Recycled Water Intertie Study. Final Report

Transcription

1 Recycled Water Intertie Study Final Report Prepared by: In Association with: John Robinson Consulting, Inc. March 2015

2 This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 of 176

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... iv ES-1 Background, Purpose and Objectives... iv ES-2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers... iv ES-3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy... v ES-4 Cost/Value Strategy... v ES-5 Conclusion... vi Chapter 1 Introduction Background Purpose and Objectives Chapter 2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers Permitting and Policy Requirements IEUA Recycled Water Permits and Policies WRCRWA Recycled Water Permits and Policies Intertied Recycled Water Systems in Surrounding Area Summary of Potential Permitting and Policy Barriers Strategy to Overcome Permitting and Policy Barriers Chapter 3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy Santa Ana River Judgment Anticipated IEUA Recycled Water Demand and Discharge Anticipated WRCRWA Recycled Water Demand and Discharge Recycled Water Reuse/Discharge Strategy Chapter 4 Cost/Value Strategy Anticipated Cost of WRCRWTP Recycled Water Rate Structure Strategy Chapter 5 Conclusion Summary of Strategies Permitting and Policy Barrier Strategy Reuse and Discharge Strategy Rate Structure Strategy Next Steps Study Cost and Schedule Summary References List of Tables Table 2-1: IEUA Recycled Water Quality Requirements for Direct Use (Order No. R ) Table 2-2: WRCRWTP Recycled Water Quality Requirements (Order No. R ) Table 2-3: Comparison of Permitting Requirements for Direct, Non-Potable Use of Recycled Water Table 3-1: IEUA Recycled Water Supply and Demand Table 3-2: WRCRWTP Recycled Water Demands Table 4-1: Capital Cost for Pipelines in Alternate System 1 versus Alternate System 3A Table 4-2: Capital Cost for Booster Pump and Storage in Alternate System 1 versus Alternate System 3A Table 4-3: IEUA Share of Capital Cost of Facilities to Intertie IEUA Non-Potable System to WRCRWRA Table 4-4: O&M Cost of Alternate System 3A March 2015 i Page 2 of 176

4 Table 4-5: IEUA Recycled Water Rates Table 4-6: Melded Unit Cost Based on IEUA Direct Use Recycled Water Rate Table 4-7: Melded Unit Cost Based on IEUA Volume Weighted Average Rate Table 5-1: Melded Unit Cost Based on IEUA Direct Use Recycled Water Rate Table 5-2: Melded Unit Cost Based on IEUA Volume Weighted Average Rate Table 5-3: Study Cost Table 5-4: Total Grant Reimbursable Cost Table 5-5: Study Schedule List of Figures Figure 1-1: WRCRWA Intertie Facilities Appendices Appendix A - WRCWRA Treatment Plant Effluent Water Use Feasibility Study Economic Feasibility Review Appendix B - IEUA Recycled Water Quality Requirements for Recharge Appendix C - RWQCB Permits for Intertied South Orange County Agency Recycled Water System Appendix D - Agreements for Recycled Water Services between the Vallecitos Water District and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (Note: Exhibits are not pertinent to the information in the report.) March 2015 ii Page 3 of 176

5 List of Abbreviations AF AFY BOD CDPH CMWD EIR ENR FOG ft IEUA in IRP JCSD mg/l mgd MPN NTU OCWD RWQCB SAWPA SBVMWD SOCWA SWRCB TDS TM TSS WD WMWD WRCRWA WRCRWTP acre-feet acre-feet per year biochemical oxygen demand California Department of Public Health Carlsbad Municipal Water District Environmental Impact Report Engineering News Record fats, oils and grease feet Inland Empire Utilities Agency inches Integrated Resources Plan Jurupa Community Services District milligrams per liter million gallons per day most probable number nephelometric turbidity units Orange County Water District Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District South Orange County Wastewater Authority State Water Resources Control Board total dissolved solids Technical Memorandum total suspended solids Water District Western Municipal Water District Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant March 2015 iii Page 4 of 176

6 Recycled Water Intertie Study Executive Summary Final Report Executive Summary The Recycled Water Intertie Study (Study) evaluates the permitting, political and economic challenges of implementing an intertie between the Inland Empire Utilities Agency s (IEUA) recycled water system and the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority s (WRCRWA) proposed recycled water system, and proposes strategies for overcoming these challenges. ES-1 Background, Purpose and Objectives Chapter 1 of the Study provides the background, purpose and objectives of the Study. IEUA is currently permitted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to use its recycled water for non-potable, direct use, as well as recharge it to the Chino groundwater basin. Recent studies and planning have found that IEUA s demand for recycled water is projected to exceed recycled water supply, requiring IEUA to begin looking at ways to import recycled water into its service area, one option of which involves a partnership with WRCRWA to intertie with WRCRWA s proposed recycled water system. A recent study conducted by WRCRWA found that such an intertie would be feasible. This Study examines the potential permitting and policy requirements of initiating the intertie, with specific objectives to: Determine Santa Ana RWQCB permitting requirements for blending two separate wastewater systems Evaluate existing policy conditions and barriers, and develop a strategy to move the program forward Evaluate and develop potential discharge requirement options within the framework of the Santa Ana River Judgment (Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al., entered by the court on April 17, 1969, Case No County of Orange the stipulated judgment adjudicating the water rights along the Santa Ana River) Evaluate the cost and value of the new supply as an intertied system compared to two separate systems, and develop a cost-effective rate strategy ES-2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers Chapter 2 (Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers) examines the permitting and policy requirements to develop a recycled water intertie between WRCRWA and IEUA, and recommend a strategy for overcoming potential barriers. IEUA has a number of Santa Ana RWQCB permits allowing for the direct use and recharge of recycled water. The Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WRCRWTP) is permitted to discharge recycled water effluent to local surface waters and for irrigation (referred to as reclamation in the permit) through its Santa Ana RWQCB permit. These permits define effluent limitations and discharge specifications, receiving water limitations, and monitoring and reporting requirements. Research of other intertied systems, including South Orange County Wastewater Authority interconnections with surrounding agencies, and Carlsbad Municipal Water District s (MWD) intertie with Vallecitos Water District (WD), provided ways to overcome potential barriers to obtaining permits and developing policies. Potential barriers include: maintaining effluent quality, ensuring equivalent retreatment programs, establishing responsibilities for new recycled water facilities, and developing agreements for the purchase of recycled water. The strategy to overcome these barriers begins with project discussions with the RWQCB and CDPH during the planning process to ensure that the project is planned and designed according to the requirements that March 2015 iv Page 5 of 176

7 Recycled Water Intertie Study Executive Summary Final Report will be set in the permits. It is also recommended that any agreement between IEUA and WRCRWA includes detailed information on the responsibilities of each agency, including, but not limited to, water quality and treatment, monitoring, pretreatment programs, system construction and O&M, and purchase of recycled water. For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that recycled water from the WRCRWTP will be used to help meet direct demands in IEUA s service area. ES-3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy Chapter 3 (Reuse/Discharge Strategy) examines the existing framework of the Santa Ana River Judgment, and how recycled water use can be optimized while still achieving IEUA discharge requirements. The Santa Ana River Judgment (Judgment), made effective on October 1, 1970, was put into place to maintain wastewater effluent flows from water districts in the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed for use by water users in the Lower Santa Ana River Watershed. This is accomplished in the Judgment by setting forth both a Declaration of Rights and a Physical Solution. The Declaration of Rights in the Judgment provides that the water users in the Lower District (i.e. Orange County Water District (OCWD)) have rights, as against the water users in the Upper District (IEUA, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) and WMWD), to receive certain average and minimum annual amounts of non-storm flow ( Base Flow ) at Prado Dam, together with the right to all storm flow reaching Prado Dam. The Judgment s Physical Solution was set forth to satisfy the rights of the Lower District by setting flow requirements to be satisfied by three agencies: Prado Dam (IEUA and Western Municipal Water District are jointly required to ensure 42,000 AFY of adjusted base flow) and Riverside Narrows (San Bernardino Valley MWD is required to ensure 15,250 AFY of adjusted base flow). The flow required at Prado Dam is referred to as the Prado Obligation, and was further defined for IEUA and WMWD, requiring each agency to deliver a primary contribution of 16,875 AF of adjusted primary contribution each, and can vary based on the level of total dissolved solids (TDS). A review of the Judgment and subsequent Santa Ana River Watermaster Annual Reports did not find any discharge requirements related to WRCRWA. It will be necessary to ensure that IEUA s discharge requirement continues to be met while increasing recycled water use. IEUA assumes that by 2040, 4,354 AFY of recycled water will be available to IEUA from the WRCRWTP to meet future recycled water demands. This volume is assumed to be feasible by 2040 given that the WRCRWTP is planned to be expanded to MGD in the future. This would allow for IEUA to meet 88,000 AFY of total recycled water demands in the service area, which includes 17,000 AFY for meeting the Prado Obligation. The recycled water reuse/discharge strategy assumes that recycled water supply, both from IEUA s plants and the WRCRWTP, would first meet direct use demands, and then the Prado Obligation. Therefore, the Prado Obligation is assumed to be met as much as possible in the winter demand months of December, January, and February by IEUA when the direct use demands area low. ES-4 Cost/Value Strategy Chapter 4 (Cost/Value Strategy) evaluates the anticipated cost and value of recycled water from the WRCRWTP, and develops a cost-effective rate structure strategy that will keep both the IEUA and WRCRWA end user costs down. The costs of the intertie were estimated as a part of WRCRWA s feasibility study conducted in 2011 (Webb, 2011), and assume that the cost share between IEUA and WRCRWA would generally be based on flow to each agency. In total, IEUA s apportionment of the capital costs for the intertie with the WRCRWTP are estimated to be a total of $8,855,000 or $557,300 per year, assuming and SRF loan is obtained. In addition to the capital March 2015 v Page 6 of 176

