VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR THE SAUGUS AND VALENCIA WATER RECLAMATION PLANTS (WRPS) OCTOBER TABLE OF CONTENTS

Transcription

1 VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR THE SAUGUS AND VALENCIA WATER RECLAMATION PLANTS (WRPS) OCTOBER TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. 0 APPLICANT AND OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION Profile of Discharger Contact Information Federal and State Guidance on Applying for Variances PARAMETER FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED Chloride Water Quality Objectives for Reaches 4. 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River Formal Request for Variance to the Chloride Water Quality Standard for Reaches 4. 5 and 6 ofthe Santa Clara River Proposed Interim Water Quality Objectives BACKGROUND AND SETTING Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS) Santa Clara River Watershed Regulatory History (Chloride Water Quality Objectives and WRP Effluent Limits) Background on 303(d) Listing for Chloride and Chloride TMDL Saugus and Valencia WRPs NPDES Permit Requirements Saugus and Valencia WRPs Chloride Effluent Levels Source Control and Local Restrictions on Self-Regenerating Water Softeners History of Districts Source Control Efforts in the SCVJSS Source Control of Chloride from Residences Source Control of Chloride at Industrial Facilities Source Control of Chloride at Commercial Facilities Source Control of Chlorides at the Saugus Liquid Waste Disposal Station Source Control of In-Plant WRP Sources of Chloride BASIS FOR VARIANCE REQUEST Justification for the Exception per 40 CFR $ (g)( 1-6) Naturally Occurring Pollutant Concentrations Prevent Attainment of Water Quality Standard [40 CFR $ (g)( l)] Past Drought Policies Analyses of Historic Chloride Concentrations - SWP Water and Blended Water Supply Human Caused Conditions or Sources of Pollution Prevent Attainment of Water Quality Standard [40 CFR (g)(3)] Proliferation of SRWS in the Santa Clarita Valley Due to Court Decisions and Statutory Changes Prevent the Attainment of the 100 mg/l Water Quality Standard Advanced Treatment Beyond What is Required By $301 (b) and $306 of the Clean Water Act Would Result in Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social Impact [40 CFR $ (g)(6)] t -.

2 SECTION Cost for Chloride Compliance Previous Studies Current System Performance Feasibility Determination Compliance Costs Economic Impact of Chloride Compliance Costs Analysis #1- Earnings, Taxes, and Employment Impacts Affordability Analysis Consideration of Factors under California Water Code Section Past, Present and Probable Future Beneficial Uses of Water Environmental Characteristics of the Hydrographic Unit under Consideration Influence of Groundwater on Surface Water Chloride Influence on Surface Water Hydrology Influence of Imported Water on Surface Water Conditions Influence of Saugus and Valencia WRPS on Surface Water Conditions Summary of Hydrologic Influences Water Quality Conditions that Could Reasonably be Achieved Through the Coordinated Control of All Factors Which Affect Water Quality in the Area Economic Considerations Estimated Cost to Ensure Compliance with Current WQO and Proposed WLA Estimated Cost to Ensure Compliance with Proposed Variance The Need for Developing Housing Within the Region Current Chloride Water Quality Objective Proposed Variance The Need to Develop and Use Recycled Water Documentation that Exception Will Not Compromise the Protection of a Water Body for Its Beneficial Uses Suspending the 100 mg/l Chloride Objective Will Not Adversely Affect the AGR Beneficial Use The Chloride Water Quality Objective of 100 mg/l is Not Necessary for Reaches 5 and 6 Because Avocado and Strawberry Crops are Not Grown in Reaches 5 and The Chloride Water Quality Objective of 100 mg/l is Not Necessary Since There is No Evidence of Increasing Trends or Impairment in the Groundwater Underlying Reaches 4, 5 and Recommendations for Proposed Interim Water Quality Objectives Compliance With State and Federal Anti-degradation Policies State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB Resolution No ) Consistency with the Maximum Benefit to the People of the State Unreasonable Impacts to Beneficial Uses Do Not Exist Federal Anti-degradation Policy 40 CFR $ How Public Interests Will Be Served by the Exception Discharge of Toxic Contaminants Preservation of Aquatic Life in the Santa Clara River Energy Impacts c

3 4.5.4 Cross-Media Impacts Summary of Public Interests Served by Variance Time-FrameEchedule For Attainment of Existing Standard andor Site Specific Objective COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) Description of Proposed Activity Environmental Impacts Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Determination Protection of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

4 LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ATTACHMENTS LIST OF TABLES Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Proposed Interim Chloride Water Quality Objectives - Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River Profile of Self-Reported Residential Water Softening Practices for the SCVJSS Study Sites Capital and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs for MicrofiltrationReverse Osmosis (MF/RO) Systems Capital and O&M Costs for Brine Disposal Systems Economic Implications of Compliance Costs for Proposed Chloride Limits at the Valencia and Saugus WRPs Demographic Information for Santa Clarita, CA Municipal Affordability Screener for Chloride Compliance Costs Chloride Thresholds Protective of the AGR Beneficial Use by Various Regional Boards Basin Plan Groundwater Objectives, Eastern-End of Piru Basin Proposed Interim Chloride Water Quality Objectives - Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River Projected Air Emissions from Increased Power for Chloride Compliance LIST OF FIGURES Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 5-1 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed, Reaches 4, 5 and 6 Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System - District Nos. 26 & 32 Santa Clara River Watershed Tri-Linear Diagram of Selected Surface Water Location for the Santa Clara River Radial Diagrams of Selected Surface Water Location for the Santa Clara River Saugus and Valencia WRP Final Effluent Chloride Concentrations in Comparison to Historical Effluent Limits SWP Water Chloride Concentrations at Check 41 Castaic Lake Effluent - Raw and Treated SWP Water Supply Chloride Concentrations Historical Chloride Concentrations for the Santa Clara Blue Cut Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Concentrations for the Santa Clara Blue Cut Historical TDS Concentrations for the Santa Clara Blue Cut Historical Flow for the Santa Clara Blue Cut Historical Ventura County Avocado Yield and Chloride Concentrations at the Los AngelesNentura County Line ( Present) Time-Line/Schedule for Proposed Variance LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Memorandums on Eastern Basin Groundwater Quality Basin Plan Objective History Chloride Related Resolutions Submittals of Districts Historical Chloride Source Control Efforts in the SCVJSS - October I -7 -, -- -

5 Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment 5.1 Court Decisions and State Legislative Actions on Self-Regenerating Water softeners Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System Chloride Source Report - October 2002 Ordinances Restricting the Installation of Self-Regenerating water Softeners in District Nos. 26 & 32 Cost Impacts For Chloride Compliance at the Santa Clarita Valley Water Reclamation Plants (To Comply With Rolling Annual Averages) - Prepared by Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH), June 2002 Cost Impacts for Compliance with a 100 mg/l Instantaneous Chloride Discharge Limit at the Santa Clarita Valley Water Reclamation Plants - Prepared by MWH, October 2002 Cost Impacts for Compliance with Proposed Chloride and Inorganic Nitrogen Daily Maximum Discharge Requirements at the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant - Prepared by MWH, April 2003 Economic Implications of the Proposed Santa Clara River Chloride Total Maximum Daily Load - Prepared by M-Cubed, October 2002 Affordability Analysis for Mercury Acid Soluble Variance Application, City of Indianapolis Concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids, Sulfate and Chloride in Well Waters, Eastern Subarea Santa Clara River Watershed Chloride Study - April 1999 Declaration from Newhall Land & Farming that Avocados And Strawberries Have Never Been Grown in Reaches 5 And 6 of the Santa Clara River Los Angeles Times Articles Pertaining to Avocado and Strawberry Crops Comments by Dr. Jim Oster Regarding the Protective Salinity and Chloride Thresholds for Strawberry and Avocado Crops Declaration of Dr. Gregory J. Partida on Avocados and Reclaimed Water University of California Committee of Consultants - Guidelines for Interpretation of Water Quality for Agriculture CA Department of Water Resources Comments Regarding Updating of Basin Plans for Planning Areas 4A and 4B (November 12, 1976) Memorandum Dated October 12,2000, from Sheila Vassey (Office of Chief Counsel, SWRCB) to Jon Bishop (LARWQCB), Re: Agricultural Beneficial Use in the Santa Clara River. Letter Dated May 2 1, 2003, from David K. Todd (Todd Engineers) to Vicki Conway (Districts), Re: Expert Technical Review of Chloride Trends October 7,2002 Newhall Land and Farming Letter to Chairperson Diamond, re: Comments on the Upper SCR Chloride TMDL Staff Report Basin Plan Amendment Documents - Resolution Letter dated December 1 1,2002, from Vicki Conway (Districts) to Mary R. Burger, et a1 (Camulos, RE: Information Request regarding Surface Water Diversion Volumes and Water Quality for the Irrigation of Avocados and Strawberries on Camulos Ranch Properties.

6 1.0 APPLICANT AND OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION 1.1 Profile of Dischargers This application for a variance from the chloride water quality standard and associated NPDES Permit Effluent Limits of 100 mg/l for Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River, and for the Saugus and Valencia WRPs, respectively, is being submitted by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts). The Saugus and Valencia WRPs have the following relevant site information: Saugus WRP Site Address: Springbrook Avenue Saugus, CA Site Telephone: (661) NPDES Permit No. CA , CI No. 2960) Existing LARWQCB Order No Valencia WRP Site Address: The Old Road Valencia, CA Site Telephone: (661) NPDES Permit No. CA , C1 No. 4993) Existing LARWQCB Order No Contact Information The contact person concerning this application is: Ms. Victoria 0. Conway Head, Monitoring Section County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 1955 Workman Mill Road Whittier CA, Telephone: x.2801 Fax: Federal and State Guidance on Applying for Variances U.S. EPA' guidance provides that an applicant submitting a variance request must demonstrate that attaining the water quality standard is not feasible because of one or more of the following use attainability factors as discussed in 40 CFR (g)( 1-6): Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use; or Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating State water conservation requirements to enable uses to be met; or Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place; or I US. EPA, Water Quality Standards Handbook, September, p

7 Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its modification in a way that would result in the attainment of the use; or Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or Controls more stringent than those required by $301 (b) and $306 of the Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact. EPA s Water Quality Standards Handbook also identifies several other requirements that a variance must meet in order to receive EPA approval, including the following: Each individual variance is included as part of the water quality standard; The justification submitted by the State includes document that treatment more advanced of 303(c)(2)(A) and (B) has been carefully considered, and that alternative effluent control strategies have been evaluated; The more stringent State criterion is maintained and is binding upon all other dischargers on the stream or stream segment; The discharger who is given a variance for one particular constituent is required to meet the applicable criteria for other constituents; The variance is granted for a specific period of time and must be rejustified upon expiration but at least every 3 years;3 and The discharger either must meet the standard upon the expiration of this period or must make a new demonstration of unattainability. Although the State of California does not have explicit regulations that apply generally for variances from State-adopted water quality standards, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board or SWRCB) does allow case-by-case exceptions from the toxic pollutant criteria contained in the California Toxics Rule (40 CFR 138) and from provisions found in the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standardsfor Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California. (SIP, 2000) This document, which was largely approved by the EPA, was consulted because of its relevance to a determination of what requirements must be met in order to obtain a variance from a water quality standard in California. The State Board believes a case-by-case exception may be appropriate when a site-specific objective may not be developed for a number of years.4 As EPA noted in a letter to the State board regarding the SIP, a case-by-case exception is considered by EPA to be essentially the same as a federal water quality standards variance. As stated in section 5.3 of the SIP, a case-by-case exception may be granted pursuant to the following provision: It appears that this reference to the Clean Water Act is in error, and instead Section 301(b)(l)(A) and (B), which specify technology-based requirements for point sources, should be referenced. In a letter dated May 1, 2001 from Ms. Alexis Strauss (Water Division Director for EPA Region IX) to Mr. Edward Anton (Acting Executive Director for the State Water Resources Control Board), EPA stated that the maximum duration for a case-by-case exception cannot exceed the maximum duration allowable for NPDES permit [5 years], thus acknowledging that there is flexibility in the duration for variances. Similarly, in a recent proposed rule establishing water quality standards for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, EPA Region I1 included a variance provision in the proposed regulations, and stated that a variance may not exceed five years or the term of the NPDES permit, whichever is less. (68 Fed. Reg , October 20, 2003) Justification for the duration of this proposed chloride variance is provided in Section 5 of this application. 4 See letter from Ms. Celeste Cantu (Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board) to Ms. Alexis Strauss, Water Division Director for EPA Region IX), dated June 26,2001 at page 6. 5 See letter from Ms. Alexis Strauss (Water Division Director for EPA Region IX) to Mr. Edward Anton (Acting Executive Officer for the California State Water Resources Control Board), May 2001, pp

8 Where site-specific conditions in individual water bodies or watersheds differ sufficiently from statewide conditions and those differences cannot be addressed through other provisions of this Policy, the SWRCB may, in compliance with the CEQA, subsequent to a public hearing, and with the concurrence of the USEPA, grant an exception to meeting a priority pollutant criteriodobjective or any other provision of this Policy where the SWRCB determines: (1) The exception will not compromise protection of enclosed bay, estuarine, and inland surface waters for beneficial uses; and (2) The public interest will be served. Additionally, the State Board indicated that, like EPA, an applicant for an exception must demonstrate that attaining the water quality standard is not feasible because of one or more of the use attainability factors contained in 40 CFR fj O(g).6 Additionally, when establishing water quality standards, the State requires that water quality objectives be established in water quality control plans. Since a variance involves the adoption of a temporary water quality objective, this application also includes an analysis of the California Water Code (CWC) Section factors that must be considered when a Regional Board or the State Board establishes water quality objectives. These include: Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of water; Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration, including the quality of the water available thereto; Water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area; Economic considerations; The need for developing housing within the region; and The need to develop and use recycled water. of these state and federal guidelines and requirements, we believe that this variance - application includes all necessary elements for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Administrative Law, and EPA to review and approve this request for a variance. 2.0 PARAMETER FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED 2.1 Chloride Water Quality Objectives for Reaches 4,5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River Table 3-8 of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Los Angeles Region (4), specifies the water quality objectives for chloride, which have been set at 100 mg/l for both the Santa Clara River Between Bouquet Canyon and West Pier Highway 99 (Reach 6), Santa Clara River Between West Pier Highway 99 and Blue Cut Gauging Station (Reach 5), and the Santa Clara River Between Blue Cut Gauging Station and A Street, Fillmore (Reach 4). Figure shows the reaches of the Santa Clara River for which this variance is requested. Further background information on the Santa Clara River Watershed and the chloride water quality objective is provided in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3, respectively. 6 See Memorandum from Stan Martinson (Chief of Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board) to All Regional Board Executive Officers, Assistant Executive Officers and NPDES Contracts, RE: Case- By-Case Exceptions (2002). 7 This variance is requested for all of Reaches 5 and 6, and the Eastern portion of Reach 4 (between Piru Creek and the Blue Cut Gauging Station). 3

9 -"---r -' Formal Request for Variance to the Chloride Water Quality Standard for Reaches 4,5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River The Districts are requesting a variance from the water quality standard for chloride for Reaches 4,8 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River, as the 100 mg/l objective is currently unattainable, and forms the basis for concentration-based waste load allocations specified in the pending Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL,9 as well as daily and monthly maximum discharge limits of 100 mg/l for the revised tentative NPDES permits for the Saugus and Valencia WRPs (NPDES No. CA , Order No. R XXXX and NPDES No. CA , Order No. R XXXX, respectively). Neither the Saugus WRP nor the Valencia WRP will be able to attain these standards because of chloride levels in the local water supply, because of the contribution of chloride from residential self-regenerating water softeners, and because currently available treatment processes for these plants (tertiary treatment facilities) do not remove chloride, as discussed in detail in Section 3.1. The justification and supporting documentation for this variance request is discussed more extensively in Section 4.0. The Districts are requesting this variance so that interim effluent chloride limitations can be included within the NPDES permits issued for the WRPs while special studies are being conducted and evaluated in order to determine appropriate and attainable chloride water quality standards for the subject reaches of the Santa Clara River." These studies are planned to be conducted with a specific implementation plan over a 5-year time frame, as discussed more extensively in Section 5.0 of this application. Therefore, the Districts request that a variance be adopted and approved on an expedited basis, and that the proposed interim chloride water quality objectives be used as the basis for chloride effluent limits when the Regional Board reissues the Valencia and Saugus NPDES permits Proposed Interim Water Quality Objective The Districts are proposing the following interim water quality objectives to apply to Reaches 4, 5 and 6 as specified in Table below: Reach Designation Santa Clara River Between Blue Cut Gauging Station and Piru Creek (Eastem end of Reach 4) Santa Clara River Between West Pier Highway 99 and Blue Cut Gauging Station (Reach 5) Proposed Interim Chloride Water Quality Objectives' 180 mg/lc 230 mg/ld Expiration Date Either 5 years from the effective date, or until the Saugus and Valencia WRP NPDES permits are revised to reflect a sitespecific chloride objective, whichever occurs first. Either 5 years from the effective date, or until the Saugus and Valencia WRP NPDES permits are revised to reflect a sitespecific chloride objective, whichever occurs first. 8 The portion of Reach 4 for which this variance is proposed is the Eastern portion of Reach 4, between Piru Creek and the Blue Cut Gauging Station. 9 See Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Total Maximum Daily Load for Chloride in the Upper Santa Clara River, October 24, 2002, as amended on July 10, 2003 (LARWQCB Resolution No. R02-018, as amended by LARWQCB Resolution No. R03-008). 10 Time Schedule Orders (TSOs), containing interim chloride limits, are proposed to be adopted at the same time the tentative NPDES permits for the Saugus and Valencia WRps are scheduled for adoption. Interim limits contained in TSOs do not protect dischargers from third party lawsuits when the corresponding final effluent limitation contained in the corresponding NPDES permit is exceeded. However, with an approved variance temporarily amending the Basin Plan's water quality objective, effluent limits based on the variance could be included in the NPDES permits thus negating the need for a TSO with interim limits and eliminating the exposure of dischargers to third party lawsuits. 4

