Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1210-80; San Diego Water Reuse Study; San Diego Water Reuse Study; 1980-08-29SAN DIEGO CITY/COUNTY WATER REUSE STUDY WATER RECLAMATION REPORT "9 A n \ A A \ Prepared by: Joseph N. Barry Date: August 29, 1980 Senior Water Quality Biologist SAN DIEGO CITY/COUNTY WATER REUSE STUDY WATER RECLAMATION REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The San Diego City/County Water Reuse Study was formed in 1978 and funded under Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1972. The purpose of the Study was to investigate the feasibility of de- veloping cost-effective water reclamation projects in the San Diego Region. The Study was responsible for preparing the project reports, environmental impact reports, financial plans and revenue programs and any other documenta- tion necessary for applying for Step 3 construction grants. During the development of twelve water reclamation projects authorized for study, it became apparent that there were several obstacles or constraints to developing cost-effective water reclamation projects. The majority of the obstacles involved various laws, policies and guidelines of state agencies, and the interpretation of such laws, policies and guidelines by various state and local agencies. Given the constraints confronting water reclamation, the San Diego City/County Water Reuse Study staff concluded that most water recla- mation projects in the San Diego Region would not be cost-effective and therefore would not be grant-funded for construction. It also became apparent that there would be little, if any, state or federal funds for construction of water reclamation projects. The Water Reuse staff determined that given the constraints to water re- clamation, and the lack of construction funds, it may be inappropriate'to con- tinue with the Water Reuse Study. SAN DIEGO CITY/COUNTY WATER REUSE STUDY WATER RECLAMATION REPORT I. Introduction A. Water Reclamation. Califomia law defines reclaimed water as "water which, as a result of treatment of wastewater is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur". The Legislature recog- nized the need for planned water reuse by enacting the Water Reclamation Law which declared that "the state undertake all possible steps to en- courage development of water reclamation facilities so that reclaimed water may be made available to help meet the growing water requirements of the state". The Policy and Action Plan for Water Reclamation in Califomia prepared by the State Water Resources Control Board CSWRCB) in January 1977, re- cognized the need for water reclamation. The report stated that 80% of the potential for wastewater reclamation is in basins where wastewater is now discharged to the ocean or saline water bodies. One of the po- tential basins was identified as Basin 9, San Diego Basin. B. Goals for Water Reclamation. One of the goals for water reclamation, established by Governor Brown, was for the reclamation of 400,000 acre-feet of water per year by 1982. The goal for the San Diego Region, established in the Water Reuse Plan was for the reclamation of 50,000 acre-feet per year. C. 201 Planning Efforts. In 1978 the City and County of San Diego received a 201 Grant for the development of water reclamation projects. The San Diego City/ County Water Reuse Study was formed. The main objective of the Study as stated in grant memorandum,was to develop cost-effective water re- clamation projects. Subsequent actions of the Water Reuse Study Staff were governed by the compelling objective, A Work Plan for the study was developed by the Reuse Staff and approved by an Executive Committee comprised of local, state and federal agencies. The Work Plan was developed in a manner which was consistent with various guidelines, policies, and resolutions of the SWRCB, and consistent with funding limitations of both the SWRCB and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The general rationale for project development was to de- termine: (1) the degree of treatment which may be required, (2) the cost of such treatment, (3) the cost-effectiveness of treatment, (4) potential benefits, and (5) markets for water reuse. It was known with certainty that projects which were not cost-effective, would not be grant funded, and therefore, should not be pursued further. II. Background A. Appeal of Basin Plan Amendments. In 1978 the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board [Regional Board) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Region. The County of San Diego and other public agencies provided a considerable amount of information and requested that water qua- lity objectives be modified in several basins throughout the region in order to enhance water reclamation. Most of the suggestions were rejected forcing further efforts in behalf of water reclamation. In an effort to further cost-effective water reclamation, the County of San Diego requested the Regional Board to prepare an Environmental Impact Report -2- (EIR) on the amended Basin Plan. The County felt there was a substantial body of opinion which urged the Regional Board to prepare the EIR rather than adopt a Negative Declaration. The EIR would provide for a full dis- closure of the potential beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the Amended Basin Plan, especially as it would affect water reclamation. However, the EIR was not prepared and further appeal by the County to the SWRCB was unsuccessful. B, Resolution 78-15. The County of San Diego made a presentation before the SWRCB on 5 April 1978 identifying the problems and constraints to water reclama- tion imposed by the Basin Plan. As a result of the Coimty's presentation, the SWRCB adopted Resolution 78-15 which directed the Regional Board to take specific actions to foster cost-effective water reclamation in the San Diego Region. The Water Reuse Work Plan was developed around the directives contained in Resolution 78-15, Resolution 78-15 became a very important document. The resolution re- quested certain actions by the Regional Board, and provided sufficient latitude for what County staff considered "reasonable" interpretation of various plans, policies and gtiidelines, to encourage water reclamation. However, the County felt the Regional Board did not make a reasonable effort to comply with Resolution 78-15, and pressed for resolution of the different interpretations by the County, Regional Board and State Board. Efforts to resolve the issues with the Regional Board and State Board through workshops and correspondence were unsuccessful. In an effort to clarify the interpretation, Mr. Leonard Burtman, a member of -3- the Water Reuse Executive Committee and the Executive Officer of the Regional Board, suggested the Executive Committee or the County submit a project and have the Regional Board adopt waste discharge requirements; then the Committee or County, if either disagreed with the Regional Board interpretation, could appeal the requirements. Mr. Burtman suggested this may be the quickest or the only way to resolve the issues and inter- pretation of Resolution 78-15. C. Appeal. The Executive Committee decided that the County of San Diego should submit an appeal on the inaction of the Regional Board to comply with Re- solution 78-15, and for failure to adopt waste discharge requirements for the Shadow Ridge Water Reclamation Project, consistent with Resolution 78-15 and the approved Work Plan. D. Order 80-7. Following nearly one year of lengthy hearings and the provisions of considerable testimony and data, the SWRCB rendered a decision in the form of Order 80-7. In the opinion of the County, Order 80-7 provided for less intensive demineralization for most projects and suggested that high limita- tions (numerically higher, or poorer quality) would be allowed where there is a substitution of reclaimed water for the use of high total dissolved solids (TDS) groundwater for irrigation. In a subsequent report from the Regional Board, it was stated that demineralization to 550 mg/1 TDS would be required even at the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course where groundwater is extracted for use and the TDS is 1340 mg/1 when last tested in September 1979. -4- E. Evaluation of Projects. In the evaluation of the twelve water reclamation projects being de- veloped by the Water Reuse Study, following a review of a special "90-Day Report" by the County and Regional Board and submitted to the SIVRCB, staff of the Water Reuse Study concluded that only two projects might be cost- effecitve, one of which was already practicing water reclamation (see attachment 1). In frustration, staff of the Water Reuse Study and County concluded it would be inappropriate to expend any more County or 201 Grant funds pur- suing water reclamation projects given today's constraints. Limitations imposed by the 201 Grant necessitated the development of the existing Work Plan. It appears that Resolution 78-15 and Order 80-7 as interpreted by the Regional Board will not allow the development of cost-effective water reclamation projects consistent with the Work Plan. Ill. Obstacles to Water Reclamation A. Basin Plan 1. Beneficial Uses - domestic water supply highest use 2. Objectives - numerical rather than narrative a. TDS and mineral constituents (1/3 rule) b. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses and prescribes water quality to protect those uses. The Basin Plan describes domestic water supply as the highest use. Domestic water supply requires the highest quality of water. Basins are managed to protect the domestic water supply bene- ficial use, sometimes at the expense of other valuable beneficial uses -5- which do not require such high quality water. The enhancement of many other beneficial uses is precluded because of costs of high degree of treatment necessary to comply with basin objectives to protect marginal domestic water supplies. B. Non-degradation Policy. 1. Maximum benefit concept 2. Mandates compliance with all plans This policy provides for the evaluation of benefits which may be associated with discharges of water, reclaimed or otherwise. However, the policy does not provide detail or criteria as to how to evaluate benefits or various trade-offs. This is extremely important today be- cause of economic, energy and environmental costs associated with high degrees of treatment to protect water quality. The problem is to de- termine what costs are reasonable to expend and how critical are the quality requirements of certain beneficial uses. The County believes the Regional Board pre-supposes that water quality should be protected for the highest use and at any cost. On the other hand, the County believes that the real costs are extremely important and some benefi- cial uses do not warrant the degree of protection afforded them. Some beneficial uses should be given higher priority over others. Water quality should be protected for high water quality beneficial uses only where feasible and reasonable. Too much emphasis is placed on protecting water quality and not near enough on resource management. It is absolutely essential that a balance be struck between these two objectives. Unfortimately, different people and agencies have different "values" and therefore would analyze a proposal and come to different -6- conclusions. What is needed is a balance ledger to evaluate all costs and all benefits, and then determine the best aitemative in terms of all resources, not just protection of water quality alone. The Non-degradation Policy requires compliance with all plans and policies. IVhere Basin Plans contain numerical objectives, they must be used in es- tablishing waste discharge requirements. It seems that even where other less stringent numerical objectives may be consistent with the "maximum benefit" concept, by allowing for conservation or better management of our resources, less stringent requirements cannot be adopted because the Non- degradation Policy mandates compliance with existing plans. In this regard, the Non-degradation Policy seems to be contradictory. The County believes the "maximum benefit" approach^be the deciding factor. This would allow woull lead for the rational evaluation of costs and benefits and ultimately to the better management of our water, energy, wildlife and other valuable re- sources . The Policy also requires that where water quality is high or better than the Basin Plan objectives, the high quality will be maintained. This essentially indicates that such waters will not be used for assimilating wastes and in all likelihood would preclude the use o£ reclaimed water. On the other hand, where water quality is poorer than Basin objectives, the waters have no assimilative capacity and therefore, a high degree of treat- ment is required. The high degree of treatment precludes cost-effective water reclamation and leads to the continued waste of water to the ocean. C. Rancho-Caballero Decision. Directs Regional Boards to implement Basin Plan objectives. This -7- decision pre-supposes that Basin Plan objectives are both reasonable and achievable. In reality, for specific cases, the Basin Plan ob- jectives may not be attainable. Various characteristics of various basins are impacted by so many variables that attainment of the objec- tives are questionable and may not be possible. The economic and re- source costs to pursue the attainment of the objectives may far over- shadow any benefit. However, the Rancho-Caballero Decision requires the Regional Boards to prescribe the Basin Objectives as the highest numerical values permissable. The County believes that the Basin Plan objectives may not be attainable by the control of point sources alone. Recent investiga- tions by EPA and state agencies has shown that non-point sources may contribute substantially to pollutant loads to basins. The high costs associated with a high degree of treatment of point sources, may not be warranted. The San Diego Regional Board, in an attempt to comply with the Rancho-Caballero decision, goes one step further by the appli- cation on the 1/3 rule, in an attempt to implement the Basin Plan objectives. D. 1/3 rule of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). Contrary to directives of the SWRCB in Order 80-7, the RB continues to apply the 1/3 rule. This rule is applied to reclaimed water use to compensate for evapo-transpiration of 2/3 of the water which may concen- trate salts in the remaining 1/3 of the water. This rule is normally used in the absence of more comprehensive data. The "rule" ignores var- ious interactions which may occur, such as: 9 Chemical precipitation or dilution • Sorption and ion exchange in soils 9 Chemical oxidation and reduction -8- The Regional Board continues to use this rule as evidenced by the recent amendments to the Shadow Ridge Project (Order 79-76, Addendum No. 1). The requirements for constituents other than TDS are based upon the 1/3 rule, E. Resolution 78-15. 