8 Recycled Water Intertie Study Executive Summary Final Report cost of new recycled water distribution facilities, the operations and maintenance (O&M) cost of the system to IEUA is estimated at $610,900 per year. In total, this intertie would cost IEUA an estimated $1.2 million per year. The cost/value strategy uses a rate structure for IEUA customers that incorporates the costs of constructing and operating the recycled water intertie, examines current IEUA recycled water rates and the impact that incorporating the cost of the WRCRWTP intertie would have on IEUA recycled water rates. These intertie costs as well as IEUA s current recycled water rates for direct use customers were used to develop a melded unit cost of $286/AF, which is similar to IEUA s current recycled water rate. A melded unit cost has also been calculated using an IEUA recycled water rate that incorporates both direct use and recharge rates, and is weighted based on estimated volumes of recycled water use. The melded unit cost estimated using the direct use and recharge rates is $303/AF. These rates incorporate a number of cost sharing assumptions that contribute towards keeping IEUA and WRCRWA end user costs down, including: Capital costs of any shared facilities that are not upsized would be apportioned according to the expected average volume of use by IEUA and JCSD Capital costs associated with the need to upsize facilities to accommodate IEUA s share of the recycled water flow or extend facilities to reach IEUA s service area from JCSD s service area would be borne entirely by IEUA O&M costs would be apportioned according to the expected average volume of use by IEUA and JCSD This does not include the cost for any additional IEUA facilities that may or may not be needed for direct use of the additional 4,354 AFY Given that the melded unit cost of $290/AF is based on preliminary assumptions for facilities needed and average volumes of recycled water, it is possible that this unit cost could change as planning on the WRCRWTP interconnection moves forward. Therefore, it is recommended that a range of potential rates be considered, with the unit cost of $290/AF representing the lower limit of the potential recycled water. ES-5 Conclusion Chapter 5 (Conclusion) summarizes the strategies detailed in Chapters 2 through 4, and provides recommendations for next steps in moving forward with a recycled water system intertie between IEUA and WRCRWA. The Study accomplished the objectives as described in Section ES-1, examining the potential permitting and policy requirements of initiating the intertie, and developing strategies to overcome potential barriers to implementation. Permitting and Policy Barrier Strategy It will be necessary for IEUA and WRCRWA to begin project discussions with the RWQCB and CDPH during the planning process to ensure that the project is planned and designed according to the requirements that will be set in the permits. It is also recommended that any agreement between IEUA and WRCRWA includes detailed information on the responsibilities of each agency, including, but not limited to, water quality and treatment, monitoring, pretreatment programs, system construction and O&M, and purchase of recycled water. Reuse and Discharge Strategy Based on the analysis of IEUA s recycled water supplies and demands, as well as potential demands on the WRCRWTP, it would be possible to use supplies from the WRCRWTP to meet IEUA s future needs while meeting the discharge requirements of the Prado Obligation. The recycled water from the WRCRWTP will allow IEUA to meet future recycled water demands of 88,000 AFY, which includes its requirement to March 2015 vi Page 7 of 176

9 Recycled Water Intertie Study Executive Summary Final Report discharge 17,000 AFY of recycled water to meet the Prado Obligation, assuming that Prado Obligation flows can be met as much as possible in winter months. Rate Structure Strategy The development of a rate structure strategy assumes that the cost and value of the rate structure must benefit both IEUA and WRCRWA by incorporating the costs of construction, operation and maintenance, as well as current recycled water rates paid by IEUA customers. The melded unit cost of $286/AF is the same as the fiscal year IEUA direct use recycled water rate, and represents a potential future recycled water rate after implementation of the interconnection. Given that the melded unit cost of $289/AF is based on preliminary assumptions for facilities needed and average volumes of recycled water, it is possible that this unit cost could change as planning on the WRCRWTP interconnection moves forward. Therefore, it is recommended that a range of potential rates be considered, with the unit cost of $290/AF representing the lower limit of the potential recycled water. The upper limit of the potential recycled water rate can be estimated as the water supply in IEUA s service area with the highest unit cost, and is Tier 1 treated imported water with a current rate of $680/AF. Should future planning show that the melded unit cost of recycled water to IEUA end users exceeds the rate of Tier 1 treated imported water, it is recommended that a revision to the above discussed cost sharing strategies be considered by IEUA and cost-sharing parties. Next Steps The results of this Study indicate that a recycled water intertie between IEUA s recycled water system and the WRCRWTP could be implemented from a permitting, policy and discharge requirement standpoint, as well as be cost effective for IEUA and WRCRWA. The following are next steps that may be taken by IEUA in order to implement the strategies discussed in Section 5.1: Initiate an agreement between IEUA and WRCRWA to purchase recycled water. This agreement should include: Requirements for WRCRWTP effluent quality and treatment to ensure that recycled water quality meets the requirements of CDPH and Santa Ana RWQCB, as listed in IEUA s permit for direct use of recycled water. Monitoring responsibilities of IEUA and WRCRWA, including monitoring of effluent from the WRCWTP, recycled water use sites in IEUA s service area, and potable water supply in IEUA s service area to ensure that recycled water is not impacting the groundwater supply quality Outline pretreatment program requirements to ensure that pretreatment programs implemented by WRCRWA remain similar to those implemented by IEUA in the future Responsibilities for construction and O&M of the new non-potable system, including ownership, cost share, and capacity rights. Detailed cost and volume of recycled water to be purchased by IEUA, including provisions for interruption of recycled water supply, situations when IEUA does not purchase the minimum volume of recycled water, payment terms, and pricing of water Initiate meetings with CDPH and Santa Ana RWQCB to discuss the project, any permitting requirements, and interim steps necessary to ensure that the intertie will be permitted, such as engineering reports or additional feasibility studies. The methods results of this Study may be applied to other recycled water interties, should IEUA wish to pursue them given that the permitting requirements would be similar. As with the WRCRWA intertie, other interties in the Region would require meetings with CDPH and the Santa Ana RWQCB in order to determine specific permitting requirements, as well as agreements be made between partnering agencies that incorporate the permitting requirements. March 2015 vii Page 8 of 176

10 This page intentionally left blank. Page 9 of 176

11 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 1 Introduction Final Report Chapter 1 Introduction Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) initiated the Recycled Water Intertie Study (Study) to determine the requirements to develop a recycled water intertie between the IEUA recycled water system and the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA) proposed recycled water system. This Study examines requirements and strategies related to implementing a recycled water system intertie with WRCRWA, including permitting and policy requirements, the Santa Ana River discharge requirements, and the project s cost and value. 1.1 Background IEUA owns and operates five wastewater treatment facilities with influent flows of approximately 60,000 acre-feet per year (AFY), including a recycled water system that delivers approximately 23,000 AFY to its member agencies. IEUA has permits from the Santa Ana RWQCB to use the recycled water for direct reuse (e.g. irrigation, farming, landscaping, commercial, industrial) and for groundwater recharge purposes. IEUA s 2014 Draft Recycled Water Program Strategy indicates that IEUA s recycled water demand, comprised of non-potable users, recharge and downstream flow requirements, may be higher in the future than its supply. In order to maximize recycled water use in IEUA s service area, the agency is exploring various options for increasing its recycled water supply, including developing a recycled water system intertie with WRCRWA. WRCRWA is a joint powers authority consisting of the cities of Norco and Corona, the Jurupa Community Services District, the Home Gardens Sanitary District, and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD). WRCRWA is managed by WMWD, and owns and operates the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WRCRWTP), brought online in Effluent from the WRCRWTP currently flows to the Santa Ana River, and is not beneficially used to meet non-potable demands. A feasibility study was completed by Albert A. Webb and Associates on behalf of Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) in January 2011 that evaluated effluent water use from the WRCRWTP in both the JCSD and IEUA service areas (Webb 2011). This study, provided in Appendix A, found that such a system would be feasible and worthy of additional investigation. The Webb study explored four alternatives, including two alternatives focusing on delivering recycled water to JCSD only, and two alternatives that deliver recycled water to both JCSD and IEUA. The Webb study estimates that on average, IEUA could receive up to 4,400 AFY of recycled water of the 9,000 AFY (or 8 million gallons per day (MGD)) of effluent available. In these alternatives, the recycled water conveyance system would extend from the WRCRWTP, and connect the southern part of IEUA s service area, as shown in Figure 1-1. Given the feasibility of using effluent from the WRCRWTP for non-potable uses, WRCRWA has filed a change of use petition with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) with the intent of developing a recycled water program. In addition, environmental documentation has been filed for the use of the effluent, including a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Dunbar 2012) and a Notice of Determination (WRCRWA 2013). March Page 10 of 176