10 Reach Designation Santa Clara River Between Bouquet Canyon and West Pier Highway 99 (Reach 6) Proposed Interim Chloride Water Quality Objectives' 230 m$ld Expiration Date Either 5 years from the effective date, or until the Saugus and Valencia WRP NPDES permits are revised to reflect a sitespecific chloride objective, whichever occurs first. 3.0 BACKROUND AND SETTING 3.1 Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS) County Sanitation Districts Nos. 26 and 32 (the Districts), shown in Figure 3.1-1, provide sewerage services to the Santa Clarita Valley, which is located in the northwest portion of Los Angeles County, California. The two Districts jointly operate a regional wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system referred to as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The SCVJSS service area consists of the City of Santa Clarita and a portion of unincorporated Los Angeles County, and serves about 150,000 residents (approximately 55,000 homes). The SCVJSS is made up of an interconnected network of more than thirty miles of trunk sewers, one pumping plant, and the two interconnected water reclamation plants:," namely the Saugus and the Valencia WRPs. The Saugus WRP has a design capacity of 6.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and the Valencia WRP has a design capacity (at the writing of this application) of 17.0 MGD. As discussed below, the Valencia WRP is currently undergoing construction to expand the capacity from 12.6 MGD (pre-construction capacity) to 21.6 MGD. The construction is expected to be completed in fall 2004 and will result in a combined design capacity for the Saugus and Valencia WRPs of 27.1 MGD.I2 Both the Saugus and Valencia WRPs produce an effluent quality that meets California's primary Drinking Water Standards for chemical constituents. It should be re-iterated that the tertiary treatment provided at both WRPs does not remove chloride during the wastewater treatment process. The Saugus WRP is a tertiary treatment plant consisting of comminution, grit removal, primary sedimentation, flow equalization, conventional activated sludge biological treatment operating in nitrification denitrification (NDN) mode, secondary sedimentation, inert media filtration, chlorination and dechlorination. No facilities for solids processing are located at the Saugus WRP. Instead, all solids are conveyed by trunk sewer or the waste activated sludge force main to the Valencia WRP for treatment. The treated reclaimed water is discharged from the Saugus WRP to the Santa Clara River. In 2001, the Saugus WRP discharged to the Santa Clara River, on average, 5.7 MGD of treated effluent. At this time, there are no specific plans for reusing the effluent from the Saugus WRP at off-site locations. The Valencia WRP is a tertiary treatment plant with solids processing facilities. Current treatment consists of comminution, grit removal, primary sedimentation, flow equalization, conventional activated sludge biological treatment operating in nitrification denitrification (NDN) mode, secondary sedimentation, inert media filtration, chlorination and dechlorination. The waste activated sludge from the I' The two plants are interconnected by interceptors that allow a portion of the raw wastewater generated in the Saugus WRP service area to be conveyed for subsequent treatment at the Valencia WRP. In addition, wastewater solids generated at the Saugus WRP are conveyed by trunk sewer or a waste activated sludge force main to the Valencia WRP for treatment. 12 By 2015, the wastewater flow in the SCVJSS is expected to increase to 34.1 MGD. To accommodate these flows, the Valencia WRP will be expanded to 27.6 MGD by See 2015 Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System Facilities Plan and EIR (Final), dated January

11 Saugus and Valencia WRPs is thickened using dissolved air flotation, combined with primary solids and then anaerobically digested. The digested sludge is dewatered using plate and frame filter presses, and is beneficially reused for agncultural land application. In 200 1, the average treated effluent flow discharged from the Valencia WRP to the Santa Clara River was 11.2 MGD. At that time, reclaimed water from the Valencia WRP was not being reused. However, at the end of 2002, construction was completed for a new water reuse pump station that enables direct deliveries of reclaimed (e.g., recycled) water to a distnbution system constructed by the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA), which first began in September The CLWA reclaimed water distnbution system will eventually serve up to 1.5 MGD of reclaimed water to a local golf course and residential development. The CLWA would ultimately like to construct a reuse system over the next 20 years that would use approximately 14 MGD of reclaimed water. As previously mentioned, currently the Valencia WRP is undergoing an expansion to increase its preconstruction design capacity from 12.6 MGD to 21.6 MGD.13 Construction on the expansion began in August 2001 and is expected to be complete in the fall of Santa Clara River Watershed The Santa Clara River is the largest river system in southern California that remains in a relatively natural state. The river originates in the northern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains in north Los Angeles County, traverses in a westerly direction into Ventura County, and discharges into the Pacific Ocean through the City of Ventura (see Figure 2.1-1). The river runs approximately 100 miles from its headwaters near Acton, California, to its outlet, and drains an area of approximately 1,200 square miles. For ease of reference, the portion of the river upstream (east) of the Dry Gap, located near the mid section of Reach 4, within Los Angeles County is generally referred to as the Upper Santa Clara River, and the portion of the river downstream (west) is generally referred to as the Lower Santa Clara River. The Upper Santa Clara River watershed consists of approximately 680 square miles of mostly natural land with some mixed type developed areas. Much of the development is concentrated in or near the City of Santa Clarita, the lone incorporated city in the Upper Santa Clara River watershed. Much of the lower watershed was originally Spanish land grants used for grazing cattle and dry-land farming. Urbanization since the late 1940 s has continuously modified the land use patterns throughout the entire watershed but more heavily in the upper portion. Since the 1950 s, agriculture found throughout the lower portion of the watershed has also been shifting from seasonal dry-land farming to predominantly year-round irrigated farming of citrus, avocado and row crops. Approximately 80% of the groundwater and surface water supply within the lower portion of the watershed is used for agricultural purpose^.'^ The climate in the Santa Clara River watershed region is Mediterranean, typical of the Southern California coast. Average annual precipitation varies from 14 inches along the coast, to about 17 inches near Santa Paula in the intermediate altitudes, and more than 25 inches in the surrounding mountains. Temperatures range from 90+ F near the coast in late summer and early fall to below freezing during winter in the bordering mountains. The mountains are composed of marine and terrestrial sedimentary and volcanic rocks. The basins are filled with a mixture of deposits of sands, silts and clays interspersed throughout the region, representing the exposure of several of the underlying formations. The basin drains from the east through the Santa Clara River and its major tributaries, Piru, Hopper, Sespe and Santa Paula Creeks. Natural flows in all the major streams and tributaries in the basin are intermittent and ephemeral, with most of the stream flows related to flood flows. Since the construction of Santa Felicia Dam in 1955, the controlled release of water from Lake Piru has resulted in fewer days of no flow 13 This 9 MGD project is Stage V of the planned expansion for the Valencia WRP in accordance with the 2015 facilities plan. The Stage VI expansion will provide another 6 MGD at the Valencia Plant by Hanson, R.T., Martin, P., Koczot, K.M.,2002. Simulation of Ground- Water/Surface- Water Flow in the Santa Clara-Calleguas Groundwater Basin, Ventura County, California. US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report , VP, San Diego, CA. 6

12 in the lower portion of the Santa Clara River. In addition, the release of treated wastewater (beginning in the mid 1960s) and imported surface water deliveries (starting in the late 1970s) in the upper portion of the watershed has resulted in an additional base flow in the Santa Clara River across the Los Angeles- Ventura County (LA-VC) line. This base flow (between the Saugus WRP and the LA-VC line) is composed of rising gr~undwater, ~ treated wastewater discharges from the Saugus and Valencia WRPs, releases of water stored in Castaic Lake, bank seepage, and non-point sources, including uncontrolled runoff from agricultural and urban areas not related to storm flows.16 The largest wastewater flow in the Santa Clara River is from the Districts two WRPs, while the imported water is released by the California Department of Water Resources per a 1978 agreement between the Department and downstream water users (DWUs). This surface flow does not persist in Reach 4 as it percolates to the underlying groundwater within a relatively short distance downstream of the LA-VC line. For the majority of each year, a dry gap exists from the point the surface water disappears a couple of miles downstream of the LA-VC line to the confluence of the river with Piru Creek. Between the Saugus WRP and the LA-VC line, there are gaining and losing reaches within the Santa Clara River, dependent on the aquifer-stream system. The Upper Santa Clara River aquifer-stream system consists of an unconfined alluvial aquifer, which underlies the Santa Clara River and its tributaries. In the upper portion of the Santa Clara River watershed where the Districts WRF s discharge, the river is an effluent-dependant water body for the majority of the year. Year round, with the exception of periods during significant rain events, the river is completely dry immediately upstream of the discharge from the Saugus WRP. Also, during the dry months of the year, there are locations in the river between the Saugus and Valencia WRPs where surface flow completely subsides for some period during the day (usually during the very early morning). These intermittent dry occurrences within the river correspond to the Saugus WRP low flow conditions. Surface flow is perennial from the Old Road Bridge to the dry gap a few miles west of the LA-VC line, as this portion of the river (Reach 5 and the upper portion of Reach 4) has been identified as a gaining reach due to geologic conditions that force groundwater to discharge to the streambed. The surface water at the LA-VC line contains more of the mineral character attributable to the rising groundwater.20 The absence of increasing trends in groundwater chloride concentrations within this reach also indicates that there is likely limited recharge of the groundwater from surface water flows, which typically have a higher chloride concentration than the groundwater.21 The sources of chloride to the upper reaches of the Santa Clara River are predominantly from the Districts WWs, though a significant portion of the total mass of chloride measured near the LA-VC line is also estimated to be from the combination of other minor point sources, non-point sources and rising The California Department of Water Resources estimates that approximately 10,660 acre-feet per year of rising groundwater discharges to the surface water near the Los Angeles-Ventura County line. l6 California Department of Water Resources, Investigation of Water Quality and Beneficial Uses, Upper Santa Clara River Hydrologic Area, 196 pp., June Wastewater is also discharged by the City of Santa Paula, and by City of Fillmore (but only during periods of heavy rainfall) to the Lower Santa Clara River. The DWU s are comprised of the following members: United Water Conservation District, Newhall Land and Farming, Los Angeles County and Newhall County Water District, see February 5, 2001 letter sent by the DWUs to Thomas M. Hannigan of the California Department of Water Resources entitled 1978 Agreement Between the Downstream Water Users and DWR for Storage of Castaic Creek Flows. Request for Amendment. l9 California Department of Water Resources, Investigation of Water Quality and Beneficial Uses, Upper Santa Clara River Hydrologic Area, 196 pp., June See California Department of Water Resources, Update of Basin Plan for Piru, Sespe, and Santa Paula Hydrologic Areas, June See also California Department of Water Resources, Investigation of Water Quality and Beneficial Uses, Upper Santa Clara River Hydrologic Area, 196 pp., June Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Eastern Groundwater Basin Study. August 11, 1999 Memorandum from Christian Alarcon to Vicki Conway (See Attachment 3.2-1). 7

13 groundwater. Based on flow measurements taken near the LA-VC line in Water Year ,22 the total flow discharged from the Districts WRPs comprised approximately 42% of the total flow measured. On a mass basis, over the same period, the Districts WRPs discharged approximately 60% of the total chloride loading measured near the LA-VC line,23 and the remaining 40% of the chloride loading is believed to be attributable to a combination of the other sources in the watershed. 3.3 Regulatory History (Chloride Water Quality Objectives and WRP Effluent Limits) In 1975, the Regional Board adopted chloride objectives for individual reaches of the Santa Clara River as part as the Water Quality Control Plan: Los Angeles Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan).24 As shown in Figure 2.1-1, the reaches of the river immediately downstream of the Districts WRPs are identified as: 1) Reach 525 bounded by the LA-VC line and Highway 99 and 2) Reach 626 bounded by Highway 99 and Bouquet Canyon Road. The chloride objectives were set at 90 mg/l for Reach 5 and 80 mg/l for Reach 6 as flow weighted annual averages. Based on a review of the administrative record for the Basin Plan, it appears that these objectives were based on what were assumed to be background water conditions at specific locations within the reaches2 and also were considered protective of the off-stream agricultural beneficial use. The Regional Board amended the Basin Plan in 1978 and revised the chloride objective for both Reaches 5 and 6 to 100 mg/l as flow weighted annual averages.28 Review of the administrative record for the 1978 Basin Plan amendments indicates that the 1978 objectives also were based on what were assumed to be background water conditions at specific locations within the reaches that were also protective of the off-stream agricultural beneficial use. These data did not reflect water quality at or near the locations where the Valencia and Saugus WRPs discharge, and therefore there are some questions over the how representative these objectives are of background water quality conditions for the entire length of each reach. A more extensive review of how chloride objectives were historically established in the Basin Plan can be found in Attachment With regard to requirements established in the NPDES permits for the Districts WRPs, there was considerable variation in the chloride effluent limitations. During the period 1975 to 1990, the NPDES permits for both plants included chloride effluent limitations ranging from no limits29 to limits of 100 mg/l to 250 mg/l. The Regional Board issued separate Water Recycling Requirements (reuse permits) in 1987 for the two WRPs with chloride limits of 300 mg/l, which are still in effect. In 1990, the Regional Board adopted a Drought Policy (Resolution 90-04) in response to the severe drought that began in 1987, which profoundly affected California s municipal/domestic water supplies. 22 Based on Water year (WY) October September 2000 flows measured daily at USGS gauging station (Santa Clara River Nr Piru), located approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the LA-VC line. 23 In Water Year (WY) , the total flow measured at USGS gauging station was 44,134 acre-feet per year (39.4 MGD), while the average chloride concentration measured at the LA-VC line was 114 mg/l. The daily chloride loading near the LA-VC line was estimated to be approximately 37,500 pounds per day. 24 Specifically, the Basin Plan (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the State s anti-degradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. 25 Reach 5 is also referred to as Reach 7 in the EPA s (d) List. 26 Reach 6 is also referred to as Reach 8 in the EPA s (d) List. * These conditions were therefore not reflective of the chloride levels in the entire lengths of Reach 5 and A footnote in the Basin Plan identified that this objective was based on a flow weighted annual average. When the Basin Plan was amended in 1994, the footnote was deleted from the adopted version of the Plan without an explanation of the modification. Since that time, the LARWQCB has interpreted the 100 mg/l chloride objective as an instantaneous maximum (not to be exceeded). 29 From 1979 through 1989, neither of the two WRPs NPDES permits included chloride effluent limitations. 8

14 During this drought period, most of the wastewater treatment plants in the Los Angeles region could not comply with their permit discharge limits for chloride, primarily as a result of increased chloride concentrations in imported surface water supplies from the California Bay-Delta region and the Colorado River. The 1990 Drought Policy provided a 3-year variance from the applicable chloride water quality objectives and established alternative limits that were based on the sum of the chloride concentration in the water supply tnbutary to the wastewater treatment plant and a chloride loading factor of 85 mg/l (to account for loadings from the industrial, commercial and residential sectors, and in-plant loadings (e.g., disinfection)) or 250 mg/l, whichever was less. The 1990 Drought Policy was renewed by the Regional Board in 1993 and again in In 1997, the Regional Board permanently revised (by relaxing) the chloride objectives applicable for the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers to 190 mg/l and 180 mg/l, re~pectively.~' Due to concerns expressed about the potential future impacts to agricultural resources in Ventura County, the chloride water quality objectives were not revised for the Calleguas or Santa Clara River watersheds at that time. Consequently, the Drought Policy was renewed for dischargers to both the Calleguas Creek and Santa Clara River watersheds. This 1997 Drought Policy expired in January Also during the period the 1997 Drought Policy was in effect, another Basin Plan amendment, proposing to revise the chloride objective for the Santa Clara River, was prepared by the Regional Board, but was not approved for various reasons including concerns about compliance costs and future potential impacts to agricultural resources in Ventura County. 3.4 Background on 303(d) Listing for Chloride and Chloride TMDL Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to develop lists of waters that do not meet water quality standards even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that states develop TMDLs for these impaired waters (or EPA, if a state fails to do so). A TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, with a margin of safety, and allocates pollutant loadings among point and non-point pollutant sources. In 1998, the Regional Board added Reaches 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River to the State's 303(d) list for ~hloride.~' In May 1998, the State Board decided to remove the Santa Clara River chloride listings based on the ongoing review of the chloride water quality objective and concerns about the inconsistencies between the surface water objectives and underlying groundwater objectives, which range from 150 mg/l to 200 mg/l where the agricultural use is present. However, in taking final action on California's list in May 1999, the EPA overturned the State Board's decision to not list chloride, and re-listed Reaches 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River. On August 21, 2002, the Regional Board released the Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL for public comment. This TMDL required that both the Saugus and Valencia WRPs meet an effluent numeric target of 100 mg/l (as an instantaneous maximum). The TMDL was approved by the Regional Board on October 24, In the TMDL, the Districts' WRPs were assigned a waste load allocation via a numeric concentration-based effluent limit of 100 mg/l. The cost to meet an instantaneous maximum 30 See LARWQCB Resolution 97-02, Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan to Incorporate a Policy for Addressing Levels of Chloride in Discharges of Wastewaters, January 27, 1997 (Attachment 3.3-2). 31 Note that reaches 5 and 6 as identified by the Regional Board were identified as Reaches 7 and 8 on the EPA's 303(d) List. 32 While this TMDL was not originally included in the 1999 Consent Decree for the Los Angeles Region (Heal the Bay et al. v. Browner, No. C SBA), the Regional Board stated that it had been added by EPA to the Consent Decree schedule with an adoption date of March 2002 for the State and a backstop adoption date for EPA of March 2003 (this deadline was later extended to June 2003). However, as EPA clarified in its May 1, 2003 draft Chloride TMDL for Reaches 3, 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara Iiiver, only Reach 3 is included in the Consent Decree, not Reaches 5 and 6. Thus, there is no requirement in the Consent Decree that the chloride TMDL for Reaches 5 and 6 be completed by a date certain