1. Misinterpretation by County and/or Regional Board 2. Non-compliance by Regional Board 3. Non-enforcement by State Board Resolution 78-15 was an important document in the development of the Work Plan for the San Diego Reuse Study. However, the resolution was interpreted in different manners by various agencies. Several attempts were made to obtain clarification on the interpretation, but all failed as evidenced by the continued conflict and differences among affected agencies. Finally, Order 80-7 by the SWRCB, acknowledged that the Regional Board had not complied with all paragraphs of Resolution 78-15. Order 80-7 stated it would not force the Regional Board to comply with all paragraphs of Resolution 78-15, and the order sought better cooperation between the County and Regional Board. F. Order 80-7. Misinterpretation by the Regional Board This order contained provisions for establishing waste discharge re- quirements and for considering various trade-offs in management of ground- water. Again, the Regional Board's interpretation was different than the County's or the State Board. In the establishment of waste discharge re- quirements for the Shadow Ridge Project, the State Board concluded that -9- the use of the 1/3 rule was inappropriate. The State Board decided that a TDS of 550 mg/1 was appropriate at Shadow Ridge Golf Course; and for use on the Rancho-Carlsbad Golf Course, a higher TDS water (possibly 850 mg/1) could be used. However, the Regional Board, in revising waste discharge requirements, changed the TDS to 550 mg/1 but attempted to make some con- stituents more strict, but ended up by leaving other constituents at 'U/3" the Basin Plan objectives. It is the County's opinion that all constituents should have been re- vised upwards in the same proportion as the TDS, since the original WDR were based upon the "1/3" rule ratio. It seems logical to use the same method to revise niomerical concentrations upwards as well as downwards from numerical objectives. However, the State Board and Regional Board did not agree. In an effort to put the issue to rest, the County agreed to the 550 mg/1 TDS with all other constituents at 1/3 the Basin Plan ob- jectives. It was felt that it was probable, due to the requirement for demineralization to 550 mg/1 TDS, that other constituents could be reduced to near the 1/3 requirement. The Regional Board, in the "90-Day Report", determined that the appro- priate requirements for the use of reclaimed water at the Rancho-Carlsbad Golf Course was the quality of the imported water or a TDS of 550 mg/1, even though the golf course uses groundwater with a TDS of 1350 mg/1 and where the Basin Plan objectives are 1200 mg/1. We assxame the other con- stituents would be the same quality at the alternate potable water supply. The County believes it was the intent of Order 80-7 to allow a TDS of 850 mg/1 at the Rancho-Carlsbad Golf Course. So again, there is a differ- ent interpretation of the order. It is not clear whether the order -10- generates confusion or whether there is a deliberate attempt to torturously interpret or to misinterpret the Order, by either party. G. 201 Grant - Funding Limitations It was made clear from the outset that the Water Reuse Study would be limited to $500,000 and that there would be no additional funds for special studies. A request for $180,000 for special groundwater studies, to sat- isfy the Regional Board, was denied. The Executive Committee concluded that a Work Plan would be developed around Resolution 78-15 and would util- ize existing information. No special groundwater or basin studies were authorized. H. Cost-Effective Guidelines One of the conditions for grant funds for implementation of water re- clamation projects, was that the project must be cost-effective within certain limits. Only cost-effective projects had a chance of being funded. Therefore, one of the compelling objectives for the Water Reuse Study was to reduce the costs of treatment where reasonable and practical. It was known that any project which required demineralization or nutrient stripping would in all likelihood be cost-ineffective. So it was important to deter- mine whether the Regional Board would comply with Resolution 78-15, would follow the approved Work Plan, and would develop what the County considered "reasonable" requirements for water reclamation; and thereby allow for cost- effective projects. I. Public Health Concerns There has been much concem recently for stable organic compounds such as trihalomethanes in waters and especially in reclaimed wastewater. How- ever, to date, the State Department of Public Health has not adopted criteria -11- for permissible levels of trihalomethanes in waters used for various purposes. Until criteria are established, the impacts on requirements for control of these compounds would be somewhat speculative. There does exist, however, requirements for monitoring. Monitoring costs are and can be substantial. (See Item K). Other concerns for bacteria and viruses do not seem to impose any obstacle to water reclamation. J. High Costs of Treatment a. Demineralization b. Nutrient Stripping for N § P The need for demineralization to 550 mg/1 TDS will add approximately $650 to the cost of one acre-foot of reclaimed water. The need for nutrient stripping of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Basin Plan objectives of 0.5 and 0.05 mg/1 will add approximately $100 to the cost of one acre-foot of reclaimed water, K. High Costs of Special Conditions for Use a. Failsafe, cut-off trenches, monitoring wells b. Monitoring c. Special management plans Provisions of various failsafe facilities in addition to the water re- clamation facilities adds to the cost of water reclamation projects. Any other special conditions of use such as special trenches, wells or water collection sumps adds further to the cost and tends to discourage potential users of the reclaimed water. Monitoring requirements can be a substantial cost to water reclamation. Requirements for monitoring of a relatively samll water reclamation project -12- (1 MGD) may add approximately $100 to $300 to the cost of reclaiming one acre-foot of water. Special management plans will also add substantially to the cost of water reclamation. In some cases, nuisance management plans must be de- veloped by project proponents and approved by the Regional Board. Al- though, there are no examples of the extent of such programs - they undoubtedly could be substantial and costly. In all, these special con- ditions of use of reclaimed water, all tend to discourage the reclamation and use of reclaimed water. K. Energy Impact Comparisons kwh/ac.ft. Colorado River - pumping 2,000 2650 (Average) N, Califomia - pumping 3,300 Water Treatment & Distribution 75 Pumping Treatment 50 Secondary Treatment 360 Ocean Disposal 250 Demineralization 2,000* Nutrient Removal 500* Filtration 40 Chlorination 100 *Highest energy use associated with reclamation L. Total Costs of Reclamation The total cost of waste treatment and water reclamation for a facility of around 1 mgd in size, with present day constraints and special conditions. -13- will be approximately $1,400 to $1,800 per acre-foot of water. (June 1980 dollars) (See comparisons to desalinization in Attachment 2). IV. Summary A. There are differences of opinions and philosophies regarding water and resource management, and these differences have not been adequately resolved. B. Water quality is affected both by point and non-point sources with only the point sources being regulated. Water quality objectives may not be achieved by regulation of point sources alone. C. Present laws, policies, and guidelines, as interpreted by various agencies, do not allow for the proper evaluation of water reclamation benefits and detriments. Emphasis is disproportionately placed on maintaining or achieving high water quality objectives. D. Impacts on resources have not been properly considered in the attempt to achieve water quality objectives, E. Some beneficial uses are being protected at the detriment of others. The values of the adversely impacted beneficial uses are not properly assessed by regulatory agencies. V. Conclusions A. There is too much emphasis on protection of water quality, especially marginal or poor water quality which in many cases does not meet the re- quirements for the intended use. Domestic water supply is the prime ex- ample. B. It has become quite evident that water reclamation projects, given the constraints and conditions facing them in San Diego County, will not be -14- cost-effective. If water reclamation is to proceed, it must be subsidized not only economically, but also by the depletion of energy and natural re- sources. C. Present state laws, policies and guidelines are somewhat contradictory and do not allow for the timely and orderly development of cost-effective water reclamation projects. VI. Recommendat ions Under present constraints, water reclamation is very expensive and not cost-effecfive. It is recommended by the San Diego City/County Water Reuse Executive Committee and staff, that the water reclamation study be terminated at this time, and until the State Agencies take the appropriate steps to assure a balance between resource management and water quality protection. The State must develop clear, concise, firm, and equitable guidance in order to achieve water reclamation and resouce management objectives. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) should consider the following: A. Reaffirmation of the water reclamation policy B. Revision of the San Diego Basin Plan C. Further clarification of the Non-degradation Policy D. Further clarification of the Rancho-Caballero Decision E. Secure funding for water reclamation projects prior to further study or to project development. F. Secure funding for any necessary special studies G. Eliminate multi-jurisdictional problems by forming a water reclama- tion agency to coordinate water reclamation efforts within State Agencies and to render decisions binding on all agencies. -15- July Attachment 1 SAN DIEGO CITY/COUNTY WATER REUSE STUDY Feasibility Analysis and Alternative Actions Project Feasibility The Feasibility of the water reclamation projects has been analyzed and the projects are listed below. The numbers following each project refer to the listed numbered parameters. The determination of infeasibility or cost ineffectiveness is based upon the following parameters: 1. Need for Basin Plan amendments Mo funds are available in the 201 Study for obtaining information to support the amendments. Also, there is no assurance that the basin plan would be amended if the information is obtained. 2. Need for special studies, data or programs No funds are available in the 201 Study for studies to determine past, present and projected physical, chemical and biological characteristics of receiving waters; or to prepare a receiving water management program; or for other special studies. 3. Cost ineffective-DemIneralization Where demineralization is required, even to meet the quality of the alternate imported water supply, the cost per acre foot of water will approach $1000. The impact on resources associated with this high cost of water is considered excessive. Imported water may cost $300 per acre foot and it is difficult to imagine that there is $700 worth of benefits in reclaiming water. 4. Cost ineffective-Nutrient Stripping Where nutrient stripping is required to meet the Basin Plan object- ives, the added cost to water reclamation Is approximately $100 per acre foot; and the receiving water (nuisance) management plan may add substantially to the cost, depending on several factors, many of which are unknown. 5. Cost Ineffective-Stable organics In basinswhere groundwaters are used for domestic purposes, costs associated with the requirements for stable organics, • or with monitoring programs for the detection of stable organics, is substantial. The costs of monitoring alone may add $200 per acre foot of reclaimed water. 6. Lack of interest In some areas due to various legal, political, physical, social or environmental constraints, there is a general lack of interest in pursuing water reclamation. -l6-{a) Page 2 4 - Cost Ineffective or Infeasible Projects Attachment 1 3. Bonsall (Pala Mesa) - Reasons 5,6 5. Buena - Reasons 3,5 Rancho Carlsbad option - Reasons 1,2,3 (?),5,6 7. Encina - Reasons 1,2,3,6 8. Encinitas - Reasons 1,2,3,6 10. Palomar/San Marcos - Reasons 1,2,3,5 11. San Elijo - Reasons 1,2,3,4,5 12. Del Mar - Reasons 1,2,3,4 13. Escondido (Hale Ave) - Reasons 1 {?), 5 16. San Diego County Estates - Reasons 1,3,5 17. Santee (#4) - Reasons 1,2,3,4 Feasible Projects 4. Valley Center 14. Ramona Alternate Actions 1. Follow the RWQCB philosophy on plan and conduct all necessary studies to collect all information required by RB for Basin Plan ammendments. a. Outline course of action b. Prioritize Basins c. Compute study costs d. Environmental impacts primary and secondary e. Develop time schedules for each phase; from study, through plan amendments, to project implementation. 2. Through a series of water reclamation workshops with various agencies, try to determine a logical approach to water reuse, irrespective of laws and policies. Emphasis should be on the conservation of resources. Determine which laws and policies could or should be changed to facilitate reclamation and resource management. 