12 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 1 Introduction Final Report Figure 1-1: WRCRWA Intertie Facilities 1.2 Purpose and Objectives IEUA s Recycled Water Intertie Study evaluates permitting, political and economic challenges and develop strategies to make a successful recycled water system intertie, with the following specific objectives: Determine Santa Ana RWQCB permitting requirements for blending two separate wastewater systems Evaluate existing policy conditions and barriers, and develop a strategy to move the program forward Evaluate and develop potential discharge requirement options within the framework of the Santa Ana River Judgment (Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al., entered by the court on April 17, 1969, Case No County of Orange the stipulated judgment adjudicating the water rights along the Santa Ana River) Evaluate the cost and value of the new supply as an intertied system compared to two separate systems, and develop a cost-effective rate strategy The remainder of this Study explores these topics, and is organized as follows: March Page 11 of 176

13 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 1 Introduction Final Report Chapter 2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers Examines the permitting and policy requirements to develop a recycled water intertie between WRCRWA and IEUA, and recommend a strategy for overcoming potential barriers. Chapter 3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy Examines the existing framework of the Santa Ana River Judgment, and how recycled water use can be optimized while still achieving IEUA discharge requirements. Chapter 4 Cost/Value Strategy Evaluates the anticipated cost and value of recycled water from the WRCRWTP, and develops a cost-effective rate structure strategy that will keep both the IEUA and WRCRWA end user costs down. Chapter 5 Conclusion Summarizes the strategies detailed in Chapters 2 through 4, and provides recommendations for next steps in moving forward with a recycled water system intertie between IEUA and WRCRWA. March Page 12 of 176

14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 13 of 176

15 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers Final Report Chapter 2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers This chapter examines the permitting and policy requirements to develop a recycled water intertie between WRCRWA and IEUA - particularly water quality and pretreatment program requirements, how agreements between neighboring agencies have incorporated these requirements, and recommendations for a strategy for overcoming potential barriers. 2.1 Permitting and Policy Requirements Permits that define requirements for the use of recycled water supplies from IEUA s water recycling plants and the WRCRWTP are in place for each agency. To determine requirements and potential barriers to implementation of an intertied system, this Chapter examines existing IEUA and WRCRWA permits to identify similarities and differences that may need to be addressed, and reviews the permitting and policies in place for intertied recycled water systems from other southern California recycled water providers IEUA Recycled Water Permits and Policies IEUA has a number of permits allowing for the direct use and recharge of recycled water. These permits define requirements for the use of recycled water (both direct use and recharge), including but not limited to uses, water quality levels, and monitoring requirements. IEUA is permitted to deliver water for non-potable direct uses (referred to as reclamation in the permit) through Santa Ana RWQCB Order No. R The permit defines effluent limitations and discharge specifications, receiving water limitations, and monitoring and reporting requirements. Water quality requirements for directly used recycled water with the IEUA service area are shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: IEUA Recycled Water Quality Requirements for Direct Use (Order No. R ) Constituent Microbiological Contaminants Total Coliform Nutrients Biochemical oxygen demand 20 C Other Parameters Turbidity (average) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (12-month running average) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Permitted recycled water quality for direct use 2.2 MPN in 7-day median 23 MPN in more than one sample in any 30-day period 240 MPN at any time 20 mg/l (avg. monthly) 30 mg/l (avg. weekly) 2 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) within 24-hour period, 5 NTU more than 5% of the time, 10 NTU at any time 550 mg/l 20 mg/l (avg. monthly) 30 mg/l (avg. weekly) IEUA is permitted to recharge recycled water at 14 sites using recycled water from IEUA s Regional Water Recycling Plants No. 1 (RP-1) and No. 4 (RP-4). Requirements for this are described in a number of Santa Ana RWQCB Orders, including: R : Authorizes implementation of the Chino Basin Recycled Water Groundwater Recharge Program which is part of the Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP) developed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. R : Amends Order No. R , and requires that IEUA have an industrial pretreatment and source control program in place, conducts a source investigation and monitoring program for specified contaminants, conducts outreach to minimize the discharge of compounds of March Page 14 of 176

16 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers Final Report concern at the source, and develops a proactive program for maintaining an inventory of compounds discharged into the wastewater collection system so that new compounds of concern can be evaluated rapidly. To satisfy these requirements, IEUA has implemented a chemical database system, a No Drugs Down the Drain program, a Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) outreach program, and a water softener removal rebate program. R : Defines water quality limitations to ensure the underlying groundwater quality is not degraded, does not exceed water quality objectives, and does not impair beneficial uses. In addition, the order limits average recycled water contribution (RWC) at each basin, and limits the start-up period to establish site characteristics and establish a sampling regime to180 days. R : Amends Order No. R to extend the period for determining the RWC from a 60-month averaging period to a 120-month averaging period. The amendment also allowed for a fraction of the Chino Basin aquifer s groundwater underflow to be used as diluent flow when calculating the average RWC. As part of the regulatory requirements for recharge of recycled water, IEUA submitted to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) a Title 22 Engineering Report for the Chino Basin Recycled Water Groundwater Recharge Program (IEUA, 2003). The report shows that the recycled water projects defined in the program both comply with the recycled water criteria defined in the California Water Code, and that the recharge projects would not degrade the local aquifers. The Title 22 Engineering Reports for Phase I and Phase II Projects were submitted in November 2003 and March 2006, respectively, and later updated in Within CDPH s review of the Title 22 Engineering Report were specific requirements pertaining to the quality of the recycled water to be used for recharge, and the implementation of a comprehensive monitoring program by IEUA to ensure that these requirements are satisfied. The quality requirements are incorporated into the requirements under Order No. R , and are shown in Appendix B. The conditions also include requirements for groundwater monitoring prior to and after project start-up to assess any effects of recycled water recharge, and for the development and periodic update of an operations, maintenance and monitoring plan, and a pretreatment and pollutant source control program for the control of discharge of toxic wastes from point sources WRCRWA Recycled Water Permits and Policies The WRCRWTP is permitted to discharge recycled water effluent to local surface waters and for irrigation (referred to as reclamation in the permit) through Santa Ana RWQCB Order No. R This permit defines effluent limitations and discharge specifications, receiving water limitations, and monitoring and reporting requirements. The recycled water quality limitations for irrigation use from the WRCRWTP are shown in Table 2-2. Order No. R requires that WRCRWA implement a pretreatment program similar to that required under IEUA s NPDES permit. WRCRWA has implemented a wastewater source control program to regulate the discharges of industrial and commercial facilities to the sanitary sewer system, including a sewer system management plan, a FOG program, grease trap and interceptor information, and a wastewater control ordinance and discharge limits. March Page 15 of 176

17 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers Final Report Table 2-2: WRCRWTP Recycled Water Quality Requirements (Order No. R ) Constituent Microbiological Contaminants Total Coliform Nutrients Biochemical oxygen demand 20 C Other Parameters Turbidity (average) TDS (12-month running average) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Permitted recycled water quality for direct use 2.2 MPN (7-day median) 20 mg/l (avg. monthly) 30 mg/l (avg. weekly) 2 NTU within 24-hour period, 5 NTU more than 5% of the time, 10 NTU at any time 770 mg/l (12-month running avg.) 20 mg/l (avg. monthly) 30 mg/l (avg. weekly) Intertied Recycled Water Systems in Surrounding Area A number of agencies in southern California have intertied recycled water systems. The following is a discussion of two of these agencies, and the permitting and regulatory requirements required for each. 1. South Orange County Wastewater Authority South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA), a Joint Powers Authority, holds the discharge permits for all the wastewater treatment plants in South Orange County, and includes facilities permitted under the Santa Ana RWQCB and facilities permitted under the San Diego RWQCB. These permits are included in Appendix C. Significant interconnections have been established to move and store Title 22 recycled water during the fall and winter into the Upper Oso Reservoir from three of the wastewater treatment plants. During the spring and summer recycled water is utilized for direct, non-potable applications (irrigation). SOCWA is required to have permits from both Santa Ana RWQCB (Order No ) and San Diego RWQCB (Order No ) that include specific requirements that must be met for the system interties. Generally, the SOCWA permits include the same requirements as other recycled water use permits. In the case of the intertied system, the permits have one common set of water quality requirements for landscape irrigation and other land disposal projects across the service area, as opposed to unique water quality requirements depending on the member agency or recycled water source. SOCWA also is subject to stringent monitoring requirements. Member agencies must monitor effluent from each of their treatment facilities, and perform recycled water use monitoring for all recycled water use sites. SOCWA is required to monitor potable waters supplied to its service area, and obtain groundwater monitoring samples for specific constituents. Member agencies must submit monitoring reports to SOCWA, and SOCWA submits summary reports to the RWQCBs. 2. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) has an intertie with the Vallecitos Water District (WD) for CMWD to obtain recycled water for direct, non-potable applications. As with SOCWA, CMWD did not encounter barriers to obtaining permits from the San Diego RWQCB or the CDPH for this system. CMWD and Vallecitos WD have in place detailed agreements, included in Appendix D, listing responsibilities for constructing improvements, operating and maintaining the recycled water system, rights to system capacities, treatment standards, compliance with permitting and regulations, minimum required recycled water purchase by CMWD, and pricing. Within the agreement is the stipulation that should CMWD not purchase the minimum quantities of water, Vallecitos WD may sell the recycled water to others, and rights to storage in the system reverts to Vallecitos WD. In addition, the agreement states that should March Page 16 of 176