15 100 mg/l effluent limit is estimated to be $422 million, with an annual operations and maintenance cost of $9.7 million (see Attachment ). The advanced treatment required would also have significant cross media impacts, which are further discussed in Section 4.5. The TMDL included provisions in the implementation plan to address the water quality objective for the Santa Clara River Reaches 5 and 6. The October 2002 Regional Board-approved chloride was remanded by the State Board back to the Regional Board in February 2003 to address several concerns.33 The Regional Board revised the TMDL and approved the revisions in July As of October 2003, the revised TMDL has not received final approval from the State Board, the California Office of Administrative Law or EPA. These approvals are necessary before the TMDL becomes effective and can be implemented through NPDES permits, such as the inclusion of interim limits in the NPDES permits. The Regional Board plans to propose an amendment to the July 2003 Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL at a future date that will address interim limits based on concerns raised by the Districts that the Valencia and Saugus WRPs may be unable to comply consistently with the interim chloride limits currently specified in the TMDL. However, at this time, the proposed amendment to the TMDL has not been scheduled for a hearing date. 3.5 Saugus and Valencia WRPs NPDES Permit Requirements The Regional Board is currently scheduled to adopt new NPDES permits for both the Valencia and Saugus WRPs on November 6, The tentative permits include a final chloride effluent limit of 100 mg/l based on a monthly average and justified by the current Basin Plan objective. The tentative permits also include a final waste load allocation for chloride of 100 mg/l based on a daily maximum that will become effective as the final effluent limitation when the TMDL receives all necessary approvals. Interim limits based on the TMDL (which the Districts cannot consistently comply with) are also included in the tentative permits and will only apply when the TMDL becomes effective. In the interim period, the Regional Board proposes to issue Time Schedule Orders (TSOs) for both the Saugus and Valencia WRPs, which are scheduled for adoption at the same November 6, 2003 hearing as the tentative permits. These proposed TSOs contain interim chloride limits (somewhat less stringent than the interim limits in the Chloride TMDL), which will be in effect from the time the tentative permits go into effect (50 days from the date of adoption) until the time the TMDL becomes effective, at which time the TMDL-specified interim limits (specified in the permits) will go into effect See SWRCB Resolution No This Resolution found that the Chloride TMDL adopted in October 2002 by the Regional Board did not adequately resolve issues regarding the appropriateness of the compliance time schedules for implementation tasks. The Resolution directed the Regional Board to consider: the timing and sequence of implementation tasks; language acknowledging that if advanced treatment and disposal facilities are found to be necessary, the implementation schedule could be extended to account for events beyond the control of the Districts; extending the interim effluent limits beyond the 2.5 years in the originally-adopted TMDL (so that the interim limits would remain in effect for the entire 13-year implementation period); requirements related to provision of an alternative water supply; and whether an integrated solution for all 303(d)-listed water quality pollutants should be used for the Santa Clara River basin. 34 Regional Board Resolution No. R03-008, adopted on July 10, Typically, permitting authorities set interim limits at levels that a discharger can meet for the duration of the period needed for the discharger to come into compliance with final effluent limitations. The Regional Board s practice has been to set interim limits at the 95th (monthly) and/or 99th (daily) percentile of a discharger s past performance data, which statistically means that at some point the effluent will not comply with the interim limits. In the case of chloride, the Districts believe this approach to setting interim limits is even more inappropriate because chloride loadings to the WRF s have risen in recent years due to factors beyond the Districts control (i.e., imported water supply and residential self-regenerating water softeners (SRWS) contributions) and because chloride levels in the effluent at the WWs are highly variable. The high degree of variability of chloride in the effluent is likely due to water softener discharges, which are highly concentrated brines containing as much as 10,000 mg/l of chloride. Therefore, the Districts have been working with Regional Board staff to develop alternative approaches to setting interim limits, but mutually agreeable levels have not been reached. As an additional concern, since the interim limits in the permits are not effective until the TMDL has been fully approved and is in effect, the interim 10

16 3.6 Saugus and Valencia WRPs' Chloride Effluent Levels During 2001, the Saugus and Valencia WRPs collectively discharged approximately 16.9 MGD of tertiary effluent to the Santa Clara River with an average chloride concentration of 168 mg/l. In 2002, the Saugus and Valencia WRPs collectively discharged approximately 18 MGD of tertiary effluent to the Santa Clara River with an average chloride concentration of 183 mg/l. Chloride concentrations discharged from these two WRPs for the period January 1971 through December 2001 are shown in Figure along with the corresponding surface water chloride objectives and the numeric effluent chloride limits. As shown in Figure 3.6-1, effluent chloride concentrations are highly variable from month to month and year to year. These variations can be caused by a number of factors including the concentration of chloride in the drinking water supply (both local groundwater and imported surface water and the resulting blending ratios), loadings from the residential, commercial and industrial sectors, and by contributions from the use of chemicals in the wastewater treatment process. As described in the following section, the Districts can regulate discharges of chloride from industrial and commercial sources and to a lesser degree, residential sources. The Districts have no authority to regulate chloride levels in potable water supplies, which constitutes a major portion of the WRPs' influent chloride load. In the past several years the Districts have eliminated the use of chloride containing chemicals to the maximum extent possible to reduce treatment plant loadings. The in-plant reductions are discussed in more detail in Section At present the only chloride added during the treatment process is sodium hypochlorite for disinfection purposes, which contributes on average approximately 7 mg/l to effluent chloride concentrations. It should be noted that the current treatment processes at these two WRPs do not have the capability of removing chloride from the wastewater. 3.7 Source Control and Local Restrictions on Self-Regenerating Water Softeners History of Districts' Source Control Efforts in the SCVJSS The Districts have undertaken extensive efforts to limit the discharge of chlorides to wastewater in the SCVJSS. These efforts were summarized in two submittals to the Regional Board (see Attachment 3.7-1). A summary of some of the highlights of these efforts is provided below I Source Control of Chloride from Residences Source control of chlorides from residences in the SCVJSS began in 1961 with adoption of resolutions by the Districts that prohibited the connection of laterals or other sewer lines to the Districts' sewerage system that included salt brines produced by the regeneration of water softeners (e.g., self-regenerating water softeners or SRWS). The prohibition applied to all users of the sewerage system including residential, commercial and industrial users. However, in 1997 the portions of the resolutions applicable to residences were invalidated based on the outcome of several lawsuits that impacted the ability of local agencies to control residential SRWS. In particular, the California Courts of Appeals ruled in two different districts that local ordinances restricting the use of residential SRWS were not allowed due to superceding state statutes. The Court suggested that state statutes be amended if local control of SRWS was desired. limits in the TSOs prevail, which do not provide protection from third party lawsuits seeking to enforce the underlying final limits contained in the permits themselves. The liability for noncompliance with final limits over an extended period of time is considerable, and unacceptable, given that the Regional Board is itself acknowledging that a given period of time will be necessary before compliance with final limits will be possible. 11

17 In response, Senate Bill 1006 was enacted in It amended the California Health and Safety Code (Section ) to establish conditions under which a local agency could regulate the installation of new residential SRWS. It did not provide authority to regulate SRWS installed before the effective date of a new local ordinance, and required that certain stringent conditions be met prior to passage of any ordinance. These conditions include non-compliance with an NPDES permit or water reclamation requirements, limitation of the saline discharges from non-residential sources to the extent technologically and economically feasible, determination that restrictions on residential SRWS is the only available means of achieving compliance with permit or water reclamation requirements, and completion of an independent study to quantify all sources of salinity to the sewer system. The provisions of Senate Bill 1006 became effective on January 1, A more thorough discussion of the history of the legal and legislative actions can be found in Attachment The Districts began preparation to enact ordinances restricting the use of residential SRWS in early To prepare a report on sources of chloride in the SCVJSS, extensive sampling of wastewater from residential, commercial, industrial, and hauled waste sources began in February and continued throughout the year. This effort involved collection and analysis of over two thousand chloride samples. A study was also conducted on a residential SRWS to quantify salt discharges from the unit. A comprehensive report on sources of chloride in the SCVJSS was released in October 2002 (See Attachment 3.7-3). During preparation of the report, the Districts initiated public outreach efforts to reduce the usage of residential SRWS. The Districts hired a public relations firm to develop an outreach program and to test the program in two pilot areas. Elements of the program included two mailings of letters, plus frequentlyasked-questions sheets to all 500 residents of the two pilot neighborhoods. An additional letter, authored by the Regional Board, was also mailed to the pilot-area residents. Opinion leaders in the community, such as elected officials and environmental group leaders, also received the mailings. Real estate agents were mailed information on the environmental impacts of SRWS, and asked to share the information with new homebuyers. An Internet web site was developed on chloride and SRWS. Pre- and post- outreach surveys were conducted of the target residents, to determine the effectiveness of the program, in August 2002 and February 2003, respectively. The program was found to be successful in increasing awareness of the environmental impacts of SRWS and in influencing the decisions of people who had not yet purchased water conditioning systems. It was not successful, however, at convincing residents with existing SRWS to remove them. In early 2003, the Districts undertook final preparations to enact an ordinance to prohibit the installation of SRWS in the SCVJSS. In early February 2003, notices were mailed to every residence with a sewer connection in the SCVJSS regarding a public hearing on a rate increase. Included in the mailing was notification that the Districts also would be considering ordinances banning the installation of SRWS. The ordinances were introduced by the Boards of Sanitation District Nos. 26 and 32 on February 12,2003 and adopted on February 25, The ordinances took effect on March 27, (See Attachment 3.7-4) Several press releases were issued about the ordinances, resulting in local news coverage as well as coverage in the Los Angeles Times. The Districts were the first agency in the state to restrict SRWS under the provisions of Senate Bill Developers, plumbers, contractors, water conditioning companies, and realtors were all informed about passage of the ordinances. A letter was also sent to every residence in the SCVJSS informing them of the ordinances. A brochure was printed about the ordinances; over fifteen hundred copies have been distnbuted to date. Additionally, all eight of the local retailers selling SRWS agreed to voluntarily stop selling the units. The chloride web site was updated to include information on the SRWS ordinances. 12

18 Public outreach about the environmental impacts of SRWS continues in the SCVJSS service area. The Districts have hired a social marketing firm to conduct a three-year program in the SCVJSS to encourage residents to move away from the use of SRWS. The firm is currently in the process of developing outreach messages and strategies for the social marketing program, and plans to test its ideas with focus groups in November and December In the meantime, the Districts have participated in several environmental fairs in the area to pass out educational information and the Districts continue to field calls from Santa Clarita Valley residents with questions about the SRWS ordinances. Because the pilot-scale public outreach project indicated that outreach alone was not sufficient to convince residents to give up their existing SRWS, the Districts are currently investigating incentives and disincentives that could be used in addition to public outreach. Options being investigated include rebates, buy-back programs, implementation of a differential rate structure, and demonstration projects. consulting firm was hired to conduct a quantitative analysis of the various options available and make recommendations as to which options could be implemented based on legal and technical feasibility, and plans to conduct focus groups in November 2003 to explore the options in more depth. The analysis will build upon a study conducted earlier this year by the National Water Research Institute, with funding from the Districts and several other organizations, to explore consumer behavior toward different types of incentive programs to reduce salinity contributions to wastewater from water softener usage Source Control of Chloride at Industrial Facilities Since the Santa Clarita Valley is primarily a bedroom community, it hosts only a limited amount of industry. The Districts regulate approximately sixty industrial wastewater discharger^^^ in the SCVJSS, including several cosmetics manufacturers, eight metal finishers, four printers, two correctional facilities, a large theme park, and a hospital. The Districts began source control of chloride at industrial facilities in 1961 with the adoption of resolutions prohibiting the discharge to the sewerage system of salt brines produced by the regeneration of water softening units. This prohibition is still in place and is strictly enforced. Although two industries in the SCVJSS have on-site regenerable water softeners, the brines are removed for off-site disposal or evaporated on-site. On-site inspections and manifest reviews are used to verify proper brine disposal. The Districts supplemented the salinity source control program beginning in the mid-1990s by imposing numerical limitations on total dissolved solids (TDS) and non-volatile TDS at industrial dischargers in the SCVJSS. These limitations were applied as existing permits were renewed and as new permits were issued. Limits for these two parameters were set at 1,000 mg/l, which is equivalent to the limitations for TDS in the Saugus and Valencia NPDES permits.37 In the late 1990s, chloride limitations of 180 mg/l were imposed on industrial dischargers as their permits were issued or renewed. This limit was based on the interim chloride water quality objective then in effect for the Santa Clara River to protect designated agricultural beneficial uses in the receiving waters downstream of the Districts SCVJSS treatment plants. In April 2001, the Districts alerted all industrial users about upcoming chloride limitations that would be imposed, pending the finalization of the Chloride TMDL and the imposition of new permit requirements for the Saugus and Valencia WRPs. In September 2002, all industrial dischargers in the SCVJSS were assigned a chloride limit or required to develop a chloride reduction work plan, or both. The target chloride limit for every industry is 100 mg/l, which is currently the most stringent water quality objective 36 The SCVJSS currently has a total of 65 industrial wastewater connections to the sewerage system. 37 It is important to point out that any local limit implemented by a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must be technically based. One means of setting a technically based local limit, particularly when a stringent discharge limit has to be met at the POTW, is to make the industrial discharge limit equivalent to the POTW discharge limit. This assures that industrial dischargers will not cause or contribute to POTW limit exceedances. 13

19 for the Upper Santa Clara River. As this concentration is only 40 to 50 mg/l above the long-term average potable water supply chloride concentration, it also represents a concentration at which no significant saline discharges can be present. A 100 mg/l chloride limitation was imposed on the 31 industrial waste sewer connections that had chloride discharge concentrations at 100 mg/l or below. The purpose of the limit is to ensure that these industries maintain their current discharge levels. The 34 industrial connections with chloride concentrations above the 100 mg/l target were required to submit a Chloride Reduction Worlcplan detailing the steps necessary to reach the target chloride concentration of 100 mg/l. Each facility has been required to implement all technologically and economically feasible means of reducing chlorides. Ten of these industrial waste connections currently have an interim chloride limit of 230 mg/l, which will automatically convert to a 100 mg/l limit in November The remaining 24 facilities either have been or will be assigned a site-specific chloride limit that takes into account implementation of all technologically and economically feasible means of reducing chloride discharges I.3 Source Control of Chloride at Commercial Facilities Numerous commercial businesses serve the SCVJSS, such as restaurants, movie theaters, and dry cleaners. Source control for chloride at these businesses began in 1961 with passage of resolutions prohibiting the discharge of brines from SRWS. These resolutions are still in effect for commercial businesses. Until 2002, the focus of chloride source control efforts at commercial businesses was enforcement of the SRWS brine prohibition. Starting in 1997, the Districts began increased inspections of commercial business in the SCVJSS to ensure that no SRWS were used. Over 400 such inspections have been conducted to date, including inspection of every restaurant using non-disposable serving utensils and every hotel in the SCVJSS in early Letters reminding businesses of the SRWS prohibition were sent to restaurants, dry cleaners, gyms, car washes, and beauty salons during the period, regardless of whether or not the facility had a water softening system currently in place. Facilities with SRWS were required to remove the systems immediately, and the Districts have conducted follow-up inspections to confirm removal of all SRWS. The Districts have continued to review business listings in the SCVJSS to identify new businesses or existing businesses under new ownership that might not be aware of the prohibition on SRWS. When a new business or existing business under new ownership in a sector of concern3* is identified, the business is provided with information on the SRWS ban and a Districts' Industrial Waste Inspector visits the facility, notifies the business ownedsite manager of the brine discharge prohibition, and conducts an inspection of the premises. In August 2002, the scope of notification was broadened and letters were sent to all commercial businesses in the SCVJSS, regardless of business type, to remind them of the prohibition on the discharge of SRWS brines. In 2002, the Districts began efforts to further reduce chloride discharges from commercial businesses. The Districts used a contractor to investigate available means of reducing saline discharges at commercial businesses to the extent technologically and economically feasible. The investigation found that the only technologically and economically feasible means of reducing saline discharges from commercial businesses was to require best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented for swimming pool operation. The investigation also identified voluntary BMPs for chloride reduction that could be employed for sanitizing, laundering, and janitorial cleaning. In December 2002, the Districts sent a letter to all commercial businesses in the SCVJSS, to encourage the use of voluntary BMPs for sanitizing, laundering, and janitorial cleaning. The letter also informed pool owners that mandatory BMPs would be issued, and reminded businesses of the prohibition on use of 38 Including restaurants, car washes, hotels, and laundromats. 14

20 SRWS. In January 2003 letters were sent to all potential owners of swimming requiring implementation of BMPs to reduce chloride in swimming pool discharges. BMP certifications have now been completed for all 249 regulated swimming pools Source Control of Chlorides at the Saugus Liquid Waste Disposal Station In addition to wastewater directly discharged to the sewerage system from industrial, commercial, and residential sources, the Districts accept a small amount of wastewater in the SCVJSS that is delivered by truck (hauled waste). The Districts operate the Saugus Liquid Waste Disposal Station (LWDS), which accepts trucked loads of portable toilet, septic tank, and cesspool wastes. Wastes brought to the station are treated at the Saugus WRP and only contribute less than 1% of the chloride loading to the effluent chloride concentration. Nevertheless, the Districts have undertaken chloride source control efforts for this facility. Chemical toilet waste generally has significantly higher chloride concentrations than septic waste, so source control efforts for chloride at the LWDS have focused on reduction of chemical toilet waste acceptance. In June 2001 all haulers using the Saugus Liquid Waste Disposal Station were notified by letter regarding additional restrictions on the use of the disposal station. Chemical toilet services using the deodorizer Para dichlorobenzene were informed that they could no longer bring chemical waste to the station if they continued to use this chemical, as the resulting liquid waste contained excessive concentrations of Para dichlorobenzene. The haulers were also informed that chemical toilet loads would no longer be accepted at the station when the NPDES permits for the Saugus and Valencia WRPs were reissued to include chloride limits. As a result of the chloride and Para dichlorobenzene notifications, most chemical toilet services in the area elected to stop using the Saugus LWDS. Only two chemical toilet services continue to use the station S Source Control of In-Plant WRP Sources of Chloride There are two primary in-plant sources of chlorides to the SCVJSS WRPs: disinfection and chemical addition to enhance treatment. Historically, chloride was added to wastewater at the Saugus and Valencia WRPs from the use of chlorine gas (Cl,) and later sodium hypochlorite (NaOC1) for disinfection of final effl~ent.~' Chlorine gadsodium hypochlorite has also been periodically used in the operation of the primary sedimentation bio-scrubbers, although the chloride contribution from this process is very small. In addition, chloride was added at both plants from the use of ferric chloride (FeC13) for primary sedimentation (to enhance settling). At the Valencia WRP, FeC13 was used to enhance the dewatering of biosolids (filter press coagulation) and maintain odor control. Ferrous chloride (FeC12) has also been used in the operation of the anaerobic digesters. Finally, the Valencia WRP utilized a self-regenerating water softening system for the water feed to the boilers used for the anaerobic digestion process. This system had a small brine wastestream that was discharged to the headworks of the Valencia WRP. Due to concerns over the in-plant loading of chloride from WRP chemical usage, in 2000, the Districts initiated a study to evaluate the use of ferric sulfate (FeS04) as an alternative to FeC13. The study showed that in terms of performance, FeSO, could successfully replace FeC13. In May 2000, FeC13 was replaced with FeS04 for primary sedimentation at the Saugus WRP. In November 2000, FeC13 was replaced with FeS04 for primary sedimentation and biosolids processing/odor control at the Valencia WRP. In August 200 1, the Valencia WRP also replaced the self-regenerating water softening system that was necessary to reduce scale formation in the hot water boilers used for the anaerobic digestion process. The Valencia 39 Except those owned by individual households and those permitted under the Industrial Wastewater Discharge program. 40 The use of chlorine gas was discontinued in 1998 for safety reasons. The NPDES permits for the two WRPs require compliance with a final effluent coliform limit of less than 2.2/100 ml based on a seven-day median. 15