3. Abandon water reclamation efforts and allow project development to occur which will seek the path of least resistance. In this case, where developers need sewer capacity, they may be willing to fund any kind of water reelamation project if that is the only means to get sewer capacity. This may result in very costly, energy^^resource intensive projects which may not be cost effective with regards to resources and the environment , but may be profitable for developers. The developers of course, will pass along the high capital and O&M costs to the consumer. Once channeled into this expensive, and energy and resource intensive mode of operation, it may be difficult to change for many years to come. -16- (b) 8/28/80 Attachment 2 Buena Sanitation District Shadow Ridge Water Reclamation Facility Cost and Energy Analysis Present Water Reclamation Alternative Capacity 1.0 MGD (ultimate) = 1120 ac.ft/year 850 ac.ft. per year reclaimable 1120 ac.ft. per year total treated for use or disposal Capital Cost $10,000,000 Life Expectancy 30 year (Average for facilities) Ammortized Capital 8 percent for 30 years - factor = 0.08883 $10,000,000 X 0.08883 = $888,300 per year om Labor $105,700 Contract Services 70,040 Utilities 152,908 Chemicals 10,484 Misc. (Monitoring $28,000) 109,263 Subtotal $448,395 Contingencies 10% 44,840 Total $493,235 Total Yearly Cost Capital = $ 888,300 om = 493,235 11,381,535 Cost Per Acre Foot $1,381,535 per year ' 850 ac.ft./yr = $l,625/ac.ft. -17- Attachment 2 (cont) Secondary and Ocean Disposal Aitemative 1120 acft. total treated and disposed Secondary and ocean disposal - this aitemative would not have the facilities for water reclamation or distribution system; the cost would be as follows: Capital om (or) Capital = $5,000,000 30 year life factor Annual Cost Labor Contract Services Utilities Chemicals Misc. $105,700 42,040 52,908 1,484 69,263 $271,395 Contingencies 10% 27,140 $298,535 Total Yearly Cost for Secondary Cost/Acre Foot (1120 ac.ft.) = 0.08883 $444,150 $742,685 $663/ac.ft -18- General Comparisons Attachment 2 (cont) 1.0 MGD Capacity Cost per acre foot Total Cost of Treatment and Reclamation Cost of Secondary Treatment § Ocean Disposal Cost of Reclamation Only (approximate) * Value of Water Net Additional Cost to Reclaim = Energy Requirements Total Energy - Treatment & Reclamation Energy for Secondary Treatment Disposal Energy for Reclamation Alone $l,625/ac.ft. 663/ac.ft. 650/ac.ft. $150-300/ac.ft $ 500/ac.ft 2,523,000 kwh/yr 679,000 kwh/yr 1,844,000 kwh/yr * Note: The cost of "reclamation only" does not include the cost of the distribution system, which may be highly valuable, whereas the cost of " treatment and reclamatiorf' (1625/ac-ft) does include distribution system from the sample from the Shadow Ridge Project. -19- Attachment 2 (cont) R.O. Desalinization of Sea Water (Saudi Arabia) Cost 5.565 SR*/,,3 M- 3.432 SR /„3 M (Conversion) High Cost - Small Plant Low Cost - Large Plant 1 mgd 3 mgd ($3.33 SR - $1.00(American)) 5.565SR 3.432SR * NOTE: SR = Saudi Reyales 1233.5 ,,3/ac.ft. M $1.67/j^3 $1.03/j^3 High $1.67/j^3 Low $1.03,,3 M Product Water Can Produce = $2059/ac.ft. = $1270/ac.ft. 1000 mg/1 TDS 50 - 100 mg/1 TDS Advantages: No restrictions on use, can be used for domestic supply Energy Power = 100 MW/lOmgd = 100,000,000 kw (1) $135,000 for electricity/year at 3.44^/kwh for 1 mgd plant = 3,924,418 kwh/year/365/mg or 1100 ac.ft. = 3570 kwh/acft. (5) $579,000 for elec/year at 34.4 ml/kwh for 5 mgd plant = 16,831,395 kwh/year/1825 mg or 5500 ac.ft. = 3060 kwh/ac.ft. -20- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AG: EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govfmor STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD P.O. BOX 100, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95801 (916) 322-0188 AUG 12 1980 TO: Persons Interested in the Flatter of the Petition of the County of San Diego for Review of Inaction of the San Diego Regional VJater Quality Control Board, Regarding Implementation of Water Reclamation Goals. Our File No, A-231(a). On April 3, 1980, the State Board adopted Order No. WQ 80-7 which addressed several issues regarding water reclamation in the San Diego Basin. VJith respect to water quality objectives, for nitrogen and phosphorus. Order No. WQ 80-7 provides as follows: Paragraph 3e of Resolution 78-15 requests the Regional Board to review certain numerical water quality objectives it has established for nitrogen and phosphorus. These objectives relate to surface waters, particularly to coastal lagoons where potential for replenishment with reclaimed water has been identified. While this issue was not specifically addressed at the public hearings, we understand that the County wishes to pursue the Regional Board's alleged failure to implement this request. This matter will not be addressed in this order but will be the subject of a separate Board order. The State Board is currently considering this issue. If you have any comments or response to this issue that you would like the State Board to consider, please file your comments and responses with the State Board within 20 days of the date of this letter. Si neerely. Wi11iam R. Attwater Deputy Executive Director cc: See attached mailing list RECEIVED AUG 181980 WOODSrot-KUBOTA S ASSOC. C.'.J..LL1IN0 TrNGlNEER'^ CAi-.i '•'•^P^ Pi?A ^UGiyQ^ C/]RLSBKD AAmiClPAL l/VATER DISTRIC June 8, 1979 Mr. Norman Magneson Project Manager San Diego Water Reuse Study County Operations Center 5555 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Subject: San Diego Water Reuse Study Dear Mr. Magneson: Thank you for the informational material being forwarded to this District from your project which we are finding timely and interesting. In fact, attached is an excerpt from our last informational report and our District has a particular interest in a proposed draft agreement that is proposed between the City of Vista, Vista Irrigation District, and the Buena Sanita- tion District as it relates to the production of a reclaimed wastewater followed by the distribution and marketing of same. Accordingly, we would appreciate having the information at such time it is available for public distribution. We also want to let you know that our market assessment program is proceed- ing and we shall have a report for you during the month of June, 1979. Very truly yours, CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ^^acjc Y. ^bota. Acting General Manager L/<]YK:jlw Attachment Ref: 2052.7 15 May 1979 CALTRANS District 11 2829 Juan Street San Diego, CA 92138 Attention: Phil OHvares SUBJECT: San Diego Water Reuse Study This letter is a follow-up to Rick Graff and Joe Remley of my staff meeting with you and Don Grey on 7 May 1979. The purpose of the meeting was to review the Water Reuse Study with you and to explore the possibilities of a reclaimed water market in freeway landscape watering. The Water Reuse Study is a Joint City of San Diego and County of San Diego effort to Implement twelve water reclamation projects. The $634,000 study is funded by Environmental Protection Agency and State grants with local funds furnished by the City and County. The twelve projects are described in the Work Plan delivered to you at the 7 May meeting. It appears that a potential for the use of reclaimed water ex- ists at the following eight projects: 1. Encina 2. Escondido-Hale Avenue 3. Pala-Mesa (Bonsall) 4. Valley Center 5. San Elijo 6. Encinitas 7. "Del Mar 8. Santee Your assistance is requested in performing a preliminary market assessment of freeway irrigation for the above projects. The attached questionnaire is a guide for the type of information required. All in information may not be available at this time, however, please estimate where possible. We will refine the market assessments with our consultants once the forms are returned REC'D. MAY 1779 in A\fi::Miic CAM ninr^r-i r^Ai IC/-IDMIA m410 TCI CDUnMC c:cK_Ka"7t: CALTRANS District 11 Attn: Phil Olivares Page 2 to this office. Column No. 12 of the questionnaire refers to commitment. At this point of our study, we are looking for letters of intent from potential users. It is requested that a letter of intent from CALTRANS be sent to the San Diego Water Reuse Study for those projects where landscape reuse appears feasible. The letter would not be a binding commitment but one of defined Interest. A sample letter is attached. Thank you for your cooperation in this study. Please refer questions to Rick Graff at 565-5343. N/>}! MAGNESON Project Manager A RG:sj Attachments: 1) Questionnaire 2) Letter of Intent cc: Rainbow MWD Valley Center MWD Rancho Santa Fe Irrigation Dist. San Dieguito Irrigation Dist. Olivenhain Irrigation Dist. Lln Burzell, Co. Water Authority Bill Healy, City of Del Mar Jack Kabota, Carlsbad MWD Rod Donnelly, City of San Diego ' .V.'c3Icr Keuso Stud catus,, F<L'[.'orL 3 nay 1979 F J V E £IfViiS - Proposed contract and necjotiations with Toups/i^ercheval/Consoer-Townsend receiving necessary reviews. Fiscal: Staff budget $12,000 - expended $ 9,985 Consultant bud-et $74,000 - expended $0. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - The Citizens Advisory Corrjnittee met on 25 April. Mr. Sam Kdlichman from the State Department of Health was our guest speaker, and presented the Department of Health's^ views on water reclamation. He cited Title 22 of the California Administrative Code which contains provisions for water reclamation. The criteria for the reduction of bacteria was questioned by some members, and was adequately explained by Mr, Kalichman. The status of the appeal of the inaction of the RWQCB to the SWRCB was presented by Joe Barry. Fiscal: Staff budget $23,000 - expended $ 6,340 AGREEMENTS - For the Buena projectj a draft agreement is being prepared with the City of Vista, Vista Irrigation District and Buena Sanitation District to set forth all aspects of the construction, maintenance and operation of the required facili- ties. Fiscal: Staff budget $10,000 - expended $330 Consultant budget $10,000 - expended $0. SPECIAL ISSUES AMD GENERAL COMMENTS GROUNDWATER ISSUES In the last status report, it was pointed out that the Board of Supervisors directed an appeal be made to the SWRCB on the basis of the RVJQCB's inaction of implementing Resolution 73-15. The app^d was subMitted or, 12 April 1979. On 23 April 1979, staff made an appearance at the RVIQCB meeting at the request of the Board members and reviewed the elements and issues of the appeal. The differences in opinion as v/ell as the lack of resources available for groundwater studies was discussed. The Water Reuse staff considers that additional discussion and possibly a v;orkshop to discuss the objectives and impacts of the wastewater reclamation projects v.'ould be desirable. These and other matters were discussed at the Policy Committee on 30 April 1979. SCHEDULING The consultant contract scopes were reviewed and approved by the Policy Con-jnittee on 30 April 1979. They are now being processed through the City, County, and State for approval and award. This should pennit issuing notices to proceed to the consultants by 4 June 1979. FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. Policy Committee: 2. Executive Committee: June 1979 21 May 1979, 10:00-12:30 p.m. Bldg. 1, S&FC Conference Room 5555 Overland Avenue WATER REUSE STUDY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 21, 1979 4:00 p.m. County Operations Center Building One, Conf. Room AGENDA I. Open Meeting/Introductions/Approve Minutes II. Status Report on Study, Executive Committee and Policy Committee meetings III. Review Proposed Draft of Informational Brochure IV. Discuss First Year Report and Staff memo regarding Federal Public Participation Guide!Ines V. Consultant Contracts Status VI. Ongoing 208 Water Management Pian and Public Participation Plans VII. Regional Water Quality Control Board Workshop VIII. Other Business IX. Adjourn Chai rman Project Manager CAC Staff/CAC Project Manager Project Manager Chairman/CAC At the April meeting, Sam Kalichman handed out a paper answering some of the most asked questions about water reclamation. A copy of that handout is attached. It will probably be very handy. RF^'n ai?L»(5 MUWfCfPAL j J j g COUNTY OPERATIONS CENTER, 5555 OVERLAND AVENUE. SAN DIEGO, CA Ll FO RN IA 921 23 TELEPHONE 565-5875 ' SAN D!EGO CITY COUNTY 201 Vv/ATER REUSE STUDY 3 May 1979 REC'D. TroZr MAY 1 673 The purpose of this status report is to help keep all participating members in- formed on key actions and issues. The Policy Committee meeting of 30 April City of San Diego Councilmen Stirling an Paul Graham, and Mayor Robert Burns of L currence with the request for a grant in the proposed amended joint City/County R grant increase to provide a total grant sultant contracts for the Study, 4) disc to the State Resources Control Board reg Quality Control Board in implementing th mendations concerning future actions and meetings occur on a quarterly basis. 1979 was attended by Supervisor Hedgecock, d Lowery, Chairman of CPO Board of Director emon Grove. Their actions were: 1) con- crease of $134,000, 2) concurrance with euse Study Agreement to accommodate the of $634,000, 3) approval of the four con- ussion of the Board of Supervisors' appeal arding the inaction of the Regional Water e State Board's Resolution 78-15 and recom- 5) directed that the Policy Comjuittee The foregoing action permits the City of San Diego Council, the Board of Supervisors and the State to approve the consultant contracts and the State and EPA to provide additional funding upon approval of the amended City/County agreement, It Is expected that the consultants' v/ork can start in early June. The current status of each of the basic tasks is as follows; MARKETING - Market assessment surveys underway. One survey returned by v/ater purveyor. Follow-up meetings v/ith purveyors and potential users scheduled in May, There has been considerable support by potential users in the marketing effort. All the efforts are being focused through the local v;ater purveyors. Fiscal: Staff budget $62,000 - expended $4,1 FINANCIAL - Proposed contract and negotiations with Brov/n and Caldv/ell receiving necessary rev1ev/s. Fiscal: Staff budget $8,000 - expended $5,788 Consultant budget $75,000 - expended $0. ENGINEERING - Proposed contract and negotiations with Lowry/Jordan-Avent receiving necessary reviews. Fiscal; ' Staff budget $15,000 - expended $9,981 Consultant budget $210,000 • expended $0. GROUNDWATER - Prepared letter to SWRCB requesting resolution of problems, and in- terpretation of Resolution 78-15. Preparation of appeal to SWRCB regarding inaction of CRWQCB, San Diego Region to comply with Resolution 78-15. Accumulation of data and plotting of v;ells for San Pasqual and Valley Center basins, both City of San Dlego and Valley Center participating in data gathering efforts. Accumulated data on groundwater in each of the basins affected by projects. Data includes soils summaries from the Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys, well data from Depart- ment of Water Resources, plotted v/ells on maps and collected water quality data. Received computer printout from CPO of land use in each hydrographic subunit for computing v;ater balance within basins. Developed large scale maps incorporating both CPO hydrographic subunits and topographic maps, and plotted projects on such maps. . ^^cn^^' <;tflff budqet $45,000 - expended $14,443 Consultant budget $25,000 - 201 -Vlater Reuse Status Report Page 2 3 flay 1979 Study ^ EIR/EIS - Proposed contract and negotiations with Toups/i'ercheval/Consoer-Townsend I receiving necessary reviews. V Fiscal: Staff budget $12,000 - expended $ 9,985 Consultant budget $74,000 - E expended $0. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - The Citizens Advisory Comimittee met on 26 April. Mr. Sam Kalichman from the State Department of Health was our guest speaker, and presented the Department of Health's views on water reclamation. He cited Title 22 of the g California Administrative Code which contains provisions for water reclamation. . The criteria for the reduction of bacteria was questioned by some members, and was y, adequately explained by Mr. Kalichman. The status of the appeal of the Inaction of the RWQCB to the SWRCB was presented by Joe Barry. Fiscal: Staff budget $23,000 - expended $ 6,340 S E V E N AGREEMENTS - For the Buena project, a draft agreement is being prepared with the City of Vista, Vista Irrigation District and Buena Sanitation District to set forth all aspects of the construction, maintenance and operation of the required facili- ties. Fiscal: Staff budget $10,000 - expended $330 Consultant budget $10,000 - expended $0. SPECIAL ISSUES AND GENERAL COMMENTS GROUNDWATER ISSUES In the last status report, it was pointed out that the Board of Supervisors directed an appeal be made to the SWRCB on the basis of the RUQCB's inaction of Implementing Resolution 73-15. The appeal ;/Q3 submitted cn 12 April 1979. On 23 April 1979, staff made an appearance at the RWQCB meeting at the request of the Board members and reviewed the elements and issues of the appeal. The differences in opinion as well as the lack of resources available for groundwater studies v/as discussed. The Water Reuse staff considers that additional discussion and possibly a workshop to discuss the objectives and impacts of t!ie v/astewater reclamation projects would be desirable. These and other matters were discussed at the Policy Committee on 30 April 1979. SCHEDULING The consultant contract scopes were reviewed and approved by the Policy Committee on 30 April 1979. They are now being processed through the City, County, and State for approval and award. This should permit issuing notices to proceed to the consultants by 4 June 1979. FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. Policy Committee: 2. Executive Committee: June 1979 21 May 1979, 10:00-12:30 p.m. Bldg. 1, S&FC Conference Room 5555 Overland Avenue SAN DIEGO WATER REUSE STUDY Ref: 2052 SDWR 13 MAR 1979 Mr. Jack Y. Kubota Acting General Manager Carlsbad Municipal Water District Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: San Diego Water Reuse Study -- Proposed Projects in Carlsbad Municipal Water District Service Area This letter is in response to your 30 January 1979 letter and a follow-up to a meeting with you on 6 March 1979. The San Diego Water Reuse Study Work Plan, as well as other procedures developed with all Interested agencies for the market assessment for the Study are being developed with the concept that the focal point for per- forming the market assessment is through the local water purveyors. Using this concept, we are attempting to use as much of the local agencies' re- sources that they are willing to apply to this marketing effort and supple- menting with our staff resources as needed. In other words, on a project by project basis, we are developing with the cooperation of the wastewater agencies, the local water purveyors and our staff, a task force approach to the marketing effort. It is my understanding at the 6 March meeting you desired to take a lead role in the surveying and marketing assessment effort for the two projects, Encina and Palomar/San Marcos, located in the CMWD service area. Tbe attached questionnaire is a recommended guide In conducting the survey of existing customers and establish an inventory of potential reclaimed water users. At this time, all the information to completely fill out the questionnaire is not available. We will augment your efforts to complete the form after you have established the potential inventory. We plan to give notice to proceed to our Phase II consultants on 23 April 1979. At this time, those projects with market assessment data will be evaluated and a Facilities Plan (Step I) will be prepared If market commit- ments are obtained. My staff is available to assist you in your survey If needed. Please contact Mr. R1ck Graff at 565-5343. COUNTY OPERATION.^; CENTFR RRRB OVERLANO AVFNIIF RAN nlFCJO r&\ iFORMta Qom -rci CPunMC KRK.KO-JK Mr. Jack Y. Kuboto Acting General Manager Page 2 1^ MMK 1979 I am looking forward to making a presentation of the San Dlego Water Reuse Study to the Water Conservation, Reclamation Reuse Committee on 27 March 1979., yjA/ yALypy^- N-./J. MAGNESON P/oject Manager ' RWG:sj Attachment: Reclaimed Water User's Questionnaire cc: R. Beckman Les Evans C/1RLSBKD /V1UNICIP/1L i4/ATER DISTRICT April 6, 1979 Mr. N. J. Magneson San Diego Water Reuse Study County Operations Center 5555 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Subject: San Diego Water Reuse Study - Proposed Projects In Carlsbad Municipal Water District Service Area Dear Mr. Magneson: We are pleased to report to you that our Board of Directors have evaluated the invitation of your office for this District to participate with your agency in the development of the "marketing assessment" for the utilization of a high quality reclaimed wastewater for non-potable water uses In our entire District-wide service area. We had previously indicated to you that this District has adopted some basic policies regarding the development of a non-potable water supply system so that participation with your agency is very timely. We shall be contacting Mr. Rick Graff of your office and coordinating our entire program with his suggestions and assistance. We shall be proceeding immediately with the work program. We also thank you very much for your visitation at our regular committee meeting of the Water Conservation, Reclamation and Reuse group of our District. Our District is very fortunate to have the Interest of a broad sector of our service area who share our common goal of total water resources management to get the maximum utilization of our fresh potable water supply and to develop a non-potable water supply for the variety of uses that can be made. We are looking forward to timely communications and visits from your Study Group as you move forward with your important work. Very truly yours, CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT / CPC p. pp Jack'Y. ^Kdbota, Acting General Manager £^YK:jlw RECEIVED MAR 2 6 19^9 V/OODS!l5e-KUBOT>;jS 'ASSOC. CONSULltNG ENGINEERS CARLSBAD CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION, RECLAMATION & REUSE COMMITTEE AGENDA Tuesday, March 27, 1979 at District Administration Center, 2:00 p.m. •'1. Presentation - Mr. Norman Magneson - Project Manager San Diego Water Reuse Study 2. Progress Report Supplemental Water Supply Program 3. Palomar Airport Regional Wastewater Reclamation Project 4. San Diego Regional Reclamation Agency 5. Other Business NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE: Tuesday, April 24, 1979 Materials enclosed: Latest edition of the 1978 Wastewater Reclamation Criteria -3- Congress and other important law-making and regulatory bodies will be keeping their closest attention here, on us. That could be a mixed blessing. It's an unprec- edented opportunity for water systems to claim the credit that rightfully is theirs for superb service to the public. It's a chance to make municipal, county, state and federal governments fully aware of both the needs and capabilities of your system. But it's also an opportunity for those governments to meddle where they may not be needed. That's why our new AWWA Water Utility Council promises to be such a benefit, especially to utility members. It will keep a firm eyeon the feds and the agencies, offering professional advice and coun- sel, helping us steer clear of pitfalls, helping see the public's best interests are observed...because that's in everyone's best interest. WATER CONSERVATION — BETTER BE THINKING ABOUT IT A_ ,• Conservation is one of the favorite words of government and regulatory officials these days. They frequently don't understand what it means, but they clearly under- / stand its political appeal. That being the case, it makes sense for us to think seriously about what we're doing now and what more we could be doing in this popular area. DO, OR BE I wouldn't be surprised one day to see "conservation" be- DONE UNTO come a legal requirement if we don't first see to it that actual, real, beneficial conservation practices already are in place, at work...and working! Be alert for new ideas, start building a large file, assign at least one of your people to be continuously up to date on the matter. Above all, collect data. Our JOURNAL AWWA carries plenty of case history reports. And an excellent effort has been working for two years now among the Sacramento Area Water Works Association members. Nineteen water companies and districts supported the SAWWA program in 1978, which places key responsibility with Sacramento's Clifford Boggess Advertising agency. Although 1978 was scarcely a dry year, the Boggess people successfully kept area media and citizens enthusiastic about water conservation. A neat feat, very professionally done, and no doubt far less costly in total than if all the water systems had tried to work alone. Give cooperation a serious thought. It may be the most effective, as well as most economical, way to get the job done in your area. It sure works well in California. COMMUNITY RELATIONS NEWSLETTER - MARCH 1979 SAN DIEGO WATER REUSE STUDY ein CARLSBAD MUftiiClfeL Uhb 1 r'nQ Ref: 2052 SDWR 1 3 MAR ]979 Mr. Jack Y. Kubota Acting General Manager Carlsbad Municipal Water District Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: San Dlego Water Reuse Study -- Proposed Projects In Carlsbad Municipal Water District Service Area This letter is in response to your 30 January 1979 letter and a follow-up to a meeting with you on 6 March 1979. The San Diego Water Reuse Study Work Plan, as well as other procedures developed with all interested agencies for the market assessment for the Study are being developed with the concept that the focal point for per- forming the market assessment is through the local water purveyors. Using this concept, we are attempting to use as much of the local agencies' re- sources that they are willing to apply to this marketing effort and supple- menting with our staff resources as needed. In other words, on a project by project basis, we are developing with the cooperation of the wastewater agencies, the local water purveyors and our staff, a task force approach to the marketing effort. It is my understanding at the 6 March meeting you desired to take a lead role in the surveying and marketing assessment effort for the two projects, Encina and Palomar/San Marcos, located in the CMWD service area. The attached questionnaire is a recommended guide in conducting the survey of existing customers and establish an inventory of potential reclaimed water users. At this time, all the information to completely fill out the questionnaire is not available. We will augment your efforts to complete the form after you have established the potential inventory. We plan to give notice to proceed to our Phase II consultants on 23 April 1979. At this time, those projects with market assessment data will be evaluated and a Facilities Plan (Step I) will be prepared If market commit- ments are obtained. My staff is available to assist you in your survey if needed. Please contact Mr. Rick Graff at 565-5343. Mr. Jack Y. Kuboto Acting General Manager Page 2 1 MAP; 1979 I am looking forward to making a presentation of the San Diego Water Reuse Study to the Water Conservation, Reclamation Reuse Committee on 27 March 1979. - : 7 T' ^ _ ' / N. J. MAGNESON Project Manager RWG:sj Attachment: Reclaimed Water User's Questionnaire cc; R. Beckman Les Evans r' OCEANSIDE 'Bu«M via la Logoon :ARLSBAD A'A 11 ' •^-.H«,^ \^ , ^ p CZI>\A'— T/1 LA COSTA LEUCADIA ENCINITAS WAf»HIG SGAL£ IN FEET LESEND REUSE LOCATION ; \ SCATTER REUSE IN \^ • SUBDIVIDED AREAS EWCINITA«\ iLyp POTENTIAL REUSE LOCATIONS FIGURE!-1 X-4 f A y It Busno Vltta Uogoon rA • • AA';^'^>'' * LO MGD N02 I • r \ 'A: V \ \0 yp 0,3 PERC BEDS N0.4' •FUTURE FAIL SAFE P-. '1 1..-^^ y 1; Cl ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES OCEAN OUTFALL O o tn •2. 1.0 MGD_ eaAPHIG SCALE IN FEET • — CARLSBAD CITY BOUNDARY — EXISTING INTERCEPOR EXISTING PUMP STATION PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLANT FLOW FROM VISTA 0.2 MGD FROM BUENA 1.2 MGD FROM SAN MARCOS ™ FAIL SAFE CONNECTIONS PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLANT OPERATED BY OTHER AGENCIES NO. 10- OLIVEttiAIN RO LO MQD ENCINITAaX BLVD J FUTURE FAIL SAFE TENTATIVE RECLAMATION SITES FIGURE IT-1 C/IRLSBkD /V1UNICIP/1L lA/ATER DISTRICT January 30. 