18 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers Final Report Vallecitos refuse to sell recycled water to CMWD, Vallecitos WD must reimburse CMWD for the improvements made to the system by CMWD Summary of Potential Permitting and Policy Barriers In summary, a number of items could prove to be potential permitting and policy barriers for implementing a recycled water system intertie between IEUA and WRCRWA. The potential barriers include: 1. Effluent quality: The quality of effluent from the WRCRWTP may not meet the requirements of IEUA s recycled water direct use permits, given that the agencies permit requirements vary slightly, as shown in Table Pretreatment Program: It is expected that there will be a pretreatment program requirements included in permit for the system intertie, but given that both IEUA and WRCRWA have similar pretreatment programs in place, it will only be necessary to ensure that the pretreatment programs are continued. 3. Establishment of responsibilities for new recycled water facilities: The CMWD agreement with Vallecitos WD details responsibilities for construction, operations and maintenance (O&M) of any new recycled water facilities. Given that an intertie between the WRCRWTP and IEUA s nonpotable system will require new facilities, it will be necessary to consider responsibilities related to the construction and O&M of this system. 4. Agreements for Purchase of Recycled Water: The CMWD agreement with Vallecitos WD details terms for the purchase of recycled water, including requirements for purchase of water, delivery of water, capacity rights, and setting of price. These items will be important items to be included in any agreement between IEUA and WRCRWA. 2.2 Strategy to Overcome Permitting and Policy Barriers Review of the existing recycled water use permits as well as the experiences of other entities with intertied recycled water systems indicate that it would be possible to intertie the IEUA and WRCRWA systems, as long as the proper permits are obtained from the RWQCB and CDPH. It will be necessary for IEUA and WRCRWA to begin project discussions with the RWQCB and CDPH during the planning process to ensure that the project is planned and designed according to the requirements that will be set in the permits. It is also recommended that any agreement between IEUA and WRCRWA includes detailed information on the responsibilities of each agency, including, but not limited to, water quality and treatment, monitoring, pretreatment programs, system construction and O&M, and purchase of recycled water. For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that recycled water from the WRCRWTP will be used to help meet direct demands in IEUA s service area. 1. Effluent Quality and Treatment Recycled water quality must meet the requirements of the CDPH and the Santa Ana RWQCB. In terms of direct use requirements, the WRCRWTP has similar requirements for irrigation use listed in its RWQCB permit as IEUA s permit for direct use of recycled water, as shown in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 indicates that the parameters are similar for the IEUA and WRCRWA recycled water direct use permits, but IEUA s permit contains more detailed monitoring requirements for coliform, and more stringent requirements for TDS. Any RWQCB and CDPH permits allowing for the intertied system are expected to set requirements equal to the current federal and state requirements for direct use of recycled water. Additionally, it is recommended that an agreement set between IEUA and WRCRWA include the requirement that recycled water supplied by WRCRWA to IEUA meet RWQCB permit requirements related to water quality. Should the recycled water from the WRCRWTP be used for recharge in IEUA s service area, the parameters shown in Appendix B will need to be incorporated to ensure that recycled water from WRCRWA will meet IEUA s permitting requirements and not degrade water quality in the Chino Basin. March Page 17 of 176

19 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers Final Report Table 2-3: Comparison of Permitting Requirements for Direct, Non-Potable Use of Recycled Water Parameter BOD TSS Permitted recycled water quality for direct use from IEUA plants 20 mg/l (avg. monthly) 30 mg/l (avg. weekly) 20 mg/l (avg. monthly) 30 mg/l (avg. weekly) Permitted recycled water quality for direct use from WRCRWTP 20 mg/l (avg. monthly) 30 mg/l (avg. weekly) 20 mg/l (avg. monthly) 30 mg/l (avg. weekly) Permit Comparison IEUA and WRCRWA requirements are the same IEUA and WRCRWA requirements are the same ph No limit listed 6.5 to 8.5 No IEUA requirement Coliform 2.2 MPN in 7-day median 23 MPN in more than one sample in any 30-day period 240 MPN at any time 2.2 MPN (7-day median) TDS 550 mg/l 770 mg/l Turbidity 2 NTU within 24-hour period, 5 NTU more than 5% of the time, 10 NTU at any time 2 NTU within 24-hour period, 5 NTU more than 5% of the time, 10 NTU at any time IEUA has additional monitoring requirements IEUA requirements more stringent IEUA and WRCRWA requirements are the same 2. Monitoring The recycled water discharge and use permits held by IEUA and WRCRWA have detailed monitoring requirements for monitoring the previously discussed parameters. It will be necessary for either the recycled water use permit or agreement between WRCRWA and IEUA to detail the responsibilities of each agency for monitoring, including monitoring of effluent from the WRCRWTP, recycled water use sites in IEUA s service area, and potable water supply in IEUA s service area to ensure that recycled water is not impacting the groundwater supply. 3. Pretreatment Program As discussed in Section 2.1, wastewater dischargers are required to have a wastewater pretreatment program in place to reduce contamination from a variety of harmful substances that wastewater treatment systems may not remove. It is assumed that any permit for the intertied system will contain the same requirements. The pretreatment programs that IEUA and WRCRWA currently have in place are assumed to would meet the requirements of a new permit, but should also be outlined in an agreement between IEUA and WRCRWA to ensure that the pretreatment programs implemented by WRCRWA remain similar to those implemented by IEUA in the future. 4. New Recycled Water System Construction, Operations and Maintenance To implement the recycled water system intertie, it will be necessary to construct a pipeline and pump station to bring water from the WRCRWTP to IEUA s non-potable system. Any agreement between WRCRWA and IEUA should include responsibilities for construction and O&M of the new non-potable system, including ownership, cost share, and capacity rights. In addition, a similar agreement between IEUA and JCSD may be necessary given that a pipeline conveying recycled water from the WRCRWATP to IEUA s non-potable system will be shared with JCSD. More details on the potential pipelines are discussed in the 2011 WRCRWA Treatment Plant Effluent Water Use Feasibility Study. March Page 18 of 176

20 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 2 Permitting Issues and Policy Barriers Final Report 5. Purchase of Recycled Water The cost and volume of recycled water to be purchased by IEUA should be detailed in an agreement between IEUA and WRCRWA. Similar to the agreement between CMWD and Vallecitos WD, the agreement should include provisions for interruption of recycled water supply, situations when IEUA does not purchase the minimum volume of recycled water, payment terms, and pricing of water. March Page 19 of 176

21 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy Final Report Chapter 3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy This chapter examines the existing framework of the Santa Ana River Judgment, particularly IEUA s requirement for discharge of recycled water to the Santa Ana River, and how recycled water use can be optimized while still achieving discharge requirements. 3.1 Santa Ana River Judgment The Santa Ana River Judgment (Judgment), made effective on October 1, 1970, was put into place to maintain wastewater effluent flows from water districts in the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed for use by water users in the Lower Santa Ana River Watershed. This is accomplished in the Judgment by setting forth both a Declaration of Rights and a Physical Solution, both of which are described below. Declaration of Rights 1 The Judgment sets forth a declaration of rights. Briefly stated, the Judgment provides that the water users in the Lower District (i.e. Orange County Water District (OCWD)) have rights, as against the water users in the Upper District (IEUA, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) and WMWD), to receive certain average and minimum annual amounts of non-storm flow ( Base Flow ) at Prado Dam, together with the right to all storm flow reaching Prado Dam. The amount of the Lower District entitlement is variable based on the quality of the water received by the Lower District. Water users in the Upper District have the right as against the water users in the Lower District to divert, pump, extract, conserve, store and use all surface and groundwater supplies originating within the Upper District, so long as the Lower District receives the water to which it is entitled under the Judgment and there is compliance with all of its provisions. Physical Solution. The Judgment also sets forth a comprehensive physical solution for satisfying the rights of the Lower District. To understand the physical solution it is necessary to understand the following terms that are used in the Judgment: Storm Flow That portion of the total flow which originates from precipitation and runoff and which passes a point of measurement (either Riverside Narrows or Prado Dam) without having first percolated to groundwater storage in the zone of saturation, calculated in accordance with procedures referred to in the Judgment. Base Flow That portion of the total surface flow passing a point of measurement (either Riverside Narrows or Prado Dam) which remains after deduction of storm flow, non-tributary flows, exchange water purchased by OCWD, and certain other flows as determined by the Watermaster. Adjusted Base Flow Actual Base Flow in each year adjusted for water quality pursuant to formulas specified in the Judgment. The adjustment of Base Flow for water quality is intended to provide an incentive to the Upper District to maintain a better quality of water in the Santa Ana River. When the TDS is lower than a specified value at one of the measuring points, the water quantity obligation is lower. When the TDS is higher than a specified value, the water quantity obligation is higher. This is the first comprehensive adjudication in southern California in which the quality of water is taken into consideration in the quantification of water rights. Credits and Debits Under the accounting procedures provided for in the Judgment, credits accrue to SBVMWD in any year when the Adjusted Base Flow exceeds 15,250 acre-feet (AF) at Riverside Narrows and jointly to IEUA and WMWD when the Adjusted Base Flow exceeds 42,000 AF at 1 Information in the section is cited from the Santa Ana River Watermaster Annual Report, Chapter IV History and Summary of the Judgment. March Page 20 of 176