21 WW now uses a water softening service that replaces the spent ion-exchange media with new media, and regenerates the spent media off-site. 4.0 BASIS FOR VARIANCE REQUEST As noted in Section 1.3, both the State and EPA guidance provides that an applicant submitting a variance request must demonstrate that attaining the water quality standard is not feasible because of one or more of the use attainability factors as discussed in 40 CFR $ (8). Of the six factors listed in Section 1.3, the following three use attainability factors are considered in this variance application: (1) (2) (3) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use [40 CFR (g)(l)l; Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place [40 CFR $ (g)(3)]; and Controls more stringent than those required by $301 (b) and $306 of the Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact [40 CFR $ (g)(6)]. Each of these factors and the scientific and technical evidence supporting the need for the variance are discussed more extensively in Section 4.1. Further evidence as recommended by State and EPA guidance documents is also provided in Sections 4.2,4.3,4.4 and 4.5 in support of this variance application. 4.1 Justification for the Exception per 40 CFR $ (g)(l-6) Naturally Occurring Pollutant Concentrations Prevent Attainment of Water Quality Standard [40 CFR $ (g)(l)] The Districts believe that naturally occurring pollutant concentrations, namely the increased chloride concentrations that occur in the imported State Water Project (SWP) water during drought and/or drierthan-normal conditions, prevent the attainment of the 100 mg/l chloride objectives for Reaches 4,5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River. The Districts believe that this conclusion is justified for the following reasons: 1) Past Drought Policies enacted by the Regional Board during the last two state-wide droughts set a precedent acknowledging that the existing chloride water quality standards were unattainable during drought conditions; and 2) Analyses of historic chloride data in the imported SWP and blended water supply in the Santa Clarita Valley during drought and/or drier than normal conditions, show that the potable water supply can exceed the 100 mg/l objective, thus preventing attainment of this water quality standard I Past Drought Policies During the last two major statewide droughts in and , the Regional Board enacted policies to provide regulatory relief to POTWs in meeting TDS and chloride limits, respectively, during drought conditions, acknowledging that the water quality standard for chloride is unattainable during these conditions. For example, on September 26, 1977, the Regional Board unanimously passed a motion not to bring enforcement actions against POTWs that failed to meet TDS effluent requirements because of drought-related circumstances (See Attachment 3.3-2).41 In 1990, after two years of severe drought and 41 Drought-related circumstances included: where the sole reason for the increased mineral content is the change in water supply [due to drought conditions], as well as when the reason for increased mineral content is a decrease in 16

22 increased chloride levels in the Los Angeles region s potable water supplies, the Regional Board adopted a Drought Policy (Resolution No ), which amended existing dischargers waste discharge requirements for chloride, including the Saugus and Valencia WRPs NPDES permits, by stating that existing waste discharge requirements relative to chlorides shall not be considered by this Board to be violated unless effluent... concentrations of chlorides exceed 250 mg/l or [potable water] supply concentrations plus 85 mg/l, whichever is less. The Drought Policy was renewed by the Regional Board in 1993, 1995 and again in 1997 (See Attachment 3.3-2). From 1990 through January 2001, these drought variances resulted in interim chloride limits for the Saugus and Valencia WRPs at levels up to 190 mg/l. In 1997, before the expiration of the Drought Policy, the Regional Board adopted Resolution No , which increased the water quality objective for chloride for several water bodies in the Los Angeles region as a permanent, long-term solution to the chloride dilemma, associated with drought conditions. It should also be noted that it was the intention of Resolution 97-02, to similarly revise the chloride objectives for the Santa Clara River Reaches 3,4, 5 and 6.42 In summary, previous Regional Board policies have acknowledged that the existing water quality standard for chloride was unattainable during drought conditions in the Santa Clara River watershed, as well as the Calleguas Creek, Los Angeles and San Gabriel River watersheds. Furthermore, the Regional Board permanently revised chloride objectives in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River watersheds, which was meant to be a long-term solution to address increased chloride concentrations in surface waters during drought conditions. It should be noted that the 1997 Basin Plan Amendment revising the chloride objectives in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River watersheds was justified by the Regional Board because they concluded that the alternative solution (treatment of water supply and/or wastewater) was likely to cause greater environmental impact than any net benefit.43 This issue is discussed in more detail in Section I.2 Analyses of Historic Chloride Concentrations -Imported SWP Water and Blended Water Supply The salinity of SWP water is greatly affected by climatic and seasonal variations (i.e., drought versus non-drought or normal conditions), which significantly influence the salinity fluctuations of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Salinity increases when SWP water passes through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to connect to the California Aqueduct, where the West Branch terminates at the Castaic Lake Reservoir. Under drier than normal conditions? the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has a higher salinity. This historic fluctuation of SWP water salinity is presented in Figure , which shows the historic chloride concentrations at Check 41 (Tehachapi Pass). Check 41 is a SWP water quality monitoring station, located before the California aqueduct splits into the west and east branches. Thus, it is a good indicator of the water quality that enters the West Branch of the California Aqueduct, which ultimately is the water delivered to the Castaic Lake Reservoir, which is located in the upper portion of the Santa Clara River watershed. The greatest fluctuations can be observed in the period between Periodically, there have been high chloride spikes, such as the levels observed in the fall of 1994, early winter in 1998, the fall and early winter of , and the winter of In each of these cases, drier-than-normal conditions were observed, especially at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.45 Typically, water pumped through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta takes approximately 1 to 2 years to show up as deliverable SWP water sold by the Santa Clarita Valley wholesaler, Castaic Lake Water flow due to water conservation measures. 42 As explained in Section 3.3, a decision about revising the chloride objectives for the Santa Clara River watershed was deferred. 43 See Section for a more extensive discussion on the findings made by the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Board. 44 Drier than normal conditions are typically assessed by comparing the water year (October through September) or seasonal precipitation against their long-term averages at key rainfall gauging stations across the State. 45 Personal communication with David Kimbrough, Water Quality & Laboratory Supervisor, CLWA, June,

23 ~~~ Agency (CLWA), to local retail water purveyors, due to reservoir storage and turnover time.46 Approximately 30% of the Check Point 41 chloride data show concentrations exceeding 100 mg/l, the surface water chloride objective for Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of SCR watershed. It is important to note that the chloride contained in the water supply is not removed during domestic use or during treatment at the wastewater treatment facilities currently operating in the Santa Clarita Valley (i.e., the Valencia and Saugus WRPs); therefore, all of it ends up passing through the WRPs into the Upper Santa Clara River. These salinity fluctuations in the SWP water can also be observed in the imported water treated and delivered by the CLWA. Although the chloride concentrations levels observed in the untreated and treated SWP water sold by CLWA to local retail purveyors are somewhat attenuated from the Check Point 41 levels due to the large storage capacity of the Castaic Lake Reservoir and the influence from captured local stormwater, they still have regularly exceeded the 100 mg/l chloride objective. As shown in Figure , the chloride concentration in the CLWA deliveries to local Santa Clarita Valley retail water purveyors increased during the drought, and reached 144 mg/l in It is also important to note that more recent data ( ) for Castaic Lake indicate that the chloride concentrations in water delivered by the CLWA increased by almost 40 mg/l from 1999 to mid In fact, the Castaic Lake chloride concentration observed in March 2003 was 95 mg/l, the highest chloride concentration observed since the last statewide drought of Due to the long residence time of SWP water in Castaic Lake, the higher salinity levels observed in drinking water supplies in the fall and early winter are contained in the water now being delivered by CLWA to local retail water purveyors, thus resulting in an extended period of high chloride concentrations in wastewater. Lastly, historic chloride concentration data for the blended water supply in the Santa Clarita Valley also provide evidence that the 100 mg/l water quality standard for Reaches 4, 5 and 6 can be unattainable during drought conditions. Analyses performed on the Santa Clarita Valley blended water supply concluded that during drought conditions, the projected chloride concentration of the blended water supply exceeds the 100 mg/l water quality objective over 42% of the time, providing additional evidence that the water quality standard is unattainable during these conditions (see Attachment 3.7-3).47 In summary, the data and analyses presented above substantiate the conclusion that naturally occurring pollutant concentrations (during drought and drier than normal conditions) prevent the attainment of the 100 mg/l water quality standard for chloride per 40 CFR fj (g)( 1) Human Caused Conditions or Sources of Pollution Prevent Attainment of Water Quality Standard [40 CFR $ (g)(3)] Proliferation of SR WS in the Santa Clarita Valley due to Court Decisions and Statutory Changes Prevent the Attainment of the I00 mg/l Water Quality Standard The use and proliferation of self-regenerating water softeners (SRWS) also prevent attainment of the water quality standard per 40 CFR $ (g)(3). As discussed extensively in Section 3.7, the Districts have been actively implementing various source control programs for chloride in the residential, industrial and commercial sectors, as well as reducing in-plant chloride loading from chemical usage. However, as explained in Section 3.7.2, court rulings in 1997 and subsequent legislation passed by the State Legislature, prevented municipalities from enacting ordinances to prohibit SRWS from discharging brine to municipal sewer systems between 1997 and January 1, 2003, following which a local agency could only enact an ordinance if it complied with all criteria specified in Section of the Health and Safety Code. The result of these court rulings and new legislation was that over a five-year period 46 Ibid. 47 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System Chloride Source Report. October 2002, Section

24 between 1997 and 2002, the usage of SRWS in the SCVJSS dramatically increased,48 seriously undermining and preventing the Saugus and Valencia WRPs from attaining the chloride water quality objectives in the immediate future.49 Based on results and findings reached in the SCVJSS Chloride Source Report, SRWS discharge brine at concentrations exceeding; 10,000 mg;/l on average, and represented 33% of the total chloride load (above water supply) to the SCVJSS in The loading from SRWS alone, increased to an estimated 35% share of the total load to the SCVJSS in During this same time period, it is estimated that the percent market penetration of SRWS installed in new homes built since 2001 was between 50 and 60%. While the Districts were successfully able to enact ordinances (that took effect on March 27, 2003) prohibiting the future installation of SRWS in District Nos. 26 and 32, the existing load from grandfathered SRWS units that are legally allowed, remains and prevents attainment during the next five years (the projected period of the proposed variance) of the current chloride water quality objectives. In summary, the existing grandfathered SRWS units prevent the attainment of the chloride water quality standard during the next five years, as documented in the SCVJSS Chloride Source Report, and in the discussion above. This human caused condition or source of pollution was a direct result of precedential state appellate court decisions, which prevented the Districts from enforcing the long-term bans on residential SRWS that had been instituted by Districts Nos. 26 and 32 in the 1960s. Subsequent actions taken by the State Legislature allowed the Districts to re-institute this ban after January 1, However, the existing grandfathered residential SRWS units remain in the SCVJSS, thereby preventing attainment of the chloride water quality standard for the time being Advanced Treatment Beyond What is Required By $301 (b) and $306 of the Clean Water Act Would Result in Substantial and Widespread Economic and Social Impact [40 CFR $ (g)(6)] Per the criteria given in 40 CFR 13 l.lo(g)(6), the data and analyses supplied herein will demonstrate that the required costs of treatment upgrades for the Valencia and Saugus facilities to meet effluent limitations to comply with the objective will result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact. 4. I.3. I Costs For Chloride Compliance Previous Studies In anticipation of the new discharge limits for chloride at the Valencia and Saugus WRPs once revised permits are issued, a series of reports were prepared for the Districts by Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) to determine the projected cost of compliance. The following material is included in each of the reports issued: 0 0 Historical and projected effluent flows and chloride concentrations; A discussion of treatment alternatives, including selection of the most feasible technology for chloride removal; Design and cost information, including capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, for the selected technology (microfiltrationheverse osmosis); and, 48 As discussed in Attachment 3.7-3, the market penetration of SRWS was between 50 and 60% for newly constructed homes built after The Districts estimate that it will be between 7 and 15 years before water softeners installed during the time-period are taken out of service, depending on how long the useful life of these units is. 19

25 0 Cost information, including capital and O&M costs, for a series of brine disposal alternatives required as part of the chloride removal system. MWH first issued a report in June 2002 outlining the design requirements and costs for chloride removal at the Valencia and Saugus WRPs based on meeting a rolling 12-month average chloride effluent concentration of 104 mg/l at Valencia and 103 mg/l at Saugus. These values were based on anticipated wasteload allocations (WLAs) that were to be issued by the Los Angeles Regional Board.50 A second report was issued by MWH in October 2002 to update and refine these design and cost requirements after the Regional Board released the proposed Chloride TMDL for public comment in August 2002 containing revised final WLAs of 100 mg/l chloride as an instantaneous maximum for both facilities. In March 2003, the Districts instituted a ban on prospective installations of residential SRWS, which are a significant source of chloride in the influent to the WRPs. Because this ban would impact the projected future chloride concentrations at the WRPs, MWH issued a final report in April 2003 that further refined its design and cost estimates to reflect this change in projected chloride influent levels. Copies of these reports are provided as Attachments , and respectively Current System Performance In Attachments , , and , MWH reviewed the historical data available for effluent chloride concentrations at the Valencia and Saugus WRPs for a period from approximately 1970 to Graphs depicting the cumulative frequency distributions of both the 24-hour composite and instantaneous chloride concentrations are included in these reports. Based on the historic data, MWH determined that additional treatment would be necessary in order to meet a discharge limit of 100 mg/l as a daily maximum value. Therefore, to meet the proposed discharge limits, the Valencia and Saugus facilities would incur additional costs beyond those necessary to pay for the existing level of treatment at these facilities. As noted in Section 3.1, both the Saugus and Valencia WRPs provide tertiary treatment, which is a level of treatment beyond that required by Clean Water Act Section 301(b)( l)(b)(requiring secondary treatment for Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Feasibility Determination In order to determine the appropriate costs associated with meeting the chloride effluent limits, MWH identified the various treatment alternatives available for chloride removal in its June 2002 and October 2002 reports. The technologies reviewed and ranked were as follows: Multi-stage flash distillation (MSF); Multiple effect distillation (MED); Vapor compression distillation (VCD); Electrodialysis reversal (EDR); Ion exchange (IX);and, Microfiltration (MF) and reverse osmosis (RO). For the various distillation technologies, MWH cited a lack of application to reclaimed water or wastewater and therefore did not consider these technologies to be technically feasible. EDR was 50 Based on waste load allocations as presented in Table 9 of the Regional Board s Preliminary Drajl TMDL for Chloride for the Upper Santa Clara River, dated July 19, The ordinances enacting the ban were enacted in February 2003 and became effective in March These ordinances were adopted in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section , which allowed for prospective control of residential SRWS after January 1,2003, provided certain conditions were satisfied I. T -. -.