1979 Mr. Norm Magneson San Diego Water Reuse Study County Operations Center 5555 Overland Avenue San Dlego. CA 92123 Subject: San Diego Water Reuse Study - Potential Projects in Carlsbad Municipal Water District Service Area Dear Mr. Magneson: Our Carlsbad Water District has monitored very closely the recent events of our various sewerage agencies who are considering plans to construct and operate wastewater reclamation facilities. Our keen interest has evolved as a result of a policy decision of our Board of Directors to develop a supplementary water supply with the goal of providing a non-potable water supply to the various users within our Water District. We have had an opportunity to look over the "Proposed Work Plan" and we also had the opportunity to participate in your neighborhood meeting conducted at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility on December 8, 1978. Our Carlsbad Water District envisions a very active role in working with your study group to identify the various market places for reclaimed wastewater. In fact, we have already made contact with the San Marcos County Water District, Leucadia County Water District and the City of Carlsbad responding specifically to their current programs for satellite wastewater reclamation facilities. From our perspective here at the District, we see a substantial potential for a functional facility located here right next door to our District facilities. We appreciate very much the opportunities given to us to participate with you up to this point and we welcome your visiting with us at your convenience so that we can assist you as you move forward with your study program. Very truly yours, CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ib^ta, Acting General Manager JYK:jlw cc: District Engineer < UN - 7 1978 SAN DIEGO WATER REUSE STUDY WOODSIDE-KUBOTA- 'g 'ASSOC. CONJULTING ENGINL^RS CARLSSAD Countv Opwaiiont CenWr, 6555 Overlund AvenuB, San Dlago. CaMtornU 92123 T»l«phon« 566-9879 Ref; WRS 2052.6 5 June 1978 TO: TAG Members FROM: TAC Chairman SUBJECT: Phase I Work Plan Meeting This letter updates the information provided by the letter of 24 May 1978 for the 13 June 1978 meeting and workshop. The meeting will be held at 1:30 p.m. in the County Library Training Room of Building 15 at the County Operations Center, 5555 Overland Avenue. See attached Agenda, Enclosure 1. Enclosure 2 contains new and revised project sheets which will be reviewed at the workshop. The main objective of the meeting will be to complete them to maximum extent possible with the help and advice of the TAC. Enclosure 3 contains additional task descriptions which relate to Enclo- sure 7 (Typical Schedule) and Enclosure 8 (Marketing Studies and Water Pricing) provided by the 24 May letter. airman NJM:pg Enc. : 1. Agenda 2. Project Sheets 3. Task Descriptions for Tasks 3 and 7 Copy Executive Committee with CAC Chairman & Vice Chairmen enc: Encina Subcommittee Members S.AN DIEGO WATER REUSE STUDY SCHEDULE FOR PREPAR.\TION OF V;ORK PLAN 31 May 1978 Mail Project Sheets to TAC 5 June TAC - Review Project Sheets (Feed back) 13 June Mail Project Sheets to CAC § Draft Chapter V (Citizen Participation) 15 June CAC - Review Project Sheets ^ Chapter V 22 June Executive Committee Review Project Sheets ^ Drafts of All Chapters 23 June Finalize All Giapters Finalize Projects Sheets - TAC 29 June CAC Meeting - Final Comments 6 July Finalize Draft Itfork Plan Executive Committee Final Comments 14 July Final Work Plan - Reproduction V/ork Plan to Policy Committee 21 July 31 May 1978 TEMECULA Description This project consists of the addition of filtration and chlorination units, desalinization plant, brine evaporation pond, seasonal storage pond, a small pumping plant and 14,000 feet of 12-inch pipe distribution system for the use of effluent from the Eastern Municipal Water District's Temecuia Plant. The facility will reclaim up to 1.5 MGD or approximately 1500 acre feet per year. Reclaimed water will be used for irrigation of the Rancho California Golf Course and a sod farm in Wolf Valley. 208 Cost Estimate for 1.5 MGD (1500 acre feet per year) Design Criteria Regulatory Criteria Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Annual Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirement Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Schedule $ 1,506,000 50 214,000 142 93 $ 2,331,000 97 572,000 476 2,000 Refer to flow chart and following tasks: Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial Special Considerations In addition to standard tasks, consideration will be given to use of water on the Rancho Caiifomia Golr Course and on the Wolf Valley sod farm. Other agricultural uses of reclaimed water near the reclaimation site will be investigated. There may be objections to percolation in Wolf Valley by resident Indians. Refer to standard task. Time 3. 4. Engineering Refer to standard task. Groundwater This project is located in hydrographic subunits 2.23 and 2.52 and has a Basin Plan objective for TDS of 500 mg/1 for surface water and groundwaters. The CRWQCB's "one-third" rule would apply. To meet regulatory criteria, a 1.2 MGD desalinization plant would be constructed to reduce TDS from 950 to approximately 250 mg/1. Study will con- sider impacts associated with the use of "design" quality water of 950 mg/l TDS; and "regulatory" quality water of 250 mg/1 TDS and with present and future quality imported water. Preferential use of low TDS water will be investigated. Temecuia Task 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Total Time Special Considerations In addition to standard task, EIR will include health aspects of spray irrigation of reclaimed wastewater in publicly used open space areas such as golf courses. Public will be informed of health concerns of utilizing reclaimed wastewater on golf courses. Agreements needed with EMIVD, Rancho Califomia and owner of IVolf Valley sod farm. Time Cost Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater 5. EIR 6. Pubiic 7. Agreements Performer Task Force EMWD Rancho Califomia State Health Consultant (Water Pricing and Financial Plan) Consultant Task Force RWQCB EMWD SM/SLR . Consultant Task Force CAC Task Force EMWD Rancho California Wolf Valley Sod Farm Estimated Cost Total Cost it June 1978 OCEANSIDE Description Construct filtration and chlorination facilities to reuse the water from the existing San Luis Rey Treatment Plant. The effluent will be dis- tributed partly through an existing system and an added 2,000 feet of 8-inch main with a regulatory storage tank. The water will be used to irrigate a golf course and several agricultural parcels in the river bed of the San Luis Rey river. 208 Cost Estimate Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Design Criteria $ 1,252,000 37 179,000 107 298 Regulatory Criteria $ 2,902,000 102 923,000 650 3,067 Comments This project is in the Step 1 Grant process of the City of Oceanside. Concept approval has already been received. All use of the effluent is within the City and the project does not affect other proposed projects. If it is necessary to seek an amendment to the Basin Plan on surface or groundwater criteria, the study should be coordinated with the Water Reuse Study. 30 May 1978 BONSALL Description This project consists of the addition of filtration and chlorination units, desalinization plant, brine evaporation ponds and a regulating reservoir to the Rainbow Municipal Water District Plant B. The facility will reclaim up to 0.5 MGD or approximately 500 acre feet per year. Pipeline and pumping facilities already exists for the use of the reclaimed water. Percolation beds would provide off-season disposal in lieu of seasonal storage. The reclaimed water will be used to irrigate the Pala Mesa Golf Course. 208 Cost Estimate for 0.5 MGD (500 Acre Feet Per Year) Design Criteria Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirement Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot $ 148,000 30 40,000 160 33 Regulatory Criteria $ 423,000 99 170,000 798 3,470 Schedule Refer to flow chart and foiiowing tasks: Task 1. Marketing Special Considerations In addition to standard tasks, consideration will be given to water use at the Pala Mesa Golf Course. Time 2. Financial Refer to standard task. 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater Refer to standard task. This project is located in hydrographic subunit 3.21 and has a Basin Plan objective for TDS o£ 500 mg/1 for surface water and 900 mg/1 for groundwater. The CRWQCB's "one-third" rule would apply. To meet regu- latory criteria, a 0.45 desalinization plant will be constructed to reduce TDS from 1100 to 300 mg/1. Study will consider impacts associated with the use of "design" quality water of 1100 mg/1 TDS and "regulatory" quality water of 300 mg/1 TDS and impacts of improved quality N. Califor- nia imported water. If regulations are not changed favorably, the present mode of operation of percolation and extraction may be the most cost effective method of reuse. Bonsall Task 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Total Time , Cost Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater 5. 6. EIR Public 7. Agreements Special Considerations In addition to standard task, EIR will include health aspects of spray irrigation of reclaimed wastewater in publicly used open space areas such as golf courses. Public will be informed of health hazards of utilizing reclaimed wastewater on golf course. Agreements needed with Rainbow Municipal Water District, Pala Mesa Golf Course Time Performers Task Force Rainbow Municipal Water District State Health, Pala Mesa Golf Course Estimated Cost Consultant plan) Consultant (Water pricing and financial Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board Rainbow Municipal Water District Santa Margarita/San Luis Rey Consultant Task Force Citizens Advisory Committee Task Force Rainbow Municipal Water District Pala Mesa Golf Course County Water Authority Total Cost 31 May 1978 VALLEY CENTER Description This project consists of the addition of a filtration unit, a regulating storage tank, desalinization plant, brine evaporation ponds and 10,000 feet of 6-inch pipe transmission line for reclaiming water from the Valley Center Municipal V/ater District. The facility will reclaim up to 0.6 MGD or approximately 600 acre-feet per year. Reclaimed water will be used to irrigate the Circle R Golf Course and the Lawrence Welk Golf Course; and any surplus reclaimed water would be used for recharge of the aquifer in Lower Moosa Canyon Creek. 208 Cost Estimate for 0.6 MGD (600 acre-feet per year) Design Criteria Regulatory Criteria Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirement Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Schedule $ 238,000 55 43,000 143 50 $ 718,000 141 181,000 710 3,068 Refer to flow chart and following tasks: Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater Special Considerations Time In addition to standard tasks, consideration will be given to use of water at the Circle R Golf Course, Lawrence VJelk Golf Course and possibly recharge of Lower Moosa Canyon Creek aquifer. Other potential agricultural uses exist in the area in the form of citrus and avocado groves. Refer to Standard Task. Refer to Standard Task. This project is located in hydrographic subunits 3.12 and 3.13 and has a Basin Plan objective of 500 mg/1 TDS for surface water and 1500 mg/1 for ground- waterj The California Regional V/ater Quality "Control Board's "one-third" rule would apply. To meet regulatory criteria, a 0.4 MGD desalin- ization plant would be constructed to reduce TDS from 1200 to 500 mg/1.or 270 mg/1 depending upon which basin the water is delivered. •^in subunit 3.12 and 800 mg/1 in subunit 3.13 . Valley Center Task Special Considerations Time Study will consider impacts associated with the use of "design" quality water of 1200 mg/1 TDS and "regulatory" quality water of 500 mg/1 TDS; and with present and future quality im- ported waters. Percolation and extraction technique will also be investigated. 5. EIR In addition to standard task, the EIR will in- clude the health aspects of spray irrigation of reclaimed wastewater in publicly used open space areas such as golf courses. 6. Public Public will be informed of health concerns of utilizing reclaimed wastewater on golf courses. 7. Agreement Agreements needed with Circle R Golf Course, Lawrence Welk Golf Course, Valley Center Municipal Water District and regulatory agencies with jurisdiction. Total Time Cost Estimated Task Performers Cost 1. Marketing Task Force Valley Center Municipal Water District State Health 2. Financial Consultant 3. Engineering Consultant 4. Groundwater Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board Valley Center Municipal Water District Santa Margarita/San Luis Rey 5. EIR Consultant 6. Public Task Force Citizens Advisory Committee Valley Center Task 7. Agreements Performers Task Force Circle R Golf Course Lawrence Welk Golf Course Valley Center Municipal Water District County Water Authority Estiinated Cost Total Cost 31 May 1978 BUENA Description Construction of a new secondary treatment plant plus filtration and chlorination facilities to utilize the effluent for irrigation and possibly live stream. The water would be reused on agricultural lands, golf courses, and open areas in developments with possible discharge to Agua Hedionda Creek. The plant could be constructed in phases as com- mitments are obtained for the use of the treated water. The treatment capacity, (1995 needs) would be 2.25 MGD with IMGD constructed immediately. 208 Cost Estimate for 0.9 MCD (900 Acre Feet) Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Design Criteria $ 993,000 55 128,000 142 240 Regulatory Criteria $ 1,560,000 87 406,000 451 2,040 Schedule Refer to flow ch; Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial •rt and following: Special Considerations In addition to standard tasks consideration will be given to use of water by DAON Corp. in Shadow Ridge Development and discharge into Agua Hedionda Creek. Refer to Standard Task. 3. Engineering Preliminary engineering will be on total project and project reports done only on Grant portions. Groundwater S Surface Water The project is in hydrographic subunit 4.21 with Basin Plan objectives of 500 mg/1 TDS for sur- face water of 1000 mg/1 TDS for groundwater. This project will consider the effects of spray irrigation with the effluent of 1200 mg/1 TDS and the affect with blended water and possibly Northern California water only. The study will aiso consider surface discharge and the effects of nutrients in the effluent. Time Buena 2. Task 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Special Considerations In addition to standard task, EIR will specifically include health aspects of spray irrigation in inhabited open space areas. Particular emphasis will be on informing public of health concerns and benefits irrigating around homes. Agreements among City of Vista, Buena Sani- tation District, Vista Irrigation District, County Water Authority. Time Total Time Cost Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial Performers DAON Corporation Task Force Vista Irrigation District State Health Consultant 3. Engineering DAON Corporation Consultant 4. Groundwater Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board Vista Irrigation District Estimated Cost 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Consultant Task Force Citizens Advisory Committee Task Force Vista Irrigation District County Water Authority Buean Sanitation District Total Cost 31 May 1978 ENCINA Description Construct facilities necessary to reclaim 5 MGD of secondarily treated effluent at or near the Encina Treatment Plant. In addition to secondary treatment the construction would include filtration and chlorination facilities. The effluent would be distributed by 15,000 feet of 15 inch pressure pipeline to nearby agricultural lands and areas for landscape irrigation. 