22 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy Final Report Prado Dam. Debits accrue in any year when the Adjusted Base Flow falls below those levels. Credits or debits accumulate year-to-year. Obligation at Riverside Narrows. SBVMWD has an obligation to assure an average annual Adjusted Base Flow of 15,250 AF at Riverside Narrows, subject to the following: (1) A minimum Base Flow of 13,420 AF plus one-third of any cumulative debit. (2) After October 1, 1986, if no cumulative debit exists, the minimum Base Flow shall be 12,420 AF. (3) Prior to 1986, if the cumulative credits exceed 10,000 AF, the minimum Base Flow shall be 12,420 AF. (4) All cumulative debits shall be removed by the discharge of a sufficient Base Flow at Riverside Narrows at least once in any ten consecutive years following October 1, Any cumulative credits shall remain on the books of account until used to offset any subsequent debits or until otherwise disposed of by SBVMWD. (5) The Base Flow at Riverside Narrows shall be adjusted using weighted average annual TDS in such Base Flow in accordance with the formula set forth in the Judgment. Obligation at Prado Dam. IEUA and WMWD have a joint obligation to assure an average annual Adjusted Base Flow of 42,000 AF at Prado Dam, subject to the following: (1) Minimum Base Flow at Prado shall not be less than 37,000 AF plus one-third of any cumulative debit. (2) After October 1, 1986, if no cumulative debit exists, the minimum Base Flow quantity shall be 34,000 AF. (3) Prior to 1986, if the cumulative credit exceeds 30,000 AF, the minimum Base Flow shall be 34,000 AF. (4) Sufficient quantities of Base Flow shall be provided at Prado to discharge completely any cumulative debits at least once in any ten consecutive years following October 1, Any cumulative credits shall remain on the books of account until used to offset any debits, or until otherwise disposed of by IEUA and WMWD. (5) The Base Flow at Prado during any year shall be adjusted using the weighted average annual TDS in the total flow at Prado (Base Flow plus Storm Flow) in accordance with the formula set forth in the Judgment. This joint obligation, also referred to as the Prado Obligation, was further defined for IEUA and WMWD through the IEUA WMWD Agreement Regarding Satisfaction of the Joint Obligation Prado Settlement. This settlement states that in any water year, IEUA and WMWD shall be obligated, to the extent necessary to satisfy their joint obligation under the Prado Settlement, to deliver a primary contribution of 16,875 AF of adjusted primary contribution each. The quantity of Primary Contribution delivered during any year is subject to adjustment based on the weighted average annual TDS of all flows. March Page 21 of 176

23 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy Final Report Other Provisions SBVMWD, IEUA and WMWD are enjoined from exporting water from the Lower District to the Upper Districts, directly or indirectly. OCWD is enjoined from exporting or directly or indirectly causing water to flow from the Upper District to the Lower District. Any inter-basin acquisition of water rights will have no effect on Lower District entitlements. OCWD is prohibited from enforcing two prior judgments so long as the Upper Districts are in compliance with the physical solution. The composition of the Watermaster and the nomination and appointment process for members is described along with a definition of the Watermaster s duties and a formula for sharing its costs. The court retains continuing jurisdiction over the case. There are provisions for appointment of successor parties and rules for dealing with future actions that might conflict with the physical solution. 3.2 Anticipated IEUA Recycled Water Demand and Discharge Based on IEUA s recently completed Draft Recycled Water Program Strategy (Stantec 2014), and IEUA s Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) which is currently underway, it is possible to derive anticipated recycled water demand and expected discharge for IEUA. Table 3-1 provides a summary of IEUA s Prado Obligation, recycled water supplies, direct recycled water demands, and recharge demands. Note that while the Draft Recycled Water Program Strategy assumes an IEUA Prado Obligation of 14,000 AFY, for this Report it is assumed that the Prado Obligation is a more conservative 17,000 AFY based on the minimum baseflow requirement of 34,000 AFY to be shared between IEUA and WMWD. Table 3-1 also provides the external supply need (the difference between IEUA recycled water supply and demand), and indicates a need for additional supply from an external recycled water source such as that it could be provided by the WRCRWTP. Note that the values shown in Table 3-1 are based on an average annual year, and indicate external supply is needed to meet demands in the future to maximize direct use and recharge of recycled water. Although Table 3-1 indicates in an annual average year a maximum of 3,300 AFY of additional supply is needed, a higher volume of external supply will be necessary to meet peak seasonal demands. IEUA s IRP assumes that 4,354 AFY of supply from the WRCRWTP will be available to meet these peak demands while maintaining discharge requirements. Table 3-1: IEUA Recycled Water Supply and Demand 2 Existing Volumes (AFY) 2020 Volumes (AFY) 2030 Volumes (AFY) 2040 Volumes (AFY) Total IEUA Recycled Water Supply 60,400 65,900 77,600 87,000 Direct Use Demands 22,500 25,600 37,000 42,000 IEUA Prado Obligation 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 Maximum Groundwater Recharge 23,300 24, , ,000 1 Total Demands 62,800 67,400 80,900 88,000 External Supply Need 2,400 1,500 3,300 1,000 2 The volume estimated for 2040 is derived from the IEUA IRP. Note that the groundwater recharge volumes for 2020 and 2030 are estimated based on interpolation between the years 2013 and These volumes will be refined in IEUA s IRP, scheduled for completion by the end of March Page 22 of 176

24 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy Final Report 3.3 Anticipated WRCRWA Recycled Water Demand and Discharge The WRCRWTP has a permitted flow of 8 MGD with a treatment capacity of 12.0 MGD and an expansion capacity of 32 MGD. The WRCRWTP treats incoming wastewater that is generated by homes and businesses within its member agencies. Corona, Norco and JCSD have expressed interest in use of recycled water from WRCRWTP for both recharge and direct reuse. Currently, the WRCRWTP produces about 4,354 AFY or approximately 4.0 MGD of recycled water and discharges all of this flow to the Santa Ana River. Though effluent from the WRCRWTP is not subject to the discharge requirements of the Prado Obligation, its flow can be counted towards meeting flow requirements at Prado Dam. Per the 43rd Annual Report of the Santa Ana River Wastermaster, WRCRWTP has discharged to the Santa Ana River an average of 4,239 AFY or 3.78 MGD of recycled water from water year through In January 2011, a contract was awarded to expand the permitted design of the WRCRWTP from 8.0 MGD to MGD. The plant s expansion will include an upgrade to tertiary-treated recycled water as a reusable product. The WRCRWA Treatment Plant Effluent Water Use Feasibility Study supporting the January 2011 design expansion included three base alternatives; 1) minimize pipeline length, 2) maximize demand areas and 3) connect to IEUA reclaimed water system. Results of the first two alternatives were used to build the third and fourth alternatives. Alternative 3A includes minimize pipe length and connect to IEUA s recycled water system and Alternative 3B includes maximize demand area and connect to IEUA s recycled water system. The demands for the alternative systems were developed during the preparation of the 2008 JCSD Non-Potable Master Plan and incorporated in the January 2011 study. The non-potable (recycled) water demands are summarized in Table 3-2. Table 3-2: WRCRWTP Recycled Water Demands Annual Eastvale Irrigation Demand (AFY) Potential Deliveries to IEUA (AFY) Alternative System 1 Minimum Pipe Length Maximum Demand Areas 1, A Minimum Pipe Length and Connect to IEUA (Minimum Deliveries to IEUA) 662 3,567 3A Maximum Deliveries to IEUA 662 5,141 3A Average Deliveries to IEUA 662 4,354 3B Maximum Demand Areas and Connect to IEUA (Minimum Deliveries to IEUA) 1, B Maximum Deliveries to IEUA 1,153 4,649 3B Average Deliveries to IEUA 1,153 2,967 Source: Albert A. Webb Associates, 1/24/2011 As part of the process to expand the plant, WRCRWA published the Final EIR, Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Enhancement and Expansion Projects, State Clearinghouse No in April As stated in the Final EIR, the goals and objectives of the WRCRWTP Enhancement and Expansion Project are to: Remain in compliance with Order No. R adopted by the Santa Ana RWQCB on July 18, 2008 and any amendments thereto. Decrease the amount of recycled water that must be discharged to the Santa Ana River. Increase the use of recycled water within economic distance of the WRCRWTP for non-potable uses. Decrease the dependence on imported water supplies within the service areas of the WRCRWA members. March Page 23 of 176