26 removed from consideration based on reports of prohibitive operational costs from the City of San Diego, which has plans to replace their current EDR system with an MF/RO system. Ion exchange was evaluated and rejected based on the fact that it is an untested technology in water reclamation. Reverse osmosis was considered by MWH to be the most feasible treatment technology for chloride removal. RO has been identified as the best available technology (BAT) by EPA for salt removal, and has been used in other water reclamation facilities. In order to provide the necessary quality of feedwater to an RO process, MWH included the installation of a membrane microfiltration (MF) system based on previous studies conducted in San Diego. Based on this information, MWH proceeded with the design and cost of an MF/RO system for both Valencia and Saugus. Each design was sized and its cost estimated based on the projected design flows and chloride levels for the year The MFRO units were sized based on these design criteria and on treating the minimum slipstream of flow required to meet the TMDL-driven effluent limits (i.e., based on the wasteload allocations contained in the TMDL) in each case examined. In designing the MFRO systems for Valencia and Saugus, MWH also investigated the feasibility of various brine reduction technologies to minimize the expense of disposing of the brine waste stream generated during treatment. Among the technologies identified and evaluated were: Solar evaporation; Crystallization; Chemical precipitation; Brine concentrating membranes; and, Freeze drying. In evaluating these technologies, MWH determined that each had significant disadvantages, including being land intensive, energy intensive or representing a technology unproven for the application. Therefore, the design of the chloride treatment system includes direct disposal of the RO reject (brine) stream. In its designs, MWH included costs for four disposal options: A gravity pipeline to a new 3-mile dedicated ocean outfall that would be located in Ventura County; A pipeline and pump station to the Districts Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) facility in the City of Carson, which has an existing discharge tunnel and ocean outfall; and, Trucking brine waste to JWPCP; and, Disposal via deep well injection. The third of these options was considered infeasible due to the quantity of brine that would be produced from the MF/RO systems; therefore, costs were developed only for the two brine pipeline options and for deep well injection Compliance Costs In Attachments and , MWH developed capital and operating costs for the MF/RO facilities at the Valencia and Saugus WRPs to meet effluent limitations of 100 mg/l as an instantaneous maximum and as a daily maximum. Because the April 2003 report (see Attachment ) includes design conditions most likely to exist for any future construction of an MFRO system, the costs from that report are included in this discussion for the compliance scenario to meet the 100 mg/l limit as a daily maximum only.52 The total costs for both facilities are presented in Table : 52 Note that the cost estimate based on meeting the 100 mg/l as an instantaneous maximurn is significantly higher than for a daily maximum, with an estimated total capital cost of $422 million, and an annual operation and 21

27 Valencia WRP Saugus WRP Total Total Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Total Annualized Cost2 $1 10,600,000 $30,400,000 $141,000,000 $3,900,000 $1,100,000 $5,000,000 $14,340,000 $3,970,000 $18,310,000 MWH noted that these estimates do not include costs for either site acquisition or equalization upstream of the microfiltration unit, which would be required to minimize large swings in feed quality to the MF/RO system. In addition to these costs, MWH evaluated the projected capital and O&M costs for each of the brine disposal options considered feasible. Those costs are summarized in Table : Table Capital and O&M Costs for Brine Disposal Systems' Option 1 - Pipe to ~entura/~utfall~ Total Capital Cost $2 13,000,000 Annual O&M Cost $289,000 Total Annualized Cost' $ Option 2 - Pipe to JWPCP Total Capital Cost $258,000,000 Annual O&M Cost $1,124,000 Total Annualized Cost' $ I, Option 3 -Well ~njection~ Total Capital Cost $135,000,000 Annual O&M Cost $49 1,000 Total Annualized Cost2 $13,230,000 ' Based on compliance with a daily maximum limit of 100 mg/l. *Assumes capital spread over 20 years at 7% interest. It should be noted that the feasibility of this option for brine disposal is uncertain with respect to available well storage capacity and project approvals from regulatory agencies. It should be noted that obtaining a permit to discharge brine from the regulatory agencies is uncertain.. For the cost estimates of Options 1 and 2, MWH notes that the following constraints and considerations were not factored into the cost estimates: Geologic conditions; River or stream undercrossings; Traffic control; Property acquisition and rights-of-way; Permitting; Environmental assessment; Permit for ocean discharge; and Dewatering flows that cannot be discharged to the Santa Clara River. In addition to the cost estimates, MWH also includes estimates on the project duration for installation of the MFRO systems and for each brine disposal option. Assuming that construction of the MFRO systems and brine disposal system would occur concurrently, the total project length is estimated at seven to eight years. maintenance cost of $9.7 million. This is equivalent to a total present worth of $525 million or a total annualized cost of $49.5 million per year, assuming a capital spread over 20 years at 7% interest 22

28 Economic Impact Of Chloride Compliance Costs Because the proposed limits and projected influent parameters from the April 2003 report most accurately reflect the conditions for which chloride treatment will be required, estimated costs from that report (see Attachment ) are used to evaluate the economic impact on the communities served by the Valencia and Saugus WRPs Analysis #1 -Earnings, Taxes, and Employment Impacts In October 2002, a report was prepared for the Districts by M.Cubed (M3) outlining the projected economic implications that would result from the then available estimated costs required for compliance with the proposed chloride limit of 100 mg/l (instantaneous maximum) for the Valencia and Saugus WRPs. A copy of this report is provided as Attachment The analysis performed by M3 includes cost data taken from the MWH report of October 2002 and utilizes the IMPLAN model to determine the economic impacts associated with these costs. The M3 report states that IMPLAN is commonly used by a wide range of public and private sector organizations to examine the economic impacts of proposed public policies. Because this report uses the data from the MWH report of October 2002, the results are shown both in their original format and adjusted to reflect the difference between the total annualized costs presented in the October 2002 and April 2003 MWH reports. The total annualized costs from the April 2003 report range from 75 to 80% of the October 2002 costs; therefore, the impacts reported in the M3 report have been adjusted by the average change in cost between the October 2002 and April 2003 estimates (77.7 %). The impacts identified are shown in Table : Table Economic Im at the Valencia and Saugus W Reduction in Total Industry output Reduction in Total Value Added Reduction in Total Labor Income Reduction in Employee Compensation Reduction in Proprietors Earnings Reduction in Other Property Income Reduction in Indirect Business Taxes Reduction in Employment Values are in 2003 dollars. Lications of Compliance Costs for Proposed Chloride Limits IPS Original Impact (October 2002 Costs) $7 1,440,000 $33,720,000 $20,3 10,000 $17,360,000 $2,950,000 $9,970,000 $3,440, Adjusted Impact (April 2003 Costs) $553 10,000 $26,200,000 $15,780,000 $13,490,000 $2,300,000 $7,740,000 $2,680, Affordability Analysis In addition to the economic impacts identified in Table , it is necessary to determine whether the costs associated with treatment plant upgrades to meet the 100 mg/l chloride effluent limits (as a daily maximum) will be considered affordable to the community. For this purpose, the EPA has developed guidance to determine the affordability of public works projects.53 The Municipal Affordability Screener 53 EPA, Office of Water, Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook, (March 1995, EPA ^ - *

29 I-- - ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ (MAS) is defined as a value of one to two percent, indicating that the projected sewer utility payments should be between one and two percent of the median household income (MHI) for the service area in question. This analysis has been previously used to support variance request applications in the state of Indiana. A copy of such an analysis, performed by Crowe Chizek on behalf of the City of Indianapolis for its mercury variance application, is included for reference as Attachment Utilizing the procedures in the Crowe Chizek analysis as a basis, an affordability analysis for the costs of chloride compliance at the Valencia and Saugus WRPs is presented below. Relevant demographic information for the City of Santa Clarita is provided in Table : Source: 3Data obtained from Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (FY ). Source: US. Census Bureau, estimated poverty line for household with an average of 3.5 occupants. Based on the MHI for the City of Santa Clarita, the MAS threshold is calculated to be $1,460. In contrast, the MAS threshold for families below the poverty line is caiculated at $327. Using the EPA guidance for affordability, the calculated annualized cost per household for the chloride compliance project ranges from $457 to $590 with an average of $528, depending on the selection of the brine disposal method. Calculations for the MAS threshold for chloride compliance costs are provided in Table Table Municipal Affordability Screener for Chloride Compliance Costs I Item I Brine Line to I Brine Line to I Deep Well I Average Finance Rate (%)' Repayment Time (yr)' Annualization Factor Capital Costs to Existing Service Base' JWPCP Ventura Injection $305,835,406 $271,342,691 $21 1,555,319 $262,911,139 I Annual O&M Costs to Existing I $4,694,075 I $4,054,044 I $4,208,878 I $4,318,999 I Service Base ' Annualized Capital Costs to I $28,868,699 I $25,612,831 1 $19,969,326 1 $24,816,952 Existing Service Base' Total Annualized Costs to I $33,562,774 I $29,666,874 I $24,178,203 I $29,135, B ), found in EPA, Water Oualitv Standards Handbook (Second Edition), Appendix M (August as amended, EPA-823-B al 24 7 "' -

30 Data obtained from MHW April 2003 report. The total costs presented in the MWH report are adjusted in Table to reflect the current service base (which is based on a total combined SCVJSS capacity of 28.1 MGD versus the basis of the total costs representing 2015 capacity of 34.1 MGD). Data obtained from Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (FY ), includes single and multi-family residences and commercial sewerage units. 4Data obtained from Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (FY ). If the established MAS criterion of two percent were utilized, the average value obtained from the MAS determination would be considered unaffordable for all family incomes below $26,400. Based on available data from the City of Santa Clarita website, approximately 13% of the population falls at or below this income level. Therefore, installation of the chloride removal systems at the Valencia and Saugus WRPs would likely have a detrimental impact on the poorest 13% of the population. 4.2 Consideration of Factors under California Water Code Section The California Water Code (CWC) Section specifies that Regional Boards shall establish water quality objectives that in its judgment will ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance^.'^ When establishing water quality objectives, the Regional Board must consider the following factors: Past, present and probable future beneficial uses of water; Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration; Water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area; Economic considerations; The need for developing housing within the region; and The need to develop and use recycled water. Regarding establishment of the existing chloride water quality objectives, the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan) was adopted in This original Basin Plan designated beneficial uses for ground and surface waters within each subbasin of the region. Agricultural Supply (AGR) was designated as a beneficial use for a large portion of the Santa Clara River watershed. In accordance with this beneficial use designation and background water quality conditions, water quality objectives were developed on the basis of existing published criteria for irrigation water supplies and historic water quality conditions. For most of the constituents contained in Basin Plan Tables 3-8 and 3-10 for surface and groundwaters, respectively, in the Santa Clara River watershed, water quality conditions at the time (circa 1975) were used to establish water quality objectives. The surface water chloride objectives for the Santa Clara River (since 1978) were set at 80 mg/l in Reach 3 of the Santa Clara River and at 100 mg/l in Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River. Chloride, a component of salinity, in high concentrations has the potential to impair agricultural uses. The surface water quality objectives for TDS and boron, which also have the potential to impair agncultural uses at high concentrations, vary in the Santa Clara River from 1,000 mg/l to 1,300 mg/l for TDS and from 1.O mg/l to 1.5 mg/l for Boron, for Reaches 3 through 6. The 1975 Basin Plan justified the mineral thresholds for protection of the agricultural use based on the University of California (UC) Committee of Consultants 1973 version of Guidelines for Interpretations of Water Quality for Agriculture. These guidelines included recommended levels for TDS, chloride and boron in irrigation water, for which no adverse impact on vegetation growth or crop production would occur, of 480 mg/l, 106 mg/lss and 0.5 mg/l, respectively. These thresholds were set to protect against 54 State Water Resources Control Board in Resolution recognized that it may be possible for the quality of water to be changed to some degree without unreasonably affecting beneficial uses. 55 This chloride threshold is recommended for crops sensitive to salts via foliar absorption (leaf uptake). The 25

31 - - T -. -*. leaf-tip bum and other salinity-related impacts that could affect crop yield. A review of historic surface water quality conditions in the Santa Clara River from the 1920 s to the present shows that the UC Committee of Consultants recommended thresholds for TDS and chloride have routinely been exceeded in Reach 4 (See Figures (Chloride) and (TDS) for the Santa Clara Blue Cut), where salt-sensitive crops are known to be cultivated. Furthermore, the majority of groundwater objectives set for TDS, chloride and boron in the groundwater basins underlying Reaches 3 and 4 of the Santa Clara River, also exceed these recommended mineral water quality thresholds. Since Ventura County has a long history of viable and profitable agricultural industry, and most recently a flourishing avocado industry (which is identified as the most salt sensitive crop grown in the vicinity of Reach 4), it appears that the agricultural beneficial use is being fully supported in this watershed despite the fact that historic surface water quality and Basin Plan groundwater objectives exceed the UC Committee of Consultants recommended thresholds for TDS, chloride and boron. It should also be mentioned that the Basin Plan does not contain surface water objectives for TDS, chloride, and boron specifically to protect or maintain aquatic life habitat, or to meet the fishable/swimmable EPA goals. However, because the EPA recommended criteria for aquatic life protection are 230 mg/l as a four-day average (chronic criterion) and 860 mg/l as a one-hour average (acute criterion), the existing mineral water quality objectives in the Basin Plan have been thought to be fully protective of aquatic life. In establishing the water quality objectives for TDS, chloride and boron, the 1975 Basin Plan and the subsequent 1978 amendment to the Basin Plan, and the subsequent 1994 reinterpretation by the Regional Board of the mineral objectives from annual averages to instantaneous maximums did not consider the following information: Historic surface water quality conditions did not comply with the new water quality objectives during most periods because of natural conditions and natural geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the Santa Clara River watershed; Historically (and at present), portions of the Santa Clara River do not have surface flow during dry weather periods of the year; Chloride concentrations in imported water (State Water Project water, which began being used in the Upper Santa Clara River watershed after 1976) have historically exceeded the current chloride objective of 100 mg/l for Reaches 4,5 and 6 during drought conditions;56 Chloride concentrations in imported water significantly influences the quality of the potable water supply for the Santa Clarita Valley; and Frequent in-river exceedances (Reaches 4, 5 and 6) of the 100 mg/l chloride objective over the past 60 plus years has not led to adverse impacts on attainment of the agricultural beneficial use. The rest of this section discusses the CWC Section factors that must be considered in establishing water quality objectives, with a discussion of Reach 4 (where salt sensitive avocado and strawberry crops are cultivated) and Reaches 5 and 6 (where no salt sensitive crops are cultivated) based on proposed water quality chloride objectives of 180 mg/l (instantaneous maximum) for Reach 4 and 230 mg/l (four-day average) for Reaches 5 and 6 as part of the recommended variance. Guidelines state that the no problem chloride threshold for irrigation water used on crops that are sensitive to salts through root uptake (as opposed to foliar absorption), such a avocado and strawberry crops, is 142 mg/l. 56 Although imported water impacts on surface water conditions were not considered when establishing, revising and reinterpreting the chloride surface water quality objectives for Reaches 4 through 6, these impacts were considered by the Regional Board when adoptinglrenewing Drought Policy variances for chloride in 1990, 1993, 1995 and

32 4.2.1 Past, present and probable future beneficial uses of water Although agricultural use is prevalent throughout the Santa Clara River watershed from Reaches 3 through 5, salt sensitive crops, namely avocado, are predominantly grown in the lower portion of the Santa Clara River, specifically throughout Reach 3 and into the lower portion of Reach 4. Strawberry crops are typically grown in the Oxnard Plain area below Reach 3. There is one known avocado grower in the upper portion of Reach 4, who began growing avocados in the 1940 s with approximately 20 acres. The 20 acre avocado crop was expanded by an additional 15 acres during Also, it has been reported by the Regional Board that strawberry crops (total acreage uncertain) have for the first time been planted in the upper portion of Reach 4. Although surface water is known to be diverted for agricultural irrigation in the upper portion of Reach 4, the right to legally divert and subsequently irrigate salt sensitive crops (specifically avocado and strawberry) has not been ~onfirmed.~ It is believed that groundwater has been used for irrigation of these crops.58 Future use of the surface water in the upper portion of Reach 4 to irrigate salt sensitive crops is possible. However, many farmers place a preference on groundwater pumping as opposed to surface water diversions due to having to provide additional treatment (suspended solids removal) for surface water and facing added maintenance of micro spray and drip irrigation systems due to clogging. Moreover, obtaining a valid appropriative water right, a necessary precondition to the use of the surface water for irrigation purposes, is an onerous process and not likely to be pursued when groundwater can be pumped without a water right from the state. Commercial farming also occurs adjacent to Reach 5. The areas adjacent to Reach 6 are mostly urbanized and although farming historically occurred in areas adjacent to Reach 6, it no longer does. As stated by the only land owner and farmer (Newhall Land and Farming Company) that has riparian water rights along Reaches 5 and 6, salt sensitive crops, such as strawberry and avocado, have historically not been and are currently not cultivated in Los Angeles County due to climatic conditions (occasional freezing temperature^).^^ Thus, the salt sensitive agricultural use is not an existing use nor is it a probable future use (due to climatic conditions) in Reaches 5 and Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration Natural hydrologic factors and imported water influence surface water mineral concentrations within the upper portion of the Santa Clara River. Because of the seasonal nature of precipitation within the region, increased surface flows typically occur during winter and spring months followed by a relatively long summer and fall season of lower flows. Winter time flows (during periods of significant precipitation) have been measured as high as cubic feet per second (cfs) at the Blue Cut Gauging Station, which is located near the Los Angeles-Ventura County Line. In contrast, dry weather flows near Blue Cut Gauging Station have been recorded as low as 3.5 cfs. In both wet and dry seasons, there is typically no flow upstream of the Saugus WRP (in Reach 7), and in some instances there is very little, if any, flow within the mid portion of Reach 6. In Reach 4, there is typically no flow downstream of Piru Creek in both wet and dry seasons (except when conservation releases are made from Lake Piru), with a dry gap of varying length persisting in the middle portion of Reach 4. Surfacing groundwater (also known as 57 Based on a review of the State Water Resources Control Board s Division of Water Rights records, only one Statement of Water Diversion and Use, which declares a right to divert surface water, has been filed for this portion of the Santa Clara River (Newhall, which does not commercially cultivate salt sensitive crops). The State Board has also not issued a permit to divert water from this reach. 58 The TDS, chloride and boron groundwater objectives underlying these crops are 2,500 mg/l, 200 mg/l and 1.5 mg/l, respectively. 59 See Attachment See Attachment T *.. -.