208 Cost Estimate Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirement Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Design Criteria $ 2,767,000 55 426,000 170 417 Regulatory Criteria $ 6,167,000 147 1,631,000 767 5,559 Schedule Refer to Floiv Chart and following considerations: Task Special Considerations 1. Marketing Field crops and freeway in area - could consider market at Lake Calavera and golf course inland. Time 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater See Standard Task. Be sure facilities compatible with expan- sion of Water Pollution Control Facility - consider including in Expansion project. This project is located in hydrographic subunits 4.31, 4.40 and 4.51 and has Basin Plan objectives of 500 mg/1 TDS for surface water and 1200 mg/1, 1000 mg/1 and 1000 mg/1 TDS respectively for groundwater. (The groundwater quality objectives do not apply westerly of easterly boundary of Interstate Highv^ay 5) or in subunit 4.51. To meet the regulatory requirements a 4.25 MGD capa- city desalinization plant would be required. Study will consider impacts using design quality water (1100 mg/1 TDS) and regulatory water (1/3 x 1200 mg/1 = 400 mg/1 TDS) considering present and future quality imported water. Encina 6. 7. Task EIR Public Agreements Total Time Special Considerations Standard Task. Standard Task. Encina Joint Powers, California Department of Transportation Time Cost Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Performers Estimated Cost CalTrans Task Force Consultant Consultant Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board Consultant County Health Task Force Citizens Advisory Committee Encina Joint Powers Task Force CalTrans Encina Joint Powers County IVater Authority Total Cost 31 May 1978 LAKE CALAVERA HILLS Description Construction of a new treatment facility to treat 0.5 MGD to utilize the effluent to recharge a small groundwater basin aquifer. The recharged groundwater would be pumped for irrigation of green belts and adjacent agricultural lands. Additionally, 4,000 feet of 8-inch diameter pipe and a pujnping plant would be constructed. 208 Cost Estimate Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirement Kilo^tfatt Hours Per Acre Foot Design Criteria $ 243,000 30 42,000 lOS 98 Regulatory Criteria $ 243,000 30 42,000 105 98 Schedule Refer to the flow chart and the following: Task Special Considerations Refer to Standard Task. Refer to Standard Task. 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater EIR Refer to Standard Task. This project is located in hydrographic sub- unit 4.22 and has a Basin Plan objective of 500 mg/1 TDS for surface water and 1000 mg/1 TDS for groundwater. The effluent with Colorado river water may be greater than the objectives and it would have to be demonstrated that the basin is not degraded. The effluent from blended Northern California and Colorado river water should meet the limits of the Basin Plan. Specific health aspects of spray irrigation in open space areas will be considered. Time Lake Calavera Hills Task 6. Public 7. Agreements Total Time Special Considerations Refer to Standard Task, Agreement among City of Carlsbad and Encina Joint Powers. Time Cost Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundvsrater 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Total Cost Performers City of Carlsbad Task Force State Health Consultant Task Force Consultant Task Force Task Force Regional V/ater Control Board City of Carlsbad Consultant Task Force Citizens Advisory Committee City of Carlsbad Task Force City of Carlsbad Encina Joint Powers Estimated Cost 31 May 1978 ENCINITAS Description Construct a new 0.75 MGD water reclamation plant at the site of the old Encinitas Sanitary District facility. The water is planned to be used on the Ecke Ranch for irrigation of flowers. The distribution system would include a pump station and approximately 7,500 feet of 10-inch force main, 208 Cost Estimate Design Criteria Regulatory Criteria Total Construction Cost* Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot $ 567,000 87 69,000 212 366 $ 567,000 87 69,000 212 366 Omits cost of secondary treatment which would add $930,000. Schedule The followins items will be considered in addition to the flow charts. Tasks 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Special Considerations Primary consideration to Ecke Ranch Refer to Standard Task. This project is part of a system and must be coordinated with the Leucadia project. It could have a joint backup connection with Encina and the use of the water may be by the same user. The Basin Plan has been revised to eliminate numerical objectives. Health aspects to be stressed. See Standard Task. Encina JAC to be consulted for fail-safe. An agreement with Encinitas (or operator) and Paul Ecke Ranch Time Total Time Encinitas Cost Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreement Performers Task Force Encinitas Sanitary District San Dieguito Irrigation District State Health Consultant Task Force Consultant Encinitas Sanitary District Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board Consultant Task Force Task Force Encinitas Sanitary District County Water Authority San Dieguito Irrigation District Estimated Cost Total Cost 30 May 1978 LEUCADIA Description Construction of a new 2.5 MGD biological secondary treatment plant near the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivehain Road. Additionally, filtration- chlorination facilities would be constructed at this site and at the existing reactivated plant. The effluent would be used for irrigation of a golf course and agricultural lands. 208 COST ESTIMATE Design Criteria Regulatory Criteria Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirement Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot $ 1,810,000 55 243,000 149 561 1,810,000 55 243,000 149 361 Schedule Refer to the flow chart and following: Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial Special Considerations In addition to standard task, special consideration wili be given to the use of the water on La Costa Golf Course and the Ecke Ranch. Also, considera- tion will be given to a market for water in the open space areas of new developments. Refer to standard task. Time 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements See standard task. Groundwater basin standards have been revised so groundwater objectives do not apply. See typical schedule and additionally specific health aspects of spray irrigation will be included, Must consider effects on other projects in area. See typical schedule. Agreements Leucadia County Water District between Encina Joint Powers. It is understood that Leucadia is proceeding with the project and will not accept a grant now or in the future for any phase of the project. Marketing in effort for this project should be coordinated with San Diego Water Reuse Study, because it could affect marketing and the systems engineering of other proj ects. The capacity of the plant must be coordinated with the County to determine that it is in accordance with land use plan. Leucadia The project must also be coordinated with other Water Reclamation Projects in area to obtain fail-safe provisions at the Encina Plant. Based on the foregoing this project will not be done in the Water Reuse Study but must be closely coordinated to assure compatibility with other projects m the area. 5 June 1978 PALOMAR-SAN MARCOS Description Construction of new treatment facilities totaling 2.8 MGD in the City of Carlsbad near Palomar Airport. Flows will be obtained from the City of Carlsbad, Buena Sanitation District and San Marcos. The effluent will be used to irrigate agricultural lands in the easterly part of the City of Carlsbad and possibly future La Costa Golf Course North. The plant could be constructed in phases as Carlsbad, Buena and San Marcos flows in different stages. The 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan considered two projects at locations in the same proximity and in the final recommenda- tion recommended that they be combined. The two separate cost estimates are included. 208 Cost Estimates Palomar 1 MGD Design Criteria Regulatory Criteria Total Construction Cost $ 825,000 $ 1,525,000 Cost Per Acre Foot 83 179 Total Annual Cost 102,000 555,000 Cost Per Acre Foot 204 1,305 Energy Requirement Kilowatt Hourse Per Acre Foot 417 3,327 San Marcos 1.8 MGD Total Construct Cost $1,087,000 $ 1,703,000 Cost Per Acre Foot 60 96 Total Annual Cost 147,000 356,000 Cost Per Acre Foot 163 399 Energy Requirement Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot 439 2,090 Schedule Task Special Considerations Time 1. Marketing Consideration will be given to the use of water for the future La Costa North Golf Course, agricultural areas, and the green belt areas in the vicinity of the airport. 2. Financial Refer to Standard Task. Palomar -San Marcos Task 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater Special Considerations Will consider whether the combined plant should be at the confluence of the San Marcos and Buena lines or some other location and the flow from one of the systems diverted. Will explore the various alternatives and the effect of the Buena Project on flows. Will look at the whole system. The Basin Plan objectives are 1000 mg/1 TDS for groundwater and 500 mg/1 TDS for surface water. In order to spray irrigate the 1100 mg/1 TDS water would have to be reduced to 333 mg/1 TDS. rne study will show effects of 1100 mg/1 TDS water on the basin and also consider improved quality water after state water project is delivered. Time 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Will specifically include health problems with spray irrigation in the open space areas. See Standard Task. Agreements will have to be reached among the City cf Carlsbad, Buena Sanitation District, Encina Joint Powers, San Marcos. Total Time Cost Task Performers Estimated Cost 1. Marketing City of Carlsbad San Marcos County Water District Task Force State Health 2. Financial Consultant 3. Engineering Consultant 4. Groundwater Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board 5. EIR Consultant Palomar-San Marcos Task Performers 5. Estimated Cost 6. Public 7. Agreements Task Force City of Carlsbad Citizens Advisory Committee Task Force San Marcos County V/ater District Encina Joint Powers Buena Sanitation District Total Cost 31 May 1978 SiVN ELIJO Description Construct filtration and chlorination facilities necessary to reclaim 3 MGD of secondarily treated effluent (after upgrading) of the San Elijo Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). The distribution system to be constructed would include a 15,000 foot long S-inch diameter force main to Lomas Santa Fe Golf Course and the San Dieguito Regional Park and a 27,000 foot 14-inch force main to Rancho Sante Fe agricultural area. 208 Cost Estimate Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirement Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Design Criteria $ 2,430,000 81 293,000 195 487 Regulatory Criteria $ 4,315,000 144 891,000 594 2.2S Schedule Refer to the flow chart and the following considerations. Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater fi Surface Water Special Considerations Specific users may include agricultural lands, freeway landscaping and Lomas Santa Fe Golf Course and San Dieguito Regional Park. Pos- sibility of supplying water to San Elijo Lagoon. Refer to Standard Task. Consider including in construction of San Elijo V/ater Pollution Control Facility - Upgrading and Enlargement contract. This project is located in hydrographic subunit 4.61 and the Basin Plan objectives for TDS is 500 mg/1 for surface waters and 750 mg/1 for groundwater. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board's 'one-third" policy would apply for irrigation waters. To meet regulatory criteria a 2.3 MGD demineral. plant would be constructed to reduce TDS from 1200 to 250 mg/1. Nutrient stripping facilities would be required Time San Elijo Task 5. EIR Special Considerations for any reclaimed water use for surface dis- charges to the San Elijo Lagoon. Studies will consider the impacts associated with the use of '^design" quality water of 1100-1200 mg/1 TDS and "regulatory"' quality water of 250 mg/1 TDS, and of improved quality of imported water in the future. Studies will also include level of nutrient removal which is required for the San Elijo Lagoon to prevent or reduce entro- phication and nuisances. Effects of utilizing water in lagoon will be addressed. Time 6. Public There is considered public support of using water in lagoon. The pros and cons ivill be addressed. 