25 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 3 Reuse/Discharge Strategy Final Report The Final EIR was certified by the WRCRWA Board of Directors Resolution No on August 24, In May 2012, WRCRWA published a Draft Program EIR for its proposed Recycled Water Program. However, it intends to divert this recycled water to beneficial use in accordance with the goals outlined in the April 2010 Final EIR for the enhancement and expansion project. It is anticipated that WRCRWA would provide the recycled water to their member agencies, with the exception of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) which does not own or operate water systems, at the treatment plant, as well as potentially provide recycled water to IEUA. WRCRWA s Resolution No states that each WRCRWA member agency has the right to use recycled water from WRCRWA s facilities, not to exceed the amount of wastewater sent for treatment by the member agency. Prior to exercising its right to take its basic allocation or any portion thereof, each member agency shall enter into a written agreement with WRCRWA. Based upon this resolution, WMWD filed a petition to the SWRCB in December 2012 in order to utilize the recycled water produced from the expansion within the Chino Basin via direct, non-potable use. This petition was filed because, in the past, the recycled water was discharged to a creek contributing to the Santa Ana River and therefore there was no permit to allow for the direct use of the recycled water. Currently, WRCRWA is in the final planning stages of providing recycled water to the City of Norco, but distribution infrastructure is required in the City of Norco. The City of Norco s Recycled Water Piping Project includes the installation of over seven miles of pipeline, a small reservoir, and pump station to create a new recycled water distribution system to deliver up to 895 AFY of recycled water. WRCRWA has also developed MOUs with the City of Jurupa and IEUA for future use of recycled water from the WRCRWTP. 3.4 Recycled Water Reuse/Discharge Strategy Based on the analysis of IEUA s recycled water supplies and demands, as well as potential demands on the WRCRWTP, it would be possible to use supplies from the WRCRWTP to meet IEUA s future needs while meeting the discharge requirements of the Prado Obligation. As discussed previously, the WRCRWTP currently discharges nearly 6,000 AFY, and is expected to increase in the future. Given Norco s plans to use 895 AFY of this supply, and the annual Eastvale maximum demand of 1,153 AFY (see Table 3-2), the current remaining effluent available for use by IEUA is approximately 2,500 AFY. IEUA s IRP is assuming that by 2040, 4,354 AFY of recycled water will be available to IEUA from the WRCRWTP to meet future recycled water demands. This volume is assumed to be feasible by 2040 given that the WRCRWTP is planned to be expanded to MGD in the future. This would allow for IEUA to meet 88,000 AFY of total recycled water demands in the service area (shown in Table 3-1), which includes 17,000 AFY for meeting the Prado Obligation. Note that these volumes assume that the wastewater change petition filed by WRCRWA with the SWRCB in December 2012 will be approved. The recycled water reuse/discharge strategy assumes that recycled water supply would first meet direct use demands, and then the Prado Obligation. Therefore, the Prado Obligation is assumed to be met as much as possible in the winter demand months of December, January, and February by IEUA directly when the direct use demands area low. March Page 24 of 176

26 This page intentionally left blank. Page 25 of 176

27 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 4 Cost/Value Strategy Final Report Chapter 4 Cost/Value Strategy This chapter evaluates the anticipated cost and value of recycled water from the WRCRWTP to IEUA customers, and goes on to develop a cost-effective rate structure strategy that will keep both the IEUA and WRCRWA end user costs down. 4.1 Anticipated Cost of WRCRWTP Recycled Water This section summarizes the major costs anticipated for constructing, operating and maintaining an intertie between IEUA s non-potable system and the WRCRWTP, and examines the value of this recycled water. The costs for an intertie between IEUA and the WRCRWTP are largely based on the 2011 Economic Feasibility Review prepared by Webb and Associates as part of the WRCRWTP Effluent Water Use Feasibility Study and included as Appendix A of this Report. The Economic Feasibility Review estimates the cost of infrastructure to convey recycled water under four alternate systems mentioned in Chapter 3 that examine deliveries to JCSD customers in Eastvale and deliveries to IEUA: Alternate System 1: Minimum pipe length, deliveries to Eastvale area only Alternate System 2: Maximum demand areas, deliveries to Eastvale area only Alternate System 3A: Alternative System 1 plus deliveries to Eastvale and connect to IEUA Alternate System 3B: Alternative System 2 plus deliveries to Eastvale and connect to IEUA For the purposes of this Report, it is assumed that Alternative 3A is the preferred alternative as it has a lower overall capital cost than Alternative 3B. Costs were estimated in the 2011 Economic Feasibility Review for each complete system, which do not include the additional costs of extending the system to intertie with IEUA s system. Therefore, it was necessary to compare similar alternate systems to obtain the cost of infrastructure for this proposed intertie. Table 4-1 provides a breakdown of pipeline capital costs for Alternate System 1 versus Alternate System 3a, focusing on the 18-in pipeline that will be conveying recycled water from the WRCRWTP to IEUA s non-potable system. March Page 26 of 176

28 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 4 Cost/Value Strategy Final Report Table 4-1: Capital Cost for Pipelines in Alternate System 1 versus Alternate System 3A 3 Pipes Diameter, in Alt System 3A Pipe Length, ft Alt System 1 Pipe Length, ft Additional Length, ft (System 3A minus System 1) Unit Cost ($ per ft) Additional Construction Cost Additional Capital Cost 4 (a) 18 30,635 16,885 13,750 $146 $2,009,595 $2,814,000 (b) Additional Pipeline to Convey Water to IEUA 13,750 $2,009,595 $2,814,000 Pipeline used to Convey Water to Both IEUA and JCSD 16,885 $146 $2,467,783 $3,455,000 Comments Additional 18 segment under 3A 18 segment under 3A shared by IEUA and JCSD (c) Table 4-2 provides a breakdown of remaining facility costs for IEUA s portion of the system to obtain a total capital cost for the IEUA components of the intertie. Table 4-2: Capital Cost for Booster Pump and Storage in Alternate System 1 versus Alternate System 3A 5 Item Alt System 3A Item ($) Alt System 3A Construction Cost ($) Alt System 3A Capital Cost 6 ($) (a) Booster Station 4135 gpm, 500 hp $2,046,133 $2,865,000 (b) Storage 390,000 gal $455,995 $639,000 It is assumed that costs for the booster station and storage would be apportioned based on volume of use to allow for the shared system to provide value to WRCRWA agencies. A summary of the capital costs apportioned to IEUA for the pipelines, booster station and storage is shown in Table 4-3. In this table, the first column describes the item, the second column shows IEUA s estimated portion of the capital costs, and the third column provides additional comments on assumptions used. Generally, costs are apportioned according to average use, except in the case of the pipeline needed to extend north from JCSD s service area to IEUA s non-potable system. In total, IEUA s apportionment of the capital costs for the intertie with the WRCRWTP are estimated to be a total of $8,855,000. IEUA would likely apply for a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) to cover these costs. This SRF loan has historically had a 20 year cap 3 All costs are from the 2011 Economic Feasibility Review, and are escalated based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) for Los Angeles (August 2014, ). 4 Capital cost is 1.4 times construction cost rounded to nearest $1,000. Project cost includes: construction costs, construction contingencies, design engineering including plans and specifications; design and construction surveying and mapping; geotechnical evaluation and report; engineering contract administration; field inspection; and basic environmental documentation. 5 All costs are from the 2011 Economic Feasibility Review, and are escalated based on the ENR for Los Angeles (August 2014, ). 6 Capital cost is 1.4 times construction cost rounded to the nearest $1,000. Project cost includes: construction costs, construction contingencies, design engineering including plans and specifications; design and construction surveying and mapping; geotechnical evaluation and report; engineering contract administration; field inspection and basic environmental documentation. March Page 27 of 176

29 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 4 Cost/Value Strategy Final Report on its term, and for the past eight years has had an average interest rate of 2.3%. Given this information, IEUA s annual payment for these facilities would be $557,300 per year. 7 Table 4-3: IEUA Share of Capital Cost of Facilities to Intertie IEUA Non-Potable System to WRCRWRA 8 Line Item IEUA Share of Capital Costs ($) Shared Pipeline Segment Table 4-1, row (c) x 86.8% $2,999,000 Pipe Subtotals IEUA Intertie Table 4-1, row (b) x 100% $2,814,000 Booster Station Table 4-2, row (a) x 86.8% $2,487,000 Storage Table 4-2, row (b) x 86.8% $555,000 IEUA Capital Cost Total $8,855,000 Comment Assumes apportionment of cost of shared pipe segment in Table 4-1 by IEUA and JCSD is based on use, where IEUA average use is 4,354 AFY of total average use of 5,016 AFY IEUA intertie pipe segment from Table 4-1. Assumes 100% of costs apportioned to IEUA. Cost from IEUA cost based proportionally on recycled water deliveries to IEUA versus JCSD (4,354 AFY for IEUA and 662 AFY for JCSD) IEUA cost based proportionally on recycled water deliveries to IEUA versus JCSD (4,354 AFY for IEUA and 662 AFY for JCSD) In addition to the capital cost of new recycled water distribution facilities, the Economic Feasibility Review estimates the operations and maintenance (O&M) cost of the system. Given that IEUA would use much higher average flows than JCSD (4,354 AFY versus 662 AFY), it is assumed O&M costs would be apportioned according to average use, as shown in Table 4-4. For IEUA, O&M costs for the system would be $610,900 per year. Table 4-4: O&M Cost of Alternate System 3A 1 Line Item Annual O&M Cost ($/year) System 3A O&M Cost $703,800 IEUA portion of O&M Cost $610, All costs are from the 2011 Economic Feasibility Review, and are escalated based on Engineering News Record (ENR) for Los Angeles (August 2014, ), and are rounded up to the nearest hundred. In total, IEUA s annual cost for the interconnection with the WRCRWTP is estimated to be $1,168,200 per year (annual payment plus O&M), or approximately $268 per AF (assuming 4,354 AFY). 4.2 Rate Structure Strategy This section discusses a possible rate structure strategy that incorporates the costs of constructing and operating a recycled water intertie between the WRCRWTP and the IEUA non-potable water system. The rate structure strategy examines current IEUA recycled water rates and the impact that incorporating the cost of the WRCRWTP intertie would have on IEUA recycled water rates. 7 According to the SWRCB s Clean Water SRF loan website, an extended term financing of 30 years is being offered as of January 23, 2014 ( Given this extended term, IEUA s annual payment for these facilities would be $411,900 per year. 8 All costs are from the 2011 Economic Feasibility Review, and are escalated based on Engineering News Record (ENR) for Los Angeles (August 2014, ), and are rounded up to the nearest thousand. March Page 28 of 176