33 ~ rising groundwater), discharges from the Saugus and Valencia WRPs, conservation releases of imported and local waters from reservoirs and runoff from applied water (agricultural runoff and urban runoff) contribute to the base flow in the upper portion of the Santa Clara River. In terms of water quality, the interchange between surface water and groundwater, and the seasonal variability of flow, evaporation, and imported water quality in the Santa Clarita Valley, as well as the discharge of brine to the Saugus and Valencia WRPs from the use of residential self-regenerating water softeners, all contribute to a high degree of variability seen in chloride concentrations in the upper Santa Clara River surface waters I Influence of Groundwater on Surface Water Chloride As noted in the DWR s 1993 Report Investigation of Water Quality and Beneficial Uses - Upper Santa Clara River Hydrogeologic Area, surfacing groundwater begins to occur near the Valencia WRP discharge. This surfacing or rising groundwater is typically lower in chloride concentrations, which provides a diluting effect with respect to the chloride concentration in the surface water of Reach 5. As noted in Section 4.3.4, the average difference in chloride concentration between the Valencia WRP outfall and the Los Angeles-Ventura County Line is 40 mg/l. The chloride, TDS and sulfate groundwater objectives increase as one moves west from the Saugus WRP to the head of the dry gap. These objectives were based on background conditions and are the result of observed increased concentrations in minerals due to changing hydrogeology, where more marine sediments, containing elevated concentrations of minerals are present at the downstream end of Reach 5 in the upper portion of Reach 4, as reported in DWR s 1993 Report. Attachment shows that the mineral concentrations in the groundwater begin to increase near the Los Angeles-Ventura County line. Furthermore, at the downstream end of Reach 5, the alluvial aquifer begins to thin, forcing groundwater to rise, leading to losses due to high evaporation rates and restricted flushing action due to ponding effects near the head of the dry gap. The observed increases in sulfate and chloride concentrations near the head of the dry gap reflect these effects as well as inflows from poor quality waters from irrigation return and the San Martinez Grande tributary.61 As also noted by the DWR in their 1989 Report Update of the Basin Plan for Piru, Sepse, and Santa Paula Hydrologic Areas, in the eastern end of Reach 4 [ploor quality [ground] waters are found east of Piru Creek and near the western boundary on the basin [near the LA-VC Line], north of the Santa Clara River. East of the creek, the older (Pliocene marine) Pic0 Formation, underlying thin alluvium has been folded upward. Wells extract the poorer quality waters associated with this formation...the area of poor water quality near the western boundary of the subarea is within and adjacent to the zone of rising [ground] water and [there] is little influence [on groundwater quality] by recharging surface flows. Because of the unique hydrogeologic conditions discussed above, it appears that the Basin Plan chloride, TDS and sulfate groundwater objectives were set at higher levels than the overlying surface water quality objectives in the downstream portion of Reach 5 and the upper portion of Reach 4. With respect to chloride, from Castaic Creek to the LA-VC line, the underlying groundwater chloride objective is 150 mg/l, and in the downstream sub-basin underlying the upper portion of Reach 4, the chloride groundwater objective is 200 mg/l. Observed groundwater concentrations are not only spatially variable within the groundwater basins but also variable throughout annual seasons and years (e.g., drought versus non drought). Historically, the groundwater objectives in the groundwater underlying the upper portion of Reach 4 and the entirety of 61 See CA DWR 1993 Report, Investigation of Water Quality and Beneficial Uses, Upper Santa Clara River Hydrologic Area, at page

34 Reaches 5 and 6 were set at levels significantly greater that the overlying surface water objective for chloride of 100 mg/l Influence of Surface Water Hydrology There is a consistent relationship between the magnitude of surface flow and mineral concentrations throughout Santa Clara River watershed. Chloride concentrations are at their lowest during periods of significant precipitation runoff compared to the chloride concentrations that occur during the dry season. Poor-quality imported water delivered to the Santa Clarita Valley during drought conditions results in significantly higher chloride concentrations in the streams during times of low flow, compared to higher flow periods when there is significant dilution by runoff produced during storm events. Figure shows historic chloride concentrations for the Blue Cut Gauging Station located at the LA- VC Line. As shown in Figure 4.2-1, dry-season (low-flow conditions) chloride concentrations in the Santa Clara River near the western end of Reach 4 can exceed 160 mg/l. Historically, during high flow (wet weather) conditions chloride levels have been recorded as low as 40 mg/l. The cyclic variability in flow conditions at the County line can also be seen in Figure During drought conditions, largely due to the influence of imported water supplies, in-river chloride concentrations can exceed those in non-drought dry-period conditions Influence of Imported Water on Surface Water Conditions As imported SWP water supplies approximately 60% of local water demand in the Santa Clarita Valley, this water has a large influence on the final effluent chloride concentration of the Valencia and Saugus WRPs, which discharge to Reaches 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River, respectively. The impacts of elevated chloride concentrations in the SWP water during drier-than-normal and drought conditions have on WRP effluent chloride concentrations is discussed extensively in Section Elevated chloride concentrations in the surface water demonstrate that the prevalent use of imported water essentially prevents the attainment of the 100 mg/l water quality standard when applied as an instantaneous maximum. Furthermore, although they occur intermittently, conservation releases from Castaic and Piru Reservoirs with imported SWP water containing elevated chloride concentrations, also have a direct impact on chloride levels in Reaches 4 and 5 of the river. Finally, based on analyses performed on the blended water supply as part of the Districts SCVJSS Chloride Source Report, the blended water supply was estimated to exceed the 100 mg/l objective nearly 42% of the time during drought conditions. This clearly shows the influence that imported SWP has on the region s potable water supply and ultimately on WRP effluent chloride concentrations Influence of Saugus and Valencia WRps on Surface Water Conditions The Saugus and Valencia WRPs came on line in 1961 and 1967, respectively. The discharge of the Saugus WRP constitutes the headwaters of the Santa Clara River in Reach 6, except during extreme wet weather conditions. The discharge from the Valencia WRP mixes with Saugus WRP effluent, of which a portion at various times may persist as surface flow, and rising groundwater. These plants were designed to treat industrial, commercial, and residential wastewater. However, the treatment provided at the WRPs did not include and still does not include removal/reduction of chloride. Figure shows WRP effluent chloride concentrations since Both WRPs typically have discharged chloride concentrations in excess of the 100 mg/l chloride objective. Since there is no other stream flow at the location of the Saugus WRP, the receiving water directly downstream of the Saugus WRP consists of 100% WRP effluent. Also, although there is some rising groundwater in that area (particularly during wet years), the receiving water in the vicinity of the Valencia WRP is heavily influenced by the conditions of the effluent. Although no receiving water data immediately downstream of the WRPs are available prior to 29

35 1995,62 it can be concluded based on the effluent quality and contribution to the river, that the receiving water conditions immediately downstream of the discharge locations routinely exceeded the water quality objective of 100 mg/l. Additionally, chloride concentrations in the Saugus and Valencia WRPs effluents show the impact of increased usage of residential self regenerating water softeners since 1997 when the longstanding resimction on discharges from residential SRWS was no longer enf~rceable.~~ Summary of Hydrologic Influences As noted above, the ground and surface water systems are interconnected in the upper Santa Clara Rwer watershed. During dry season (low-flow) periods, base flow in the river is from WRP discharges, discharge from irrigation return flows and urban runoff, rising groundwater, and conservation releases from Castaic Reservoir. The water quality of the river in Reaches 5 and 6 is typically greater in chloride concentration than the rising gr~undwater.~~ The influence of rising groundwater in the upper portion of Reach 4 may contribute to increased surface water chloride concentrations from the LA-VC Line to further downstream locations, because of the influence of poorer groundwater quality in the area, combined with the increased evapotranspiration, and discharges from agricultural runoff. The chloride concentrations in surface water at specific sampling points also exhibit seasonal variations, which are related to precipitation and surface flow at the time of sampling. The trends and concentrations of chloride concentrations in the surface water generally reflect imported water conditions, especially during drought and drier-than-normal conditions, resulting in a poorer quality imported water supply to the area Water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area Even with aggressive source control actions for industrial, commercial and residential sectors, attainment of the 100 mg/l chloride objective65 is not possible during the term of the Valencia and Saugus WRP proposed NPDES permits. Simply put, in the short term, compliance would require the installation of advanced treatment at the WRPs to compensate for the elevated chloride levels in the potable water supply (blended State Water Project water and groundwater). And it will take at least 8 years for the Districts to plan, design and build an advanced treatment system.66 It has been acknowledged in the Chloride TMDL that it does not make sense to pursue this course of action until a number of areas have been studied, including the appropriate threshold for protection of salt-sensitive crops, which may lead to adoption of a revised water quality objective, and exploration of alternative means of compliance such as provision of an alternative water su~ply.~ Therefore, it is not possible to comply with the existing chloride water quality objective during the period of the proposed variance. 62 Receiving water monitoring at downstream receiving water stations were not required in the Saugus and Valencia WRP NPDES permits until In February 2003, Districts 26 and 32 enacted ordinances restricting the installation of new residential SRWS. These ordinances became effective on March 27,2003. (See Section 3.6) 64 Even though the portion of rising groundwater provides a diluting effect on WRP discharges, especially in Reaches 5 and 6, the chloride concentrations within the groundwater basins are highly variable both temporally and spatially. At certain locations within the underlying groundwater basins, water quality conditions exist where chloride concentrations are greater than those in surface water. The elevated levels of chloride historically observed in groundwater (regardless of the sampled well s proximity to the river) were used as the basis to establish and revise (in some cases) Basin Plan groundwater objectives. 65 If measured as an instantaneous maximum. 66 See Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Total Maximum Daily Load for Chloride for the Upper Santa Clara River, Reaches 5 and 6, adopted October 24,2002, and amended July 10, Ibid r - -.

36 As noted in Section 4.1, there are no reasonable controls that can be coordinated for all contributing sources of chloride to the watershed that would ensure attainment of the current 100 mg/l receiving water objectives for Reaches 4 through 6 during the period of the proposed variance. The only means to achieve the 100 mg/l chloride objectives, would be to construct advanced treatment facilities at an enormous cost, as discussed extensively in Section Economic considerations Estimated Cost to Ensure Compliance with Current WQO and Proposed WLA The cost to comply with the final effluent limitation of 100 mg/l as a daily maximum, which is based on the Waste Load Allocation specified in the Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL, is estimated to be $356 million (reference Attachment ).68 Additional cost details are provided in Section of this application Estimated Cost to Ensure Compliance with Proposed Variance If the proposed variance is adopted and is used as the basis for permit effluent limitations (e.g., 230 mg/l based on a 4-day average) for the Valencia and Saugus WRPs, the costs to ensure compliance would include the continued efforts for public outreach and education to continue to reduce chloride loadings associated with the remaining residential SRWS. The Districts also will be providing the resources necessary to conduct several other studies during the period of the variance (as described in Section 5.0), with the goal of addressing the issues identified during the development of the Regional Board's Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL by the end of the variance period. These costs are estimated to be approximately $3.7 million over a period of 5 years The need for developing housing within the region I Current Chloride Water Quality Objective Currently Santa Clarita is the fourth largest city in Los Angeles County. The Santa Clarita Valley is one of the fasting growing communities in Los Angeles County with a large amount of new homes being constructed annually. From 1997 through 2002, approximately 4,800 new single-family homes were constructed and connected to the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). Requirements for immediate compliance with the current surface water chloride objective of 100 mg/l could potentially result in the imposition of connection bans on the SCVJSS until other measures such as advanced treatment (microfiltration and reverse osmosis) and ancillary facilities (e.g., brine line and outfall) could be designed, permitted, constructed and brought on-line to reduce chloride levels in WRP effluents to compliance levels. Additionally, if the advanced treatment option is necessary, the resulting increase in connection fees (for businesses and residences) to the SCVJSS could increase as much as six times, thus either discouraging new connections and/or resulting in an increase in new housing costs. Ongoing service rates to existing users are also expected to increase over five times. Finally, as discussed in Section 4.2.6, the Santa Clarita Valley is expecting to use 17,000 acre-feet per year of reclaimed water for re-use in the future,69 based on projected growth in water use in this growing 68 The cost to comply with the proposed final effluent limit for chloride of 100 mg/l as a monthly average, which is purportedly based on the current Basin Plan Objective and will be superceded with the WLA based final effluent limit of 100 mg/l as a daily maximum when the Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL becomes effective, is estimated to be slightly less than the MWH cost estimate to meet the 100 mg/l as a daily maximum effluent limitation. 69 Castaic Lake Water Agency, Urban Water Management Plan - Santa Clarita Valley,

37 area. If the 100 mg/l water quality objective is also imposed in water recycling requirements, it will effectively preclude all re-use projects in the Santa Clarita Valley because the available recycled water does not meet the chloride objective. Without securing necessary water supplies, it is possible that housing could not be accommodated, as required by state law Proposed Variance Compliance with the proposed variance would result in a relatively small annual increase to current ratepayers to cover the public outreachhource reduction program and other tasks (such as the studies planned). Compliance with the proposed variance should not impact the need for developing homes within the region The need to develop and use recycled water The State of California has long realized the value of water recycling as a means to help meet the water supply needs of the growing population. In 199 1, the State Legislature set a goal of one million acre-feet per year of recycled water use by the year In various amendments to the Water Code ( , et seq.), the Legislature has mandated the use of recycled water in lieu of potable water for numerous applications including, but not limited to, landscape irrigation, industrial process water and toilet flushing. In short, the Legislature has, time and time again expressed its desire to increase the use of recycled water in the State. The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA), the regional wholesale water purveyor in the Santa Clarita area, has included the extensive use of recycled water in its water supply planning activities. A Master Plan for water recycling that identified 10,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) was produced in 1993 and is currently undergoing revision. In its 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, CLWA identified 17,000 AFY of recycled water from the Saugus and Valencia WRPs as being available for reuse within its service area, noting that such a source of water would be critical in its service area as development continues at a rapid pace. And in 2003, CLWA completed construction on the first of its recycled water distribution systems, this one serving the Westridge housing development and golf course. The cost of advanced treatment to comply with the 100 mg/l chloride objective would affect the price of reclaimed water, which would be borne by CLWA and ultimately passed on to its recycled water customers. According to the Water Code ($13550, et seq.), customers are not required to use recycled water if it is not available at a reasonable price, which would not be the case if the cost of advanced treatment (as discussed in Section 4.1.3) were to be added into the cost of the separate reclaimed water distribution system. Furthermore, simply not supplying any water to the potential reuse sites CLWA has identified is not an option, as all of these sites already exist and are currently served from the domestic water system. 4.3 Documentation that the Exception Will Not Compromise the Protection of a Water Body or Watershed for Its Beneficial Uses Suspending the 100 mg/l Chloride Objective Will Not Adversely Affect the AGR Beneficial Use One of the uses ostensibly being protected by the 100 mg/l chloride water quality objectives is the agricultural use (AGR)." As is identified in the Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL StaffReport, the 100 mg/l water quality objective for Reaches 4, 5 and 6 was purportedly set for the protection of the agricultural beneficial use, namely avocados and strawberries. The Staff Report goes on to state that: 70 See Total Maximum Daily Load for Chloride in the Upper Santa Clara River, StaffReport (Aug. 21,2002) at page "I_.--r - --.

38 ~~~ Among the designated beneficial uses, those most sensitive to chloride under current conditions are agricultural use for direct irrigation of avocados at diversions in the downstream end of the reaches addressed in this TMDL. However, further evaluation of the appropriate threshold for the protection of agriculture has resulted in questions regarding the scientific validity of this 100 mg/l threshold for protection of salt-sensitive crops. Additionally, there is a wide range of opinion among various Regional Water Quality Control Board s across the State regarding the appropriate chloride threshold protective of agriculture See Table For example, the San Francisco (Region 2), San Luis Obispo (Region 3), and San Diego (Region 9) Regional Boards recognize that a chloride objective of 140 mg/l would be protective of crops sensitive to chloride via root absorption (i.e., water that is primarily taken-up by the roots as opposed to being absorbed through the leaves), which is how avocado and strawberry crops are affected. The Santa h a Regional Board (Region 8) Basin Plan recommends a level of 175 mg/l. Table Chloride Thresholds Protective of the AGR Beneficial Use By Region I RWQCB North Coast (Region 1) CI Threshold I Basin Plan Reference I RWQCB Comments none listed p 3-4 Waters designated for use as agricultural supply (AGR) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect such beneficial use. (p 3-4, Basin Plan) San Luis Obispo (Region 3)b <I42 mg/l CI <142 mg/l CI r- Los Angeles (Region 4) mg/l CIc Central Valley (Region 5) no chloride p. specific objective for AGR beneficial use p 3-5 p 3-12 (Table 3-6) p p (Table 3-3) p. 3-14, footnote f At a minimum, surface waters designated for use as agricultural supply (AGR) shall not contain concentrations of constituents in excess of the levels specified in Table 3-6. (p. 3-5, Basin Plan) Water shall not contain Concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agncultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3. (P.111-5, Basin Plan)...The following table illustrates the mineral or nutrient quality necessary to protect different categories of beneficial uses and will be used as a guideline for establishing effluent limits in these cases. (p. 3-14, Basin Plan) Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (p III- 3.00, Basin Plan) Lahontan (Region 6) none listed p. 3-5 Water designated as AGR shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the water for beneficial uses (Le., agricultural purposes). (p 3-5, Basin Plan) Colorado River (Region 7) Santa Ana (Region 8) I none listed <I75 No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (p 3-4, Basin Plan) p. 4-7 A safe value for irrigation is considered to be less than 175 mg/l of chloride. (p, 4-7, Basin Plan) San Diego (Region 9) p. 3-9 pp. 3-20,3-21 (Table 3-1) A safe concentration of chloride for irrigation water is considered to be in the range of mg/l. Irrigation with water containing mg/l of chloride may cause slight to moderate plant injury. (p 3-9, Basin Plan) See Attachment for a more in-depth discussion on foliar vs. root uptake absorption and how that applies to 71 avocado and strawberry crops 33

39 - --r * Minimum chloride threshold with respect to root absorption for the San Diego and San Luis Obispo Regional Boards. San Francisco and Santa Ana Regional Boards do not mention specific uptake mechanisms in setting their minimum chloride thresholds. Avocado crops are grown in these regions. Chloride ranges specified by the LA Regional Board were guidelines for setting effluent limits, where no specific water quality objectives had been previously set. Since 1980, avocado crop yields and economic value have steadily increased in the area in which they are grown in the Santa Clara River watershed, including Reach 4. (See Figure ) Moreover, avocados are not, nor have they ever been, grown commercially in the areas adjacent to Reaches 5 and 6.72 This condition provides empirical evidence that the chloride loads discharged from the Saugus and Valencia WRPs during the period the Regional Board s Drought Policies for chlorides were in effect (from March 1990 through January 2001) ranging between 100 mg/l and approximately 200 mg/l, were fully protective of the downstream agricultural use. Furthermore, it appears that the water quality objective of 100 mg/l is not necessarily the main (or even a major contributing) factor determining the viability of farming sensitive crops in this area. Although there are wide fluctuations in crop yields from year to year, these fluctuations are influenced by other factors, including wind conditions, pests and economic pricing.73 There is also an observed trend that more and more growers in the Santa Clara River watershed are taking out other crops (such as citrus) and replacing them with avocados to increase profits. These decisions and economic commitments to continue to plant salt sensitive crops, such as avocados, would not be made by growers if the local irrigation water supply was causing harm to those crops. Also, Ventura County farmers have recently experienced bumper crops,74 despite the fact that POTWs in the Santa Clara River and Calleguas Creek watersheds were discharging at chloride levels exceeding 100 mg/l and had interim permit limits of mg/l as set by Regional Board Resolution Consequently, the available evidence in the record indicates that the agricultural beneficial use in the Santa Clara River watershed has in fact been thriving and continues to be protected, even at current discharge levels. Nonetheless, at times concerns have been expressed that excessive chloride concentrations in the irrigation water above 100 mg/l cause leaf-tip burn in avocados and strawberries, which then reduces yield. However, the scientific evidence supporting those claims is lacking. Crop yields are reduced by excessive levels of soil ~alinity, ~ which limits a crop s ability to obtain sufficient water from soil to produce maximum yields.76 Chloride is known to have a specific-ion effect, which can result in leaf tip burn; it is unclear, however, if and how chloride directly affects yield as a specific-ion effect, through tipburn. In the case of strawberry, research results clearly show yield of strawberry was controlled only by the salinity of the soil water. The research conducted found that chloride itself did not affect yield. Ultimately, there is no basis to establish water quality criteria for chloride based on the published strawberry data.77 For avocado, recent research indicates that yields are a function of salinity and to a minor extent chloride, as well as the amount of irrigation water applied to the crop. However, the relationship between salinity and chloride is still unknown and has been hard to quantify. Thus, the Bingham guideline7 of 180 mg/l is the only threshold that is based on experimentally determined chloride effects on growth that are not confounded by the effects of applied water and salinity of 72 See Attachment , which is a declaration from Newhall Land & Farming that avocados and strawberries have never been grown in Reaches 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River. 73 See Figure See Attachment : Los Angeles Times articles pertaining to avocado and strawberry crops. 75 Soil salinity is the measure of total ions in solution, which is measured as electrical conductivity ( EC ). EC is commonly used as a surrogate for total dissolved solids. While chloride would be an ion that is part of the make-up of measured EC, all other ions (e.g., sulfate, nitrate, boron, calcium, magnesium, sodium, etc.) would also contribute to salinity. 16 See Attachment : Comments by Dr. Jim Oster Regarding the Protective Salinity and Chloride Thresholds for Strawberry and Avocado Crops. 77 Ibid. 78 See Bingham, F.T, L.B. Fenn, and J.J Oertli A sandculture study of chloride toxicity to mature avocado trees. Soil Sci. SOC. Am Proc. 33:

