretary, Board of Directors
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT EXHIBIT 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 89-306
A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE EXISTING CONSULTANT
CONTRACT WITH LUKE-DUDEK, CIVIL ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED, FOR
THE PREPARATION OF AN UPDATED WATER RECLAMATION MASTER PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
WHEREAS, Luke-Dudek, Civil Engineers, Incorporated
was approved as consultants for the preparation of an updated
Water Reclamation Master Plan at a cost of $54,680.00 on
February 7, 1989, by Resolution No. 89-35.
WHEREAS, a change order for an additional
$5,240.00 was approved on May 24, 1989.
WHEREAS, an additional $10,000.00 is required to
provide for consultant assistance to City staff to accomplish
additional required work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitation are true and correct.
2. That the amount of $10,000 is authorized to
provide Consultant assistance to City staff to
accomplish additional required work.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, held on the 22nd day of August ,
1989 and by the following vote, to wit:
EXHIBIT 7
* T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, Mamaux & Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
IDE A."LEWIS, flayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City
(SEAL)