30 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 4 Cost/Value Strategy Final Report IEUA sets its recycled water rates for end users through annual resolutions. Table 4-5 shows the latest four years of approved recycled water rates. For the purposes of this Report, it will be assumed that these rates incorporate all debt service and O&M costs attributed to IEUA s current non-potable system. Rate ($/AF) Table 4-5: IEUA Recycled Water Rates FY FY FY FY Volume Rate Volume Rate Volume Rate (AFY) ($/AF) (AFY) ($/AF) (AFY) ($/AF) Volume (AFY) Direct Use $115/AF 20,606 AF $155/AF 21,840 AF $215/AF 22,630 AF $290/AF 23,230 AF Recharge $145/AF 8,634 AF $195/AF 10,500 AF $255/AF 13,237 AF $335/AF 14,490 AF Volume Weighted Average Rate $124/AF n/a $168/AF n/a $230/AF n/a $307/AF n/a The recycled water rate strategy assumes that water from the WRCRWTP will be used for direct use given that the interconnection will connect to the southern pressures zones IEUA non-potable system where there is no recharge. A melded rate structure can be created using the total annual cost of the WRCRWTP melded with current IEUA recycled water rates based on average recycled water volumes. Since the fiscal year rate is the latest available, it will be used to calculate a melded rate as shown in Table 4-6. Table 4-6: Melded Unit Cost Based on IEUA Direct Use Recycled Water Rate Unit Cost ($/AF) Volume (AFY) FY IEUA Direct Use Recycled Water Rate $290/AF 22,000 AFY Annual Cost of Interconnection $268/AF 4,354 AFY Total Volume n/a 26,354 AFY Melded Unit Cost (Volume Weighted Average) $286/AF The melded unit cost of $286/AF is the same as the fiscal year IEUA direct use recycled water rate, and represents a potential future recycled water rate after implementation of the interconnection. A melded unit cost has also been calculated using an IEUA recycled water rate that incorporates both direct use and recharge rates, and is weighted based on estimated volumes of recycled water use. The melded unit cost estimated using the direct use and recharge rates is $303/AF, and is shown in Table Direct use and recharge of recycled water for FY and FY are based on volumes provided by IEUA in December Recharge of recycled water for FY and FY is based on projected recycled water recharge reported in the 2013 Chino Basin Recharge Master Plan (Table 3-1). Direct use of recycled water for FY is based on the draft 2014 IEUA Recycled Water Program Strategy (Table 4.5, Direct Use Demands, Existing Year). Direct use of recycled water for FY is based on the draft 2014 IEUA Recycled Water Program Strategy (Table 4.5, Direct Use Demands, interpolation between existing year and Year 2020). March Page 29 of 176

31 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 4 Cost/Value Strategy Final Report Table 4-7: Melded Unit Cost Based on IEUA Volume Weighted Average Rate Unit Cost ($/AF) Volume (AFY) FY IEUA Volume Weighted Average Recycled Water Rate $307/AF 37,720 AFY Annual Cost of Interconnection $268/AF 4,354 AFY Total Volume n/a 42,074 AFY Melded Unit Cost (Volume Weighted Average) $303/AF Note that these rates do not include the cost for any additional IEUA facilities that may or may not be needed for direct use of the additional 4,354 AFY. These rates incorporate a number of cost sharing assumptions discussed in Section 2 of this report, that contribute towards keeping IEUA and WRCRWA end user costs down, including: Capital costs of any shared facilities that are not upsized would be apportioned according to the expected average volume of use by IEUA and JCSD Capital costs associated with the need to upsize facilities to accommodate IEUA s share of the recycled water flow or extend facilities to reach IEUA s service area from JCSD s service area would be borne entirely by IEUA O&M costs would be apportioned according to the expected average volume of use by IEUA and JCSD This does not include the cost for any additional IEUA facilities that may or may not be needed for direct use of the additional 4,354 AFY Given that the melded unit cost of $286/AF is based on preliminary assumptions for facilities needed and average volumes of recycled water, it is possible that this unit cost could change as planning on the WRCRWTP interconnection moves forward. Therefore, it is recommended that a range of potential rates be considered, with the unit cost of $286/AF representing the lower limit of the potential recycled water. The upper limit of the potential recycled water rate can be estimated as the water supply in IEUA s service area with the highest unit cost, and is Tier 1 treated imported water with a current rate of $680/AF 11. Should future planning show that the melded unit cost of recycled water to IEUA end users exceeds the rate of Tier 1 treated imported water, it is recommended that a revision to the above discussed cost sharing strategies be considered by IEUA and cost-sharing parties. 11 The imported water rate is calculated using Metropolitan Water District of California s 2014 Tier 1 Untreated Rate of $593/AF plus IEUA s imported water treatment cost of $87/AF. March Page 30 of 176

32 This page intentionally left blank. Page 31 of 176

33 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 5 Conclusion Final Report Chapter 5 Conclusion Overall, the objectives of the Study as described in Chapter 1 were met. The results of the analyses discussed in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 indicate that an intertie connecting the WRCRWTP to IEUA s recycled water distribution system would be feasible in terms of policy and permitting requirements, discharge requirements, and cost/value considerations. The following sections summarize the various strategies for overcoming any barriers and ensuring the intertie would benefit both IEUA and WRCRWA from a cost/value standpoint. 5.1 Summary of Strategies Chapters 2, 3 and 4 provided overview of policy and permitting requirements, agreement considerations, discharge requirements, and cost/value considerations that were used to develop strategies for overcoming any barriers to moving forward with a recycled water intertie between IEUA and WRCRA. The following sections provide a summary of these strategies Permitting and Policy Barrier Strategy Review of the existing recycled water use permits as well as the experiences of other entities with intertied recycled water systems indicate that, in order to move forward with an intertie, the proper permits must be obtained from the RWQCB and CDPH. It will be necessary for IEUA and WRCRWA to begin project discussions with the RWQCB and CDPH during the planning process to ensure that the project is planned and designed according to the requirements that will be set in the permits. It is also recommended that any agreement between IEUA and WRCRWA includes detailed information on the responsibilities of each agency, including, but not limited to, water quality and treatment, monitoring, pretreatment programs, system construction and O&M, and purchase of recycled water Reuse and Discharge Strategy Based on the analysis of IEUA s recycled water supplies and demands, as well as potential demands on the WRCRWTP, it would be possible to use supplies from the WRCRWTP to meet IEUA s future needs while meeting the discharge requirements of the Prado Obligation. Review of the Santa Ana River Watermaster s Annual Report indicated that WRCRWA does not have a discharge requirement. In addition, WRCRWA has filed a change of use petition with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) with the intent of developing a recycled water program. Given this information, and that the WRCRWTP is projected to treat up to MGD of wastewater in the future, it is expected that 4,354 AFY of recycled water will be available for use by IEUA. This recycled water will allow IEUA to meet future recycled water demands of 88,000 AFY, which includes its requirement to discharge 17,000 AFY of recycled water to meet the Prado Obligation, assuming that Prado Obligation flows can be met as much as possible in winter months Rate Structure Strategy The development of a rate structure strategy assumes that the cost and value of the rate structure must benefit both IEUA and WRCRWA by incorporating the costs of construction, operation and maintenance, as well as current recycled water rates paid by IEUA customers. The recycled water rate strategy assumes that water from the WRCRWTP will be used for direct use, given that the interconnection will connect to the southern pressures zones IEUA non-potable system where there is no recharge. A melded rate structure can be created using the total annual cost of the WRCRWTP melded with current IEUA recycled water rates based on average recycled water volumes. Since the fiscal year rate is the latest available, it was used to calculate a melded rate as shown in Table 5-1. March Page 32 of 176

34 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 5 Conclusion Final Report Table 5-1: Melded Unit Cost Based on IEUA Direct Use Recycled Water Rate Unit Cost ($/AF) Volume (AFY) FY IEUA Direct Use Recycled Water Rate $290/AF 22,000 AFY Annual Cost of Interconnection $268/AF 4,354 AFY Total Volume n/a 26,354 AFY Melded Unit Cost (Volume Weighted Average) $286/AF The melded unit cost of $286/AF is the same as the fiscal year IEUA direct use recycled water rate, and represents a potential future recycled water rate after implementation of the interconnection. A melded unit cost has also been calculated using an IEUA recycled water rate that incorporates both direct use and recharge rates, and is weighted based on estimated volumes of recycled water use. The melded unit cost estimated using the direct use and recharge rates is $303/AF, and is shown in Table 4-7. Table 5-2: Melded Unit Cost Based on IEUA Volume Weighted Average Rate Unit Cost ($/AF) Volume (AFY) FY IEUA Volume Weighted Average Recycled Water Rate $307/AF 37,720 AFY Annual Cost of Interconnection $268/AF 4,354 AFY Total Volume n/a 42,074 AFY Melded Unit Cost (Volume Weighted Average) $303/AF Note that these rates do not include the cost for any additional IEUA facilities that may or may not be needed for direct use of the additional 4,354 AFY. These rates incorporate a number of cost sharing assumptions discussed in Chapter 4 of this report, that contribute towards keeping IEUA and WRCRWA end user costs down, including: Capital costs of any shared facilities that are not upsized would be apportioned according to the expected average volume of use by IEUA and JCSD Capital costs associated with the need to upsize facilities to accommodate IEUA s share of the recycled water flow or extend facilities to reach IEUA s service area from JCSD s service area would be borne entirely by IEUA O&M costs would be apportioned according to the expected average volume of use by IEUA and JCSD This does not include the cost for any additional IEUA facilities that may or may not be needed for direct use of the additional 4,354 AFY Given that the melded unit cost of $286/AF is based on preliminary assumptions for facilities needed and average volumes of recycled water, it is possible that this unit cost could change as planning on the WRCRWTP interconnection moves forward. Therefore, it is recommended that a range of potential rates be considered, with the unit cost of $286/AF representing the lower limit of the potential recycled water. The upper limit of the potential recycled water rate can be estimated as the water supply in IEUA s service area with the highest unit cost, and is Tier 1 treated imported water with a current rate of $680/AF. Should future planning show that the melded unit cost of recycled water to IEUA end users exceeds the rate of Tier March Page 33 of 176