40 irrigation water. Thus, this threshold (1 80 mg/l) would be the most appropriate chronic chloride value known to be protective of avocados.79 This evidence is further supported by field observations from Dr. Greg Partida, Horticulture Professor at Cal Poly Pomona. Dr. Partida grows avocados using reclaimed water from the Districts' Pomona WRP at chloride concentrations near 140 mg/l, and has not seen any leaf tip bum, nor any adverse effects on yield. Dr. Partida has also observed that leaf-tip burn issues from excessive salinity can be easily mitigated by using appropriate cultural practices, such as pruning trees to lower heights and irrigating the trees more often.80 His insights also shed light on the fact that there are many factors other than chloride that can positively and/or negatively affect avocado and strawberry yields. Even such variables as excessive wind can be a factor that affects yield.81 Finally, corroborating evidence that the AGR beneficial use will be fully supported under this variance request is that existing groundwater chloride, TDS and boron objectives in the Piru Basin (Lower Area East of Piru Creek) (underlying the potentially affected avocado and strawberry farmer) were set in 1975 at levels far exceeding the levels set for surface water. Table (taken from the Basin Plan) shows the following objectives for TDS, sulfate, boron and chloride for the groundwater underlying the eastemend of Reach 4, which originally were established in the 1975 Basin Plan and are still in effect: Table Basin Plan Groundwater Objectives, Eastern End of Piru Basin Santa Clara - Piru Creek Area Lower area east of Piru Creek Groundwater Objective (mgb) TDS I Sulfate 1 Chloride I Boron I I 200 I 1.5 These water quality objectives in the groundwater exceed the thresholds recommended as fully supporting the agricultural beneficial use by the UC Cooperative Extension Guidelines8* for TDS, chloride and boron, as well as the Bingham and Finn study for chloride effects on avocados. This incongruity between the 1975 groundwater objectives and surface water objectives for TDS, chloride, and boron was commented on by Mr. Jack Coe of the California Department of Water Resources in a 1976 comment letter submitted by the CA DWR to the Los Angeles Regional Board regarding groundwater objectives set in the development and revision of the 1975 Basin Plan. Mr. Coe stated: "[dluring our ventura county study, we were surprised to find that farmers were raising good crops of citrus fruits and avocados by using irrigation water with TDS concentrations of more than 100 mg/l"(see Attachment ). As there has been no evidence of adverse impacts to avocado or strawberry crops grown due to elevated chloride levels in surface waters in Reaches 4, 5 or 6 to date, the available evidence indicates that this beneficial use will continue to be fully supported in Reach 4 and will be fully protected at the interim water quality standards proposed in Section during the variance period See Attachment : Comments by Dr. Jim Oster Regarding the Protective Salinity and Chloride Thresholds for Strawberry and Avocado Crops. 80 See Attachment : Declaration of Dr. Gregory J. Partida. 81 See Attachment : Los Angeles Times articles pertaining to avocado and strawberry. 82 See Attachment : University of California Committee of Consultants - Guidelines for Interpretation of Water Quality for Agriculture. 83 Special attention was paid in this section to the water quality necessary for attainment of water quality standards designated in Reach 4, which is downstream from Reaches 5 and 6 (where the Valencia and Saugus WRPs discharge, respectively), to ensure compliance with 40 CFR 13 l.lo(b), which requires that States take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters. Because of the dry gap that occurs within Reach 4 during much of the year, little or no impact on water quality is anticipated in waters downstream of the dry gap (i.e., the lower portion of Reach 4 and Reach 3). 35

41 4.3.2 The Chloride Water Quality Objective of 100 mg/l is Not Necessary for Reaches 5 and 6 Since Avocado and Strawberry Crops are Not Grown in Reaches 5 and 6 Evidence has been submitted and exists in the administrative records of the Regional Board that this subcategory of the agricultural beneficial use (i.e., growing salt-sensitive crops such as avocados and strawberries) does not need to be protected in Reaches 5 and 6 because it does not existe4 Further evidence exists that there are no plans for avocado and strawberry crops to be grown in Reaches 5 and 6, and hence are not potential or future uses. (See Attachment ). These facts alone provide substantial evidence that the water quality objective of 100 mg/l, which is based on a water quality objective believed to be necessary to protect avocados and strawberries, is not necessary for Reaches 5 and 6. Additionally, there is no evidence that any other salt-sensitive crops are grown along these reaches of the Santa Clara River The Chloride Surface Water Quality Objective of 100 mg/l is Not Necessary Since There is No Evidence of Increasing Trends or Impairment in the Groundwater Underlying Reaches 4,5 and 6 The Groundwater Recharge (GWR) Beneficial Use has not been impacted by discharges of chloride at levels above 100 mg/l from the Valencia and Saugus WRPs. Studies have shown that there are no increasing trends in chloride in the groundwater basins immediately underlying Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River. In a 1999 study performed by the Districts, results from an extensive analysis conducted on groundwater trends in Piru, Fillmore and Santa Paula Basin (which underlie Reaches 3 and 4 of the Santa Clara River) indicated that there appears to be no evidence of basin-wide increasing trends in chloride concentrations. Furthermore, the study concluded that the current groundwater objectives in the groundwater underlying Reaches 3 and 4 have not been impaired and remain protected in each Basin. (See Attachment ) These conclusions are further supported by an analysis recently conducted by Todd Engineers, which looked at the well data collected in a well at the Eastern end of Piru Basin, in addition to data collect at a United States Geological Survey (USGS) nested well in Piru Basin. These analyses conclusively showed that there is no evidence of increasing chloride trends in Piru Basin (See Attachment ). With regard to the groundwater underlying Reaches 5 and 6, in a comment letter from Newhall Land and Farming, the company stated: [the] 50-year dataset demonstrates that chloride concentrations in the alluvial units are not steadily increasing [as claimed in the Chloride TMDL Staff Report], a trend that is demonstrated for regional surface waters. This fact suggests that the problem of increasing chloride levels in the Santa Clara River is exclusively a surface water issue, and therefore any claims related to groundwater basin management should be left out of the TMDL. 85 These claims are bolstered by the 1999 groundwater evaluation performed by the Districts that examined chloride trends in the Eastern groundwater Basin of the Santa Clarita Valley. In this evaluation, only one out of 60 wells examined showed an increasing trend with respect to chloride. (See Attachment 3.2-1). These groundwater evaluations provide evidence that the GWR beneficial use continues to be protected at current discharge levels (which exceed 100 mg/l), and therefore that no impairment nor adverse impact on groundwater is expected during the period of the variance Recommendations - Proposed Interim Water Quality Objectives The Districts believe that the information presented in Sections 4.3.1, and provide substantiating evidence that this variance request will not compromise the protection of the designated beneficial uses of the Santa Clara River. The Districts believe that the 5-year maximum time fi-ame 84See Attachments and See Attachment : October 7, 2002 Newhall Land and Farming Letter to Chairperson Diamond, re: Comments on the Upper SCR Chloride TMDL StafReport. 36

42 requested in this variance application (See Section 5.0) will be sufficient to determine what is the appropriate chloride objective for these reaches over the long-term, considering all applicable beneficial uses and anti-degradation. Given the evidence presented above, the interim water quality objectives shown in Table , would be protective of the most sensitive beneficial use, namely the AGR beneficial use, as well as aquatic life and other uses, during the time-frame of this variance request. The evidence presented also supports the continued protection of the GWR beneficial use during the period the interim chloride water quality objectives will be in effect. Table Proposed Interim Water Quality Objectives - Reaches 4,5 and 6 of the SCR Reach Designation Santa Clara River Between Blue Cut Gauging Station and Piru Creek (Eastem end of Reick4) Santa Clara River Between West Pier Highway 99 and Blue Cut Gauging Station (Reach 5) Santa Clara River Between Bouquet Canyon and West Pier Highway 99 (Reach 6) Proposed Interim Chloride Water Quality Objectives' 180 mg/lc 230 mg/ld 230 mg/ld Expiration Date Either 5 years from the effective date, or until the Saugus and Valencia WRP NPDES permits are revised to reflect a sitespecific chloride objective, whichever occurs first. Either 5 years from the effective date, or until the Saugus and Valencia WRP NPDES permits are revised to reflect a sitespecific chloride objective, whichever occurs first. Either 5 years from the effective date, or until the Saugus and Valencia WRP NPDES permits are revised to reflect a sitespecific chloride Objective, I whichever occurs first. ' See Section 4.3 for discussion on how these proposed interim chloride water quality objectives were developed. See Section 5.0 for discussion on time framekchedule of variance request. Based on an instantaneous maximum, reflecting only known scientifically based chronic exposure level for protection of agnculture. dbased on a 4-day average, reflecting federal aquatic life chronic criteria for chloride. The proposed 230 mg/l interim surface water quality objective is based on the 4-day average chronic threshold for the protection of aquatic life. The Districts propose the 230 mg/l interim surface water quality objective because it is documented that there are no salt-sensitive crops (i.e., avocados and strawberries) being grown in the vicinity of Reaches 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River, nor is there evidence of increasing chloride trends in the underlying groundwater. Thus, the next most sensitive beneficial use in these reaches of the Santa Clara River Watershed is the aquatic life beneficial use, for which EPA has established a protective threshold of 230 mg/l as a chronic 4-day average.86 The Districts propose that 180 mg/l be applied as the interim surface water quality objective, based on a instantaneous maximum, for the Eastern end of Reach 4 (Santa Clara River Between Blue Cut Gauging Station and Piru Creek), because this is the only chronic threshold developed for the protection of saltsensitive agricultural crops, whereby avocado yield and specific ion effects due to chloride have been statistically quantified and observed. Although the 180 mg/l threshold represents a chronic (long term) exposure level, the Districts are proposing that the 180 mg/l interim water quality objective for Reach 4 be applied as an instantaneous maximum to provide an additional margin of safety for protecting the use during the proposed variance period. Additionally, the proposed interim surface water quality objective for the Eastern end of Reach 4 (Santa Clara River between Blue Cut Gauging and Piru Creek) is lower than the applicable Basin Plan chloride objective for groundwater of 200 mg/l. Thus, this interim surface water objective is protective of background conditions for the groundwater as established in the Basin Plan in Finally, there is normally a gradient between the discharges of the Valencia and Saugus 86 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ambient Water Oualitv Criteria for Chloride (EPA , February 1988). Note that the acute one-hour average aquatic life threshold identified by EPA is 860 mg/l. 37

43 WRPs and the LA-VC Line of about 40 mg/l on average (primarily due to rising groundwater) that should ensure that this lower level in Reach 4 can be met despite the higher interim water quality objectives in Reaches 5 and Compliance with State and Federal Anti-degradation Policies State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB Resolution No ) The SWRCB Resolution No contains the State s anti-degradation policy, and specifies that: Whenever the existing quality of water is better than the quality established in policies as of the date on which such policies become effective, such existing high quality will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the State that any change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonablv affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies. It should be noted that although the anti-degradation policy sets forth the goal of maintaining existing high quality water, it allows for water quality objectives to be revised if that revision is consistent with the maximum benefit of the state and if beneficial uses are not unreasonably affected. Given this rationale, this variance complies with the State anti-degradation policy because: (1) the variance is consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State; and (2) as discussed in Section 4.3, the variance will adequately protect beneficial uses during the period it is in effect Consistency with the Maximum Benejt to the People of the State The Districts believe that the cost and environmental impacts of complying with the existing water quality objective for chloride far outweigh the benefits. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the cost meeting the 100 mg/l chloride objective is substantial. In addition to these economic costs, the environmental impacts of complying with the existing standard of 100 mg/l due to the need to install MFRO, a 43-mile brine line and a three-mile ocean outfall (as discussed in Section 4.1.3) could include but are not limited to: (1) impacts to sensitive ecological areas during the construction of the brine line, (2) impacts on air-quality in other regions due to an increase in energy use for operation of the system, and (3) impacts of the disposal of brinehesidual waste to the ocean. Other environmental impacts that would have to be evaluated as required by CEQA are discussed extensively in Section 6.0. In 1997, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Board staff recognized not only the extremely high cost of treatment, but also the environmental impacts that meeting a 100 mg/l water quality standard for chloride would have on the environment in the Los Angeles region, In a November 6, 1996 memorandum to Wendy Philips of the Regional Board, Adrian Griffin, Senior Economist of the State Board s Office of Statewide Consistency, stated in reference to the proposed permanent increase in the chloride objectives for the Calleguas Creek, and Santa Clara, Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers adopted in January 1997: 88 The proposed amendment to the Basin Plan will lower water quality in some surface waters. The Federal anti-degradation policy (40 CFR Section ) requires that where water quality exceeds the level necessary to protect fish, wildlife and recreation, that quality be maintained and protected unless degradation is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. Protection of the environment may constitute important social development. Reducing chlorides to the levels currently in the Basin Plan would have harmful impacts on the 87 See Regional Board s August 21,2002 Staff Report, Total Maximum Daily Load for the Upper Santa Clara River, at Page In fact, as discussed previously herein, the Regional Board had proposed to raise the Santa Clara River and Calleguas Creek watershed chloride objectives. However, the Regional Board tabled the proposed change for these two watersheds due to concerns about potential chloride impacts to avocado crops when chloride levels rise above 100 mg/l. 38

44 environment. The only reasonable methods to reduce chlorides to these levels are: (1) treating water supplies to reduce chlorides; (2) increasing the proportion of water imported from highquality sources; and (3) treating discharges of wastewater to reduce chlorides. However, treating water supplies or wastewater would result in significant energy use and a need to dispose of brine and other waste products. Increasing imports of high quality water is likely to require new water development. These actions will have harmful impacts on the environment. The lowering of water quality is justijied in this case because the revised chloride objective will fully protect fish, wildlfe, and recreation and because requiring compliance with the more stringent objectives would have harmful environmental impacts. [emphasis added] Similar language was included in the final Basin Plan Amendment Staff Report of Resolution to address federal anti-degradation requirements, related to the lowering of water quality objectives. See Attachment Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this variance is consistent with the maximum benefit to the People of the State Unreasonable Impacts to Benejkial Uses Do Not Exist As discussed in detail in Section 4.3, the Districts believe that the proposed interim water quality objectives also will not unreasonably affect beneficial uses in Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River. With respect to the proposed interim water quality objective of 180 mg/l for the Eastern end of Reach 4, past drought policies and the threshold identified by Bingham and Finn demonstrated that avocados can be fully supported at long-term average chloride concentrations of 180 mg/l. With respect to the proposed interim water quality objective of 230 mg/l for Reaches 5 and 6, since avocados and strawberries have never been grown in these reaches, the next most sensitive beneficial use is the aquatic life beneficial use, which has a 4-day average chronic threshold of 230 mg/l. Thus, the Districts believe that uses will be fully protected at the interim chloride objectives proposed in Section 2.2.1, and no adverse impacts to beneficial uses will occur at those chloride levels Federal Anti-degradation Policy 40 CFR The Federal anti-degradation policy requires that all uses be fully protected, and that where water quality is better than that necessary to fully protect uses, the water quality may be lowered if the discharger demonstrates that it is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. The Districts believe that this criteria is also met, given the documentation in Section 4.3, which provides evidence that the most sensitive beneficial uses will not be compromised in Reaches 4, 5 and 6. Furthermore, the variance will also accommodate important economic or social development, because the costs of implementing existing objectives, as discussed in Section 4.1.3, is cost-prohibitive and would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts for the City of Santa Clarita and surrounding areas within Districts 26 and 32. These impacts coupled with the documentation in Section 4.3 that all uses are fully protected, as well as the previous discussion in Section , provide evidence that the proposed interim water quality standards are appropriate and are consistent with the Federal Antidegradation Policy, per 40 CFR How Public Interests Will Be Served by the Exception This section discusses how public interests will be served by this variance request, with a focus on four factors: (1) The adverse impacts associated with brine disposal will be avoided through this variance since the only projected means to achieve compliance with the existing chloride water quality standard in the near term is through advanced treatment by microfiltration and reverse osmosis, with disposal of the concentrated brine waste in the ocean. 39