7. Agreements Total Time Agreements may be necessary among Cardiff Sanitation District, Solana Beach Sanitation District, County of San Diego, CalTrans and other users. Cos- Task Performers Estimated Cost 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering Task Force CalTrans Olivenhain Municipal V.'ater District San Dieguito Irrigation District Consultant Task Force Consultant 4. Groundwater S Surface V/ater Task Force Consultant Regional V.'ater Quality Control Board County Health Department 5. EIR Consultant State Health County Health V ...A San Elijo Task 6. Public 7. Agreement Performers Task Force San Elijo Alliance Cardiff Sanitation District Solana Beach Sanitation District County of San Diego CalTrans Task Force Olivenhain Municipal Water District San Dieguito Irrigation District County Water Authority Estimated Cost Total Cost USB ia 5 June 1978 DEL mR Description This project is the reactivation of the Del Mar Waste Treatment Plant and the addition of a "Managed Ecological Wastewater Treatment System'! con- sisting mainly of a standard aerated lagoon with aquatic plants such as water hyacinths. The existing oxidation pond will be converted to an aerated lagoon with aquaculture. Fish ponds will be designed to achieve maximum nutrient removal. Filtration, disinfection, demineralization and nutrient stripping facilities may be required depending upon final water use. This facility will reclaim up to O.S MGD or approximately 470 acre- feet per year. Reclaimed water will be used locally for agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation and for management of the San Dieguito Lagoon water resources. Del Mar Feasibility Study Cost Estimate for 0.5 MGD (470 Acre Feet Per Year) Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot (20 Years) Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Design Criteria $ 1,924,000 205 245,000 524 501 Regulatory Criteria $ 1,924,000 205 263,000 563 612 Schedule Refer to flow chart and following tasks: Task Special Considerations 1. Marketing Time Consideration will be given to v/ater use on nearby agricultural lands to supplement or totally replace potable water. Water will also be used for management of the San Dieguito Lagoon, 2. Financial 3. Engineering Refer to Standard Task, Refer to Standard Task. Special expertise will be required for design and operation of the Managed Ecological Wastewater Treatment System. Fish ponds may be used to maximize nutrient re- moval. Reliability of such a system may be questioned Only those unit processes which utilize proven tech- nology will be considered for grant funding. The State Water Resources Control Board will determine if this project is eligible. I: Task Groundwater EIR 6, Public 7. Agreements Total Time Special Considerations This project is in hydrographic subunit 5.11 and has Basin Plan objectives for TDS of 500 mg/1 for surface water and 1500 mg/1 for groundwater. Study will consider impacts associated with the use of "design" quality water of approximately 1200 mg/1 TDS and "regulatory" quality water of approximately 500 mg/1 TDS. EIR will include health aspects of spray irrigation or reclaimed water in publicly used areas such as freeways. Impacts on the San Dieguito Lagoon from mutrients from all sources will be considered and evaluated. Public will be informed of health risks of utilizing reclaimed wastewater in public areas. Agreem.ents needed with City of Del Mar, CalTrans and agricultural users of water. Time Costs Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3- Engineering 4. Groundwater 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Performers Task Force City of Del Mar State Health CalTrans Consultant Consultant City of Del Mar Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board City of Del Mar Consultant Task Force Citizens Advisory Committee Task Force City of Del Mar CalTrans County Water Authority Estimated Cost Total Cost ) i TABLE B COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE WATER RECLA14ATI0N PROJECTS SAN DIEGUITO HYDROLOGIC UNIT DEL MAS ALTER.SATIVE NO. 1 Desig.T HGD A;:re-FeeC/Year (1) Figure No. Construction Costs Treatnenc Secondary Treatment (2) Filtration Disinfection Hitrogen and Phosphate Removal Desalting £ub Total Seasonal Storage Conveyance Facilities Tota l Cons ::r--ction Cost Construetior. C-s^/Acre-Foot (3) Annual Costs Debt Service (4) Operation ^ Maintenance (5) Power Tocal Anriual Cost Cost Pet Acre Foot KWH Per Year KKH Per Acre-Foot 0.5 468 B-10 750,000 112,000 70,000 4S0,000 179,000 1.561,000 188 ,000 70,000 105,000 1 ,92-5 ,000 182,000 54,000 9 ,000 245 ,000 524 234 , 250 501 B-12 750 , COO 112,000 70,000 450,000 179,000 1,M1,C0'J 193 ,0C0 70,000 105,000 1,5Z,4 ,000 186,000 66,000 11,000 263,000 563 286,250 612 {1) Baied upon 1995 projections, incluiir.g 20 actc-feet p^r year for SfcWdge production fron 22nd Agricultural District. (2) Cor. struct ion and annual costs anc! secondary trcr^tr-.ent not pro- jected ugainst wa£;te water recla:-ar.ic:L, (3) Based on 20 years production of reclaitried water. (4) Capital cost a.Tiortized over 20 years at 71 interest. (5) Does not include cost of power. - 4a - 31 May 1978 ESCONDIDO-HALE AVENUE Description Construction of an 11 MGD capacity effluent filtration system at the Hale Avenue plant, direct use of all reclaimed water for irrigation in the San Pasqual Valley. Installation of wells at the Narrows to extract approximately 1,850 acre-feet per year of groundwater from the underflow below San Pasqual Valley. Installation of 49,000 feet of 10-inch pressure pipe functioning as a conveyance line between the extraction well field and the Escondido land outfall to permit export of intercepted underflow to the ocean. 208 Cost Estimate for 11.0 MGD Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre-Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre-Foot Energ>'' Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre-Foot Design Criteria $ 7,291,000 66 950,000 173 768 Regulatory Criteria $ 11,494,000 131 2,889,000 656 2,470 Schedule Refer to flow chart and following: Task 1. Marketing Special Considerations Contact ranchers and farmers in San Pasqual Valley regarding contracting for product water. Time 2. Financial Refer to Standard Task. 3. Engineering Refer to Standard Task. 4. Groundwater Spray irrigation with 1200 TDS water. Consider desalination of portion . 5. EIR 6. Public Consideration to health aspects Inform public of health concerns and potential benefits. 7. Agreements Total Time Agreements between City of San Diego and City of Escondido. ' P L Escondido-Hale Avenue 2. Cost Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial Performers Estimated Cost Task Force Consultant 3. Engineering Task Force 4. Groundwater Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board City of San Diego City of Escondido 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Consultant Task Force Task Force City of San Diego City of Escondido County Water Authority -^1 <- ! > ! ^ i >, 'J u ^ ^ tu o c > CJ) -I cl >-i <: c; w P- CO ^ c 31 "-y 1978 RAMONA Description The Ramona Sanitation District presently operates a 0.5 MGD biological secondary sewage treatment plant, which serves the conmiunity of Ramona, The entire secondary effluent output of the plant is reclaimed for agri- cultural irrigation. Ramona Sanitation District owns some 200 acres of agricultural land which is leased to farmers through competitive bidding with the provision that the entire output of the reclamation plant must be used for crop irrigation. This project would filter the secondary effluent before disinfection, so that a larger variety of crops may be irrigated either on the District site or offsite. Presently only animal forage crops are being grown. 208 Cost Estimate for 0.5 MGD (400-500 acre feet/year) Design Criteria Regulatory Criteria Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot $ 100,000 10 20,000 40 33 $ 500,000 63 180,000 450 1,611 Schedule Refer to flow chart and following: Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial Special Considerations Ramona is in a critical water shortage area. There is an increasing demand for v^/ater for avocados and possibly other agricultural uses. Purpose would be to use reclaimed water to dis- place the need for imported water. Presently the irrigation on District land does not dis- place the neetl for imported water. District land would continue to be a fail-safe use and vtfould also be converted to a higher grade daily feed crop. Refer to Standard Task. Time 3. Engineering Refer to Standard Task. Ramona Task Groundwater EIR Special Considerations To meet regulatory criteria, a 0.4 MGD capa- city effluent filtration unit and a 0.4 MGD capacity reverse osmosis unit would be used to reduce total dissolved solids concentration in the reclaimed water to 333 mg/1. Waste brine would be disposed of by means of evapora- tion ponds. Refer to Standard Task. Time 6. Public Refer to Standard Task. 7. Agreements Refer to Standard Task. Total Time Cost Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering 4. Groundwater 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Performers Task Force Ramona Sanitation District Ramona Municipal Water District State Health Consultant Task Force Consultant Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board Ramona Municipal Water District Consultant Task Force Task Force Citizens Advisory Committee Task Force Ramona Municipal Water District County Water Authority Ramona Sanitation District Estimated Cost Total Cost ii 5 June 1978 POMERADO Descriptions The Pomerado County Water District has a 1.12 MGD capacity secondary treatment facility that is not currently in use. The project would re- habilitate the facility and add filtration, chlorination, 6000 feet of 12-inch gravity transmission line and seasonal storage with pumping facilities. The effluent could be used on the proposed Penasquitos Regional Park, the Los Penasquitos Golf Course or irrigation of groves. 208 Cost Estimate Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Feet Design Criteria $ 1,462,000 65 505,000 451 754 Regulatory Criteria $ 1,712,000 76 568,000 507 900 Schedule Refer to Flow Chart and following: Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial Special Considerations Consideration will be given to use of water on regional park, golf course and groves. Refer to Standard Task. Time 3. Engineering Refer to Standard Task. 4. Groundwater This project is in hydrographic subunits 6.10 and Surface- and 6.20 with Basin Plan. Objective of water 500 mg/1 TDS for surface water and groundwater objectives are not in effect is 6,10 and 500mg/l TDS for surface water and 750 mg/1 TDS for ground v/ater in basin 6.20. The study will examine the effects of using the effluent for irrigation and also discharging into Los Penasquitos Creek for transportation to the downstream users EIR Refer to Standard Task. Pomerado A'-- • Task 6. Public 7. Agreements Total Time Special Considerations Refer to Standard Task. Attempt to get commitment for County Parks if constructed or golf course. Time Costs Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering Ground^^ater 5 Surface Water EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Performers Task Force Pomerado County Water District Consultant Task Force Pomerado County Water District Consultant Consultant Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board Consultant State Health County Health Task Force Task Force Pomerado County Water District Task Force Pomerado County Water District County Water Authority County of San Diego Estimated Cost Note: Pomerado County Water District has applied for a Step I Grant for this project. If it is granted the project should be coordinated with the Water Reuse Study because of the groundwater considerations, possible use of the water by the County of San Diego, and the effect of the capacity on areas where land use decisions are made by the County. It : I f-^3 2 June 1978 SAN DIEGO COUNTRY ESTATES Description The existing waste water reclamation facility at San Diego Country Estates consists of a biological secondary dewage treatment plant with 0.25 MGD capacity, a 0.25 MGD capacity effluent filtration installation and a 0,25 MGD capacity reverse osmosis deslating plant. Desalted effluent is presently percolated into the ground for groundwater recharge. Waste brine from the desalting process is hauled from Ramona to the San Diego metropolitan system for disposal to the ocean. The project proposes use of the reclaimed effluent for irrigation of the existing golf course at San Diego Country Estates, a pumping plant and approximately 5,500 feet of 6-inch pressure pipe for conveyance of the effluent to the golf course. 208 Cost Estimate for 0.25 MGD (250 acre feet/year) Design Criteria Regulatory Criteria Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot $ 75,000 2 14,000 70 224 $ 75,000 2 137,000 685 2,123 Schedule Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. 4. Engineering Groundwater Special Considerations Refer to Standard Task. Refer to Standard Task. Refer to Standard Task. Presently the effluent is percolated into the ground where the basin objective is 600 TDS. It is planned to pump the water to the golf course in another basin where the objective is 1000 TDS. This will help displace the need for imported water. Under design criteria, the desalting equipment at the waste water reclamation facility would not be operated, assuming that raw sewage salinity would remain below 1200 mg/1. Under regulatory criteria reclaimed water would be deslated to a TDS concen- tration not in excess of 200 mg/1 for use in irrigating the golf course. By removing the 1/3 Time San Diego Country Estates Task 4. con't. Special Considerations rule for spray irrigation it will be possible to directly use the existing 600-700 TDS on the golf course and other open space areas. If the TDS gets higher, other alternatives such as percolating the water near the golf course and then spraying or blending with imported water, can be considered. Time 5. 6. 7. EIR Public Agreements Total Time Refer to Standard Task. Refer to Standard Task. Refer to Standard Task. Cost Task 1. Marketing Performers Task Force San Diego Country Estates Ramona Municipal Water District State Health Estimated Cost 2. Financial Consultant 3. Engineering Task Force Consultant 4. Groundwater Task Force Regional Water Quality Control Board Ramona Municipal Water District 5. EIR 6. Public 7. Agreements Consultant Task Force Task Force Citizens Advisory Committee Task Force Ramona Municipal Water District County Water Authority San Diego Country Estates Total Cost tA 5 June 1978 SANTEE - ALTERNATIVE #4 Description Rehabilitate the existing Padre Dam Wastewater Reclamation Plant to its rated capacity of 4.0 MGD and add a 4.0 MGD filtration. Capacity 3.25 MGD of the effluent would be used to irrigate the Carlton Oaks Golf Course, the golf course at Miramar Naval Air Station, and El Camino Cemetery. 55,000 feet of 12-inch force main would be constructed to transport the effluent. Additionally reclaimed water will be delivered to the sand and gravel pro- cessing plants in Carroll Canyon to provide industrial water supply. 0.75 MGD would be used for a live stream demonstration in the San Diego river. 208 Cost Estimate Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Design Criteria' $ 2,512,000 65 561,000 290 738 Regulatory Criteria $ 4,575,000 117 1,128,000 632 2,800 Schedule Refer to typical schedule, flow chart and following: Task 1. Marketing 2. Financial 3. Engineering Special Considerations Particular attention will be given to marketing the effluent at the Carlton Oaks Golf Course, Miramar Naval Air Station, and El Camino Cemetery. Sand and gravel processing plants in Carroll Canyon will also be considered for the industrial supply. Refer to Standard Task. Means will have to be developed to finance the live stream demonstration portion. Engineering will consider means for maintaining the live stream demonstration. , Time * Design criteria requires Basin Plan modifications Santee - Alternative #4 Task Special Considerations Time 4. Groundwater The areas of reuse are in several hydrographic S Surface subunits. Groundwater objectives do not apply Water for use on El Camino Cemetery and the Miramar Naval Air Station Golf Course. For use in the sand and gravel processing plants the surface water objective is 1500 mg/1 TDS and for ground- water is 1500 mg/1 TDS. The objective for use of the water on Carlton Oaks Golf Course in 1000 mg/1 TDS for both the surface and ground- water. Studies will have to be accomplished to demonstrate the effect of the effluent on these objectives. 