45 (2) (3) (4) The aquatic life beneficial uses will continue to be protected at discharge levels expected during the time frame of this variance. Major increases in energy demand associated with the operation of advanced treatment and brine disposal facilities will be avoided. Cross-media environmental impacts (e.g., air emissions) associated with the operation of advanced treatment facilities will be avoided Discharge of Toxic Contaminants The addition of MF/RO and brine disposal systems at the Valencia and Saugus WRPs will not result in a net decrease in the overall quantities of pollutants being discharged into the environment since the constituents being removed (not eliminated) from the wastewater effluents are merely being concentrated in a reject stream (brine) and then transferred from disposal in the Santa Clara River to disposal in the ocean. If the brine is disposed of in the ocean, the high concentration of chlorides could have potential impacts on marine life and water quality unless properly mitigated as noted in the August 2003 report issued by the California Coastal Commission entitled Draft Report on Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act. In addition, the concentrated brine stream will also contain high levels of some constituents normally found in dilute concentrations in the effluent streams of the two facilities. Components such as organics pollutants and heavy metals may be present in high concentrations in the brine reject and could have a negative impact on marine life and water quality near the coastline by the ocean outfalls. Therefore, it will serve the public interest to avoid these adverse impacts in the near term by ensuring that advanced treatment and brine disposal are truly necessary by conducting the necessary studies to determine the proper chloride water quality objective for the AGR use Preservation of Aquatic Life in the Santa Clara River Beyond the proposed chloride discharge limit of 100 mg/l, several other criteria may be evaluated to determine if the current operation of the Valencia and Saugus WRPs will have a negative impact on the receiving stream in Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River during the term of the variance. The EPA-recommended 304(a) guidance criteria for chloride for the protection of aquatic life are: 860 mg/l on a maximum basis (not to be exceeded more than one hour every three years) and 230 mg/l on a continuous basis (not to be exceeded over any four day period more than once every three years). The proposed interim water quality objectives for chloride for Reaches 5 and 6, as discussed in Section and 4.3.4, are based on the protection of aquatic life, based on these EPA thresholds. A review of the Districts historical effluent chloride data for the Saugus and Valencia WRPs (see Figure 3.6-1) show that neither the chronic nor acute aquatic life criteria for chloride have been exceeded historically, and thus, this in-stream beneficial use will continue to be protected at the existing and projected discharge levels expected for the duration of this variance request. Therefore, at the proposed variance levels, it is anticipated that aquatic life will be fully protected. In addition, since the receiving waters have the potential to provide habitat for one or more endangered or threatened species, during the period of the variance, the Districts will investigate the chloride threshold necessary over the long-term to protect endangered or threatened aquatic species Energy Impacts Large increases in electricity requirements are associated with installation of MFRO systems and two of the three options for brine disposal. The primary power requirement for the MFRO system will be additional feed pumps to the system, as well as any auxiliary pumps required to transport MF/RO reject flow and other process streams. Using the design flow data in the MWH report of April 2003, and assuming that the pumps will be required to overcome a differential head of 400 psig and operate at 60% efficiency, approximately 4,300 hp of additional power for the MFRO systems will be required for the two facilities. This corresponds to an increased energy demand of 28,090,000 kw-hr per year. 40

46 - --r For brine disposal, Option 1 (discharge to Ventura outfall) is assumed to be a gravity feed system and therefore will not require any additional power. Options 2 and 3, however, have pumps associated with their operation and would produce an additional power draw. Per the information in the MWH report of April 2003, the lift stations for Option 2 (discharge to JWPCP) are estimated to require 780 hp, while the well pumps for Option 3 (deep well injection) will require an additional 295 hp. These power requirements correspond to an increased energy demand of 5,100,000 kw-hr and 1,930,000 kw-hr per year, for Brine Disposal Option Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, beyond the requirements of the MF/RO sys tem. Because of the energy crisis that has occurred in the state of California in recent years, any plans of action that avoid major increases in energy demand should be considered to be a public benefit Cross-Media Impacts Addition of MF/RO systems and a brine disposal system to reduce chloride effluent levels at the Valencia and Saugus WRPs will impact other media (i.e., air and land use). Based on the design detailed in the MWH reports, the increased energy demand may in turn produce an increase in air emissions due to the production of the required energy. A summary of the projected impacts is presented for each treatment option in Table below: Usage Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Option (kw-hr/yr) COZ SOX X co Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions (ton/yr)' (ton/yr)* (ton/yr13 (Ib/~r)~ MF/RO + Brine Line/Outfall to 28,090,000 17, Ven tura MFRO + Brine Line to JWPCP 33,180,000 20, MF/RO + Deep Well Injection 30,020,000 18, Option Usage (kw-hr/yr) Equivalent PMIO Emissions Equivalent TOC Emissions MF/RO+Brine I I Line/Outfall to Ventura MFIRO + Brine Line to JWPCP 33,180,000 MF/RO + Deep 30,020,000 PMlo emissions based a factor of Ibs of PMldkW-hr based on natural gas fired combustion turbine (uncontrolled) utility plant. TOC emissions based a factor of Ibs of TOCkW-hr based on natural gas fired combustion turbine (uncontrolled) utility plant. In addition, the MWH reports project that the installation of an MFRO system will require approximately 100,000 ft2 (2.3 acres) of land space at the Valencia WRP and 23,300 ft2 (0.53 acres) at the Saugus WRP. 41

47 Present space constraints at the Saugus facility may cause significant increases in the total estimated capital costs beyond what has already been estimated by MWH (refer to Attachments , , ) Summary of Public Interests Served by Variance In summary, a variance to the existing chloride water quality objective for discharges by the Saugus and Valencia WRPs to Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River will serve the public interest by preventing major expenditures (and associated connection fee and service rate increases for residents of the Santa Clarita Valley) for advanced treatment and brine disposal facilities while the chloride water quality objective is being re-examined and other relevant studies are being conducted (see Section 5.0). The AGR and GWR uses will be protected during the period of the variance, as discussed in detail in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of this application. In addition, the Districts will continue to implement source control efforts so that chloride concentrations are minimized to the extent feasible during the period of the variance. 5.0 Time-FrameKchedule For Attainment of Existing Standard and/or Site Specific Objective The Districts are recommending that this variance, with the interim chloride water quality standards as proposed in Section 2.2.1, be in effect either for 5 years from the effective date of the variance, or until the Saugus and Valencia WRP NPDES permits are revised to reflect a site-specific chloride objective, whichever occurs first.89 During the variance period, the following Special Studies (Tasks) will be performed to support the development of a site-specific objective for chloride for Reaches 4, 5 and 6, and a Basin Plan Amendment to revise both the chloride objective and Chloride TMDL, and revise the corresponding NPDES permits' effluent limitations for chloride. It should be noted that this schedule closely parallels the implementation schedule contained in the Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL, as revised on July 10, 2003 (Resolution No. R03-008, Table 7-6.2). Also, it should be noted that even though the TMDL is not yet in effect (nor has a variance been approved), the Districts have already started work on Task Nos. I1 (Public OutreacWEducation) and IV (Development of a Site Specific Objective) in the TMDL implementation plan, and are making progress in performing the necessary studies to reviewhevise the chloride objective and meet the eventual standard. As noted below, the Districts are also in the process of gathering information and preparing Requests for Proposals to address a number of the other tasks. The implementation schedule for the variance is shown in Figure 5-1, and each of the relevant tasks and subtasks are discussed more extensively below. Task I: Upuer Santa Clara River (SCR) Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Model Task I involves the development and calibration of a peer-reviewed groundwaterhrface water interaction model for Reaches 5 (West Pier Hwy 99 to Blue Cut Gauging Station) and 6 (Bouquet Canyon Bridge to West Pier Hwy 99) of the SCR. The purpose of this model is to determine the assimilative capacity for chloride in Reaches 5 and 6. The subtasks involved in Task I include: (1) soliciting requests for proposals from qualified modeling firms; (2) collecting available historical surface water and groundwater quality data, and if needed conducting additional monitoring; (3) collecting appropriate geologicalhydrological data for modeling, and if needed conducting additional monitoring; (4) model development and calibration; 89 As noted in Section 1.3, this is consistent with EPA statements that variances may last for up to five years, or the length of an NPDES permit, whichever is shorter. 42

48 (5) third-party scientific peer review of the model; and (6) preparation of an assimilative capacity report, discussing model results. Two years from the effective date of this variance is estimated to be required to complete the subtasks outlined above. The results from this process will be utilized in Tasks V and VII, discussed in more detail in the sections that follow. It should be noted that the Districts arefinalizing a Request for Proposal for subtask (41, which is expected to be sent out to qualified consultingfirms for response by the end of Task 11: Chloride Source Identification/Reduction, Pollution Prevention and Public Outreach Plan Task I1 involves the development and implementation of a chloride source identificatiodreduction, pollution prevention and public outreach plan for the Santa Clarita Valley (SCV). The purpose of Task I1 is to identify all sources of chloride entering the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS), to determine appropriate source reduction measures that can be taken to reduce chloride loading into the SCVJSS, and to implement those measures determined to be most effective. Task I1 involves the following subtasks: quantificatiodidentification of the chloride sources in the SCVJSS; development of a pilot-scale outreach and education program on sources of chloride for targeted areas of the SCV; assessment of pilot-scale effectiveness for development of regional-scale outreach and education programs on sources of chloride; development and implementation of appropriate chloride source reduction, pollution prevention and public outreacweducation programs for the SCVJSS; and preparation of a report summarizing efforts, including a discussion of their effectiveness. Task I1 will require approximately two years from the effective date of this variance to complete the subtasks outlined above. Appropriate programs will be continued beyond this two-year time frame as needed to minimize chloride loadings to the SCVJSS. It should be noted that subtasks II(I), and II(2) have already been completed and are being used to implement subtasks II(3), II(4) and II(5). Task 111: Evaluation of Alternative Water Supplies-for Agricultural Beneficial Uses Task 111 involves an evaluation of providing alternative water supplies for agricultural users of surface water from the SCR, who grow avocados downstream of the Valencia WRP in the upper portion of Reach 4, between Blue Cut and Piru Creek. The purpose of Task I11 is to identify suitable and feasible alternative irrigation water supplies for point of use application, whereby a cost-effective long-term water supply option for the off-stream agricultural beneficial use can be determined. Task 111 includes the following subtasks: (1) quantification of the water supply needs and locations where needed; (2) identification of suitable and feasible alternative water supplies for agricultural irrigation; (3) evaluation of conveyance and/or other needed facilities for those alternative water supplies identified in subtask (2); and (4) preparation of a report identifying and discussing the feasibility of utilizing alternative water supplies. It is estimated that Task 111 will require 3 years from the effective date of this variance to complete the subtasks outlined above. It should be noted that, on December 11, 2002, the Districts sent a written ' -. c

49 ----r - - ' request for specific in formation pertaining to irrigation practices and surface water diversion rights to Mary R. Berger, Trustee et a1 for the Camulos Ranch, which is located along Reach 4. (See Attachment 5-1) Task IV: Evaluation of Approuriate Chloride Threshold for the Protection of Agricultural Beneficial Use and Endangered Species Task IV involves an evaluation of recent field studies performed (such as the Akko, Israel and Escondido and Covey Lane studies) to determine an appropriate chloride threshold in irrigation water for the protection of avocados, the most sensitive crop grown in the watershed. It also includes an evaluation of the appropriate chloride threshold for the protection of endangered species identified in the SCR, Reaches 4, 5 and 6. Task IV is needed to determine if field work performed in the 1990's can be evaluated to understand the linkage between chloride concentrations and their effect on avocado crop yields and to establish a new threshold based on that information, if warranted. Previous work has only related chloride concentrations to the observance of leaf-tip bum, which is not indicative of crop yields. The subtasks involved in Task IV include: soliciting requests for proposals from qualified firms to identify endangered species in Reaches 4, 5 and 6 and determine via literature review/and additional studies, the chloride threshold protective of the species identified; preparation of a endangered species report with findings to be reviewed by third-party independent review panel; the convening of a technical advisory committee (TAC), comprised of agricultural and water quality criteria experts, to evaluate the state of the science and field work discussed previously; TAC review of the literature and available studies; TAC development of a methodology for evaluating the chloride threshold for the protection of avocados and calculation of a water quality objective; if needed, design and implementation of additional studies and/or analyses for the development of an appropriate chloride threshold; and preparation of a technical report summarizing TAC findings and recommendations. It is estimated that Task IV will require two years from the effective date of this variance to complete the subtasks outlined above. Subtask (6) may or may not be necessary if the TAC finds that the evaluations from available studies (i.e., Akko, Escondido and Covey Lane) are sufficient and further studies and/or analyses are not needed. If additional studies are deemed necessary, however, based on the scale of additional studies required, the time frame for the completion of Task IV could take more than 2 years from the effective date of this variance. It should be noted that the Districts are in the process of preparing a Request for Proposal for subtask IV(1) and have already initiated the first phase of subtask IV(3). Task V: Development of Site Specific Objective (SSO) -for Chloride (If Applicable) Task V involves the development of a SSO for chloride based on the recommendations from the TAC in Task IV, after considering the assimilative capacity of the watershed with respect to chloride (Task I). It is estimated that Task V will require 1 year from the finish of Tasks I and IV, or be completed 3 years from the effective date of this variance. Task V has no defined subtasks, as this Task will likely be completed by a consulting firm with expertise in preparing SSOs. The allotted time frame includes time required for a formal RFP process to select a qualified consultant. 44

50 Task VI: Development of Anti-Degradation Analvsis for Revision of Chloride Objective bv SSO Evaluation (If Applicahlel Task VI involves the development and preparation of an anti-degradation analysis (if applicable). It is expected that Task VI will be worked on in parallel with Task V and will require 1 year from the finish of Tasks I, 111 and IV, or be completed 3 years from the effective date of this variance. Task VI has no defined subtasks, as this task will likely be completed by a consulting firm with expertise in preparing an anti-degradation analysis. The allotted time frame includes time required for a formal RFP process to select a qualified consultant. Task VII: Los Anaeles Regional Water Oualitv Control Board (Regional Board) Preparation and Adoption of Basin Plan Amendment (BPA) for Chloride Objective (if Applicable) Task VII involves the Regional Board staff preparing a BPA (if applicable) for the surface water chloride objective for Reaches 4, 5 and 6 of the SCR. Task VII is contingent on the outcomes of Tasks V and VI (development of the SSO and anti-degradation analysis). It is estimated that Task VII will require 6 months from the finish of Tasks V and VI, or be completed approximately 3 and % years from the effective date of this variance. Upon adoption by the Regional Board, the BPA must also be reviewed and approved by the State Board, Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and EPA Region IX, which is estimated to take approximately six months from the adoption of the BPA (or 4 years from the effective date of the variance). Task VIII: Reaional Board Modi_fication of Chloride TMDL (if Applicable) Task VIII involves the Regional Board s modification of the Chloride TMDL based on the approval of the BPA for chloride (Task VII) and the assimilative capacity model developed in Task I. It is expected that a modification of the Chloride TMDL will require approximately 6 months from the finish of Task VI, and will be completed in parallel with the Basin Plan Amendment modifying the water quality objective, or be completed 3 and % years from the effective date of this variance. Upon adoption by the Regional Board, the revision to the Chloride TMDL must also be reviewed and approved by the State Board, OAL and EPA Region IX, and this process is estimated to take approximately six months from the adoption of the revised Chloride TMDL, or be completed 4 years from the effective date of this variance. Task IX Analvsis of Feasible Compliance Measures to Meet Proposed Site SPec[fic Objective Task IX involves an analysis of all feasible options to meet final (revised) chloride permit limits, including an analysis of compliance alternatives (such as providing an alternative irrigation water supply), based on the results of Tasks I-VIII. The ultimate compliance measures taken will be contingent on the outcome of Task VIII, the success of ongoing public outreach and education programs (Task 11) to reduce chloride loadings, and the results of Task 111. It is estimated that all appropriate compliance measures to meet final chloride wasteload allocations for the Saugus and Valencia WRPs in the revised TMDL will be identified approximately six months from the finish of Task VIII, or 4 and % years from the effective date of this variance. This task will include the preparation of a report summarizing compliance options (including associated technical assessments and costs estimates). Task X: Modification of NPDES Permits-for Suuaus and Valencia WRPs Once the Regional Board adopts the modified water quality objective and revises the Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL, the Saugus and Valencia WRP NPDES permits will need to be revised accordingly. This task would allow the Regional Board up to 1 year from the final approval of the revised chloride water quality objective and Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL, and six months from the 45

51 submittal of the analysis of feasible compliance measures to revise these permits to reflect the new requirements. 6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) In order to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the following documentation is provided per Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Section 377(a), which requires the following: An environmental checklist with a description of the proposed activity; and, A determination with respect to significant environmental impacts. This information is presented below. 6.1 Description of Proposed Activity The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of waterbodies, establishes water quality objectives for the protection of these beneficial uses, and outlines a plan of implementation for maintaining and enhancing water quality. As described in detail in Section 4.2, the existing Basin Plan includes water quality objectives for chloride. The proposed effluent limitations for the Valencia and Saugus WRPs, based on the chloride objective, will require additional treatment at two facilities to meet the objective, as discussed in Section This section will identify the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a fiveyear variance to the objective and concomitant alternative interim conditions that will be implemented through effluent limits in the NPDES permits for the Valencia and Saugus WRPs. 6.2 Environmental Impacts Checklist Environmental Impact (/MAYBE/YES) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcoming of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. e. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the f. site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? 46

52 b. c. The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in current, or the course of direction or water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters? g. Change in the quantity or quality of groundwaters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 1. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds; land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish, benthic organism, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal: a. Produce new light and glare? 47.-

53 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present or planned use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 1 1. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TransportatiodCirculation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people andor goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Service. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a. Power or natural gas? 48

54 b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any real or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetic. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in: a. Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal: a. Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 2 1. Public Opinion. a. Is there, or is there anticipated to be, a substantial body of opinion that the proposed project may have an adverse effect on the environment? 22. Authorization by Other Public Agencies. a. Will this project require certification, authorization, or issuance of a permit by any other local, state, or federal agency? 23. City Plans and Goals. a. Is the project incompatible with existing zoning, plans and goals that have been adopted by the City for the area in which the project is located? Mandatory Findings of Significance Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to 49

55 the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one wlch occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly 01 indirectly? 6.3 Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts No adverse environmental impacts are expected as a result of this action. 6.4 Determination On the basis of the initial evaluation, the requested temporary variance for up to five years to existing chloride water quality objectives will have no significant adverse effect on the environment. 6.5 Protection of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species The requested temporary variance for up to five years to existing chloride water quality objectives will not result in a long-term increase in chloride concentrations in the discharges from the Valencia and Saugus WRPs during the term of the variance. Because of this, no adverse impacts are expected for the rare, threatened and endangered species that may occur in the reaches of the Santa Clara River in question. However, as described in Sections and 5.0, during the term of the variance, the Districts will investigate the long-term chloride threshold necessary to protect endangered or threatened aquatic species. 50

56 Figure Santa Clara River Watershed DRY GAP (APPROX. 15 MILES) REACH 3 REACH