5. EIR The effect of discharge into the river will have to be considered on the plant and animal life. 6. Public See Standard Task. 7. Agreements Agreements among Padre Dam Municipal Water District, Lakeside Sanitation District, El Cajon, State Health, County Health, Regional Water Control Board, City of San Diego, and the Navy. Total Time Cost Estimated Task Performers Cost 1. Marketing Task Force Padre Dam Municipal Water District State Health Carlton Oaks Golf Course U. S. Navy 2. Financial Consultant 3. Engineering Consultant Task Force 4. Groundwater Regional Water Quality Control Board ^ Surface Task Force Water .5. ETR Consultant Santee - Alternative #4 ; Estimated Task Performers Cost 6. Public Task Force Padre Dam Municipal Water District 7. Agreements Task Force Padre Dam Municipal Water District U. S. Navy City of San Diego County of San Diego Total Cost i p^*i^^ f: t 'une 1978 SANTEE - ALTERNATIVE #9 Description Enlarge the Padre Dam Water Pollution Control Facility to secondarily treat 9.2 MGD and add filtration and disinfection system. Also construct a con- crete-lined channel 90,000 feet in length from the Padre Dam Water Pollution Control Facility to the ocean along the San Diego river. The reclaimed water would be used by the doimstream owners for irrigation and maintaining a riparian habitat in the river. 208 Cost Estimate Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Design Criteria^ $ 10,304,000 51 1,380,000 137 355 Regulatory Criteria $ 16,378,000 81 3,226,000 320 1,366 Design criteria requires some modifications to the Basin Plan. Comments The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has objected to the construction of a concrete-lined channel in the San Diego river. This and other objections must be overcome. The Santee Alternative #4 includes a live stream demon- stration project for the San Diego river. It is recommended that this project, Santee Aitemative #9, be delayed unLil the Santee Alternative #4 project demonstrates whether a live stream is feasible. Then, after all agencies agree, this project could be implemented without the concrete channel and utilize the available 6 MGD not used in Santee Alternative #4. ML n «, -p-^ — — 5 June 1978 STEELE CANYON Description The project is the construction of a 1.3 MGD capacity wastewater reclamation , plant in the vicinity o£ Steele Canyon Bridge. Reclaimed water would be used to recharge the groundwater table of the Lower Sweetwater HSU, a short distance below Sweetwater Dam. Groundwater would be extracted to irrigate crops on North Otay Mesa or to be used for golf course irrigation in the vicinity of the percolation beds or for irrigation of Sweetwater Regional Park. Delivery of groundwater to the Proctor Valley area for irrigation of crops will be analyzed. The system is estimated to have a reclaimed water output capacity of 1,424 acre-feet per year in its initial phase. Approximately 35,000 feet of 12-inch diameter pressure pipe would be installed along the southerly side of Sweetwater Reservoir to convey reclaimed water from the treatment facility to percolation basins located below Sweetwater Dam in the vicinity of Conduit Road. Shallow wells, situated at least 1,500 feet from the percolation beds, would pump groundwater and deliver it to Proctor Valley by means of 21,500 feet of 12-inch pressure main. In the vicinity of the intersection of Proctor Valley Road and Telegraph Canyon Road, the 12-inch delivery main would split into two 10-inch branches, one extending some 3,000 feet to the north toward Rickey Dam and the other extending 3,000 feet southerly toward Salt Creek. 208 Cost Estimate for 1.3 MGD (1300 acre-feet/year) Design Criteria Regulatory Criteria Total Cost of Construction $ 2,219,000 $ 2,219,000 Cost Per Acre Foot 79 79 Total Annual Cost 277,000 277,000 Cost Per Acre Foot 195 195 Energy Requirem.ents Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot 267 267 Comments It is understood Otay Municipal Water District is proceeding with the project on a non-grant basis and is in effect in a design phase. This would place the project outside of the scope of the 201 Water Reuse Study. However, it is considered that the following should be coordinated with others: 1. The project considers groundwater recharge, extraction and use as a means of avoiding the regulatory constraint of desalting. Its accept- ability would depend upon demonstrating that the volumes to be recharged would be within the transmission capacity of the alluvium in the Lower Sweetwater HSU. Otay and the Reuse Study should coordinate with one another in getting the Regional Water Quality Control Board to reconsider the one-third rule under various conditions. Also the County/Spring Steele Canyon Valley Sanitation District has a proposed water reclamation project (Conduit Road project) which is concerned with the capacity of the alluvium in the Lower Sweetwater Hydrographic Subunit. 2. There can be a competition for a market for irrigation water to the Sweetwater Regional Park between the Spring Valley Sanitation District and Otay. 3. There will be a further review to determine if the Conduit Road pro- ject and the Steele Canyon project provide the best system engineering solutions to overall water reclamation in the area. i 1 a'ljT^a'i ^ 5 June 1978 CORONADO Description Construction of a 0.75 MGD capacity waste water reclamation plant in the City of Coronado to provide irrigation water to the Coronado Municipal Golf Course. The golf course is estimated to have an annual demand for reclaimed water of 375 acre feet. Treatment facilities to be installed would consist of a 0.75 MGD biological secondary sewage treatment plant, followed by filtration and disinfection. 208 Cost Estimate for .75 MGD Total Construction Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Total Annual Cost Cost Per Acre Foot Energy Requirements Kilowatt Hours Per Acre Foot Design Criteria $ 1,033,000 137 151,000 402 569 Regulatory Criteria $ 1,033,000 137 151,000 402 569 Recommendations: It is recoiTtmended that this project be strongly encouraged by the Reuse Study. However, in view of its special features it could be directly handled by the City of Coronado for the following reasons; 1. It does not require any revisions to the Basin Plan. 2. All land use, construction impacts, and operational and maintenance costs subsidies appear to only involve the City. This assumes the fail-safe and existing capabilities with the City of San Diego Metro System will continue If the City will require some form of annual subsidy from taxpayers outside the City then this should be coordinated with the Step I 201 Reuse Study. 3. The City submitted a Step I Grant application in early May 1978 and expects a Step II Grant in May 1979. 4. The proposed project seems to be very limited in respect to good system engineering alternatives with other users and providers of sewerage out- side of the City. This is a continuatio £ Enclosure 8 to the 24 May letter."^ ^ May 30, 1978 "• -A Task 3 Engineering (Portion) Subsidy Commitment (activity 3.05 - 3.06) After establishing a forecast of future water prices (2.1) within the potential service area of proposed reclamation facilities, a comparison will be made with the engineers' estimate of reclamation treatment and distribution costs (3.03 - 3.05). These projects which will provide reclaimed water at a lower cost than the determined water price will be given the highest priority. Those projects which will provide reclaimed water at a higher cost than the determined ivater price ivill become eligible for consideration of a subsidy. The subsidy commitment must be approved in principle by a private corpora- tion and/or the public agency willing to participate in promoting reclamia- tion through the use of a subsidy. The commitment may provide for sharing the subsidy among the sewering, treatment, reclamation, water supply and the wholesale water supply agencies. The subsidy usually will be in the form of a dollar commitment per unit of reclaimed water. The subsidy may be in the form of a fixed annual dollar arrount or any other acceptable financial assistance. The subsidy commitments will be compared project by project. It is anti- cipated that the highest ranking will be given to those projects which require the least public agency subsidy. V/here participation by the developer or private corporations reduces required public agency subsidies, such projects will be ranked accordingly. Negotiations with potential users of reclaimed water and negotiations for subsidy commitments shall include opportunities for public input. y* y* • • ^ y •• / The subsidy commitment will become a part of the joint powers agreement (See schedule chart element 7.1). Task 7.2 Joint Powers Agreement The preparation of the joint powers agreement will bring all of the partici- pants together and specify the role each is to have in the construction, operation, maintenance, financing and administration of the project. The several commitments by the users of reclaimed water, the water purveyor, the sewer plant operator, the reclamation plant operator, the water whole- saler and others will be formalized and defined in terms which will de- scribe the individual responsibilities for constructing, operating and financing the project. When all of the terms have been agreed to, the goveming bodies of the par- ticipating public agencies will be asked to adopt resolutions authorizing execution of the agreement by the appropriate officers. The joint powers agreement will become a part of the project report prior to final review and public hearings. RECEIVED Chapter VII . y ^973 A. 3. Marketing Studies and Commitments WOODSfDE fCUBOTA" ?f A5SCC. CONbULl II-JG t:NGiNi:LRS Marketing Studies (see scheduling chart elements 1.1 through j^jT; '-':'Jj , ^ The potential service area for each project will be analyzed for its market potential. The first step will be to identify present land uses on a base map which shows location as well as land ownership. The current demand for water will be determined by the metered water use. The future demand,on a time scale,will be estimated by pro- jecting the current water use based on future land use. The required water quality will be determined by the land use based on the type of agricultural use and health concerns. All prospective users of reclaimed water will be contacted so that the future avail- ability of reclaimed water can be described together with an explanation of its quality and the limitations which may be placed on its use. Detailed Plan (1) Advise elected officials and affected local agencies of the study. (2) Send informational letters to prospective users and pur-zeyors. (3) Establish procedures to handle public or user inquiries. (4) Media contact and coordination with agency public infonnation officers, (5) Develop questionnaires with follow-up meetings to ensure that the study progresses according to schedule. (6) Establish procedure to enhance the study's technical support of marketing discussions, particularly in regard to preliminary systems design and economic analysis. (7) Analyze replies and prepare a draft report covering market conditions and a proposed form o£ contract. (8) Personal contact with most likely condidates for service to establish typical contract conditions which appear to be mutually acceptable. (9) Prepare final report in loose-leaf binding designed for regular updating as conditions change or new prospective customers are recognized. Water Pricing (See scheduling chart element 2) Concurrent with the foregoing a water pricing study will be undertaken. It will include, but not be limited to: delineating the wholesaler and purveyor boundaries; doctunent all rates and taxes charged by each purveyor; project long-term water costs, rates and taxes at the whole- sale and retail level. Alternate future projections should be prepared as a function of uncertainties in energy costs, forecast of probable range of State Water Project off peak and on peak power costs after 1983 as a function of primary energy costs, water supplied from the State Water Project, Central Valley Project, possible continued droughts, water conservation efforts, extemal State demands from Arizona and Mexico. Through coordination with the Orange and Los Angeles Counties' Water Reuse Study it is planned to use parts of their study on water costs extemal to San Diego County. The water pricing study will be done in sufficient detail to allow those deciding on a subsidy to have a reasonable idea of the delivered cost of reclaimed water in comparison to other water costs. Also it is to be the basis of future negotiations and use commitments (see schedule chart elements 1.4 through 1.5). Marketing Commitment Negotiations (element 1.4) The user should set forth the extent of the long term use and any special conditions, such as peak or average flows, and maximum TDS requirements. The provider of the reclaimed water to the distribution system should set forth the flow and quality aspects to serve the stated needs and the costs. The negotiations with water purveyor will be directed toward seeking agreement or commitment to adopt water pricing policies which will encourage water reclamtion including: (1) Restrictions of service to customers served by reclamation proj ects. (2) Adoption of water rates schedule which do not give pre- ferential rates to agricultural landscape, parks or other services which include a subsidy or other preferenial treatments which would compete with reclamation project. Commitment Commitment (element 1.5) The commitment aspect by the water purveyor, and the treatment plant operator will be set forth in the form of a joint powers intent in task 7.1 for a commitment in the private sector. A letter of intent would be sufficient, however, this basis would be expected to be transformed into a more formal agreement upon the States approval of the project at Step II (start of final design). For commitment in the public sector a resolution setting forth a basic intent by the goveming body shall constitute a commitment.