35 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 5 Conclusion Final Report 1 treated imported water, it is recommended that a revision to the above discussed cost sharing strategies be considered by IEUA and cost-sharing parties. 5.2 Next Steps The results of this Study indicate that a recycled water intertie between IEUA s recycled water system and the WRCRWTP could be implemented from a permitting, policy and discharge requirement standpoint, as well as be cost effective for IEUA and WRCRWA. The following are next steps that may be taken by IEUA in order to implement the strategies discussed in Section 5.1: 1. Initiate an agreement between IEUA and WRCRWA to purchase recycled water. This agreement should include: Requirements for WRCRWTP effluent quality and treatment to ensure that recycled water quality meets the requirements of CDPH and Santa Ana RWQCB, as listed in IEUA s permit for direct use of recycled water. Monitoring responsibilities of IEUA and WRCRWA, including monitoring of effluent from the WRCWTP, recycled water use sites in IEUA s service area, and potable water supply in IEUA s service area to ensure that recycled water is not impacting the groundwater supply quality Outline pretreatment program requirements to ensure that pretreatment programs implemented by WRCRWA remain similar to those implemented by IEUA in the future Responsibilities for construction and O&M of the new non-potable system, including ownership, cost share, and capacity rights. Detailed cost and volume of recycled water to be purchased by IEUA, including provisions for interruption of recycled water supply, situations when IEUA does not purchase the minimum volume of recycled water, payment terms, and pricing of water 2. Initiate meetings with CDPH and Santa Ana RWQCB to discuss the project, any permitting requirements, and interim steps necessary to ensure that the intertie will be permitted, such as engineering reports or additional feasibility studies. The methods results of this Study may be applied to other recycled water interties, should IEUA wish to pursue them given that the permitting requirements would be similar. As with the WRCRWA intertie, other interties in the Region would require meetings with CDPH and the Santa Ana RWQCB in order to determine specific permitting requirements, as well as agreements be made between partnering agencies that incorporate the permitting requirements. 5.3 Study Cost and Schedule Summary This Study was funded in part by the Southern California Metropolitan Water District of Southern California s (MWDSC) Foundational Action Funding (FAF) Program. Per the requirements of the agreement between IEUA and MWDSC, a summary of the costs and schedule of the Study are included here. The FAF Program funded this Study up to 50% of the total study cost, not to exceed $25,000 out of the total Study cost of $50,000, and was completed in-line with the budget laid out in the agreement, as shown in Table 5-3 and Table 5-4. March Page 34 of 176

36 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 5 Conclusion Final Report Task Total Budget Table 5-3: Study Cost Total Spent to Date Budget Remaining % Spent to Date 1 $10, $8, $1, % 2 $10, $6, $3, % 3 $15, $11, $3, % 4 $10, $7, $2, % 5 $5, $4, $ % Total $50, $39, $10, % Table 5-4: Total Grant Reimbursable Cost Task Total Budget Total Spent to Date Budget Remaining % Spent to Date 1 $5, $4, $ % 2 $5, $3, $1, % 3 $7, $5, $1, % 4 $5, $3, $1, % 5 $2, $2, $ % Total $25, $19, $5, % As described in the Study s introduction, all planned tasks were completed, and were completed in-line with the agreement, as shown in Table 5-5. No budget or schedule impacts or problems were encountered during implementation of the Study. March Page 35 of 176

37 Recycled Water Intertie Study Chapter 5 Conclusion Final Report Task Task 1: Permitting Issues/Requirements Task 2: Policy Barriers Task 3: Reuse/Discharge Strategy Task 4: Cost/Value Strategy Task 5.1: Reporting to Metropolitan- Progress Reports Task 5.2: Reporting to Metropolitan-Final Report Task 5.3: Post Project Long Term Reporting to Metropolitan Progress Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Table 5-5: Study Schedule Jan - Mar Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Jul - Sep Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 March Page 36 of 176

38 Recycled Water Intertie Study References Final Report References Chino Basin Municipal Water District, CBMWD WMWD Agreement Re Satisfaction of Joint Obligation Prado Settlement. Dunbar & Associates (Dunbar), Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Recycled Water Program. State Clearinghouse No Prepared for the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority. IEUA, Title 22 Engineering Report, Phase 1. IEUA, Title 22 Engineering Report, Phase 2. IEUA, Title 22 Engineering Report Update. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Order No Waste Discharge and Producer User Reclamation Requirements for South Orange County Reclamation Authority, Orange County. Santa Ana RWQCB, 2007a. Amendment to Order No. R , NPDES No. CA , Waste Discharge and Producer/User Water Reclamation Requirements for the Inland Empire Utilities Agency Regional Water Recycling Plants No. 1 & No. 4 Order No. R Santa Ana RWQCB, 2007b. Order No. R , Water Recycling Requirements for the Chino Basin Recycled Water Groundwater Recharge Program, Phase 1 and Phase II Projects Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Chino Basin Watermaster. Santa Ana RWQCB, Order No. R , Waste Discharge and Producer/User Reclamation Requirements for the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority's Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, NPDES No. CA , Riverside County. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2009a. Order No. R , NPDES No. CA Waste Discharge and Producer/User Reclamation Requirements for Inland Empire Utilities Agency Regional Water Recycling Facilities Surface Water Discharges and Recycled Water Use. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2009b. Order No. R Amending Order No. R , Water Recycling Requirements for the Chino Basin Recycled Water Groundwater Recharge Program, Phase 1 and Phase II Projects, San Bernardino County. Santa Ana River Watermaster, Forty-Third Annual Report of the Santa Ana River Watermaster. October 1, 2012 September Santa Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Addendum No. 1 to Order No , An Addendum Adding the South Coast Water District to the Waste Discharge and Water Recycling Requirements for the South Orange County Reclamation Authority, Orange County. Stantec, Recycled Water Program Strategy. Draft. Prepared for Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Vallecitos Water District, Agreement for Sale of Recycled Water and Use of Mahr Reservoir between the Vallecitos Water District and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Vallecitos Water district, Agreement for Recycled Water Service Between the Vallecitos Water District and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Webb and Associates (Webb), WRCWRA Treatment Plant Effluent Water Use Feasibility Study Economic Feasibility Review (Phase 1). March Page 37 of 176

39 Recycled Water Intertie Study References Final Report WRCRWA, 2010a. Final Environmental Impact Report, Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Enhancement and Expansion Projects. State Clearinghouse No April. WRCRWA, 2010b. Notice of Determination for the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project in Compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Section State Clearinghouse No March Page 38 of 176

40 Appendix A - WRCWRA Treatment Plant Effluent Water Use Feasibility Study Economic Feasibility Review Page 39 of 176

41 This page intentionally left blank. Page 40 of 176

42 = To: Jeff Sims, Assistant General Manager/C.O.O. From: Bruce Davis & Brad Sackett Date: January 24, 2011 Re: WRCWRA Treatment Plant Effluent Water Use Feasibility Study Economic Feasibility Review (Phase 1) Purpose/Scope Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) retained Webb Associates to complete a WRCWRA treatment plant effluent water use feasibility study. The study is broken into three phases. Phase 1 consist of an economic feasibility review, phase 2 institutional feasibility and phase 3 a business opportunity plan. Phase 1 is a conceptual review of alternatives to use treated effluent for irrigation purposes within the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) boundary as well as opportunities for connecting to the Inland Empire Utility Agency s (IEUA) recycled water system. If at a conceptual level, use of treated effluent is deemed feasible, phase 2 will review institutional issues and opportunities associated with implementing such a program. Upon conclusion of phase 2, if use of treated effluent is considered feasible, phase 3 will consist of preparation of a business plan that can be used to solicit potential funding sources. This memo contains a summary of results of the phase 1 analysis. The scope of the economic feasibility review generally consists of a review of the January 2008 JCSD Non-Potable Water Master Plan (2008 Report), identifying three alternative non-potable water systems to deliver treated effluent from the WRCWRA Treatment plant; first based on minimizing pipe length or system cost, second maximizing connections to demand areas and third connecting to IEUA s recycled water system; and prepare a cost analysis for the three alternative systems. Basis of Work/Assumptions Data and assumptions contained in the 2008 Report formed the basis of work for this feasibility review. The following assumptions were used in the analysis: 9 +8> 2 ; H 2 ; #((# Page 41 of 176

43 Available Effluent: o JCSD/WMWD purchased capacity of the WRCWRA 8 MGD treatment plant. o Treated effluent flow rate from plant equal to plant capacity spread evenly over 24 hour period. Demands o Eastvale area only o Park, school and reverse frontage areas same as in 2008 Report. o Annual demand 4 af/ac/yr. o Peak demand 25 gpm/ac. o Irrigation hours 10 pm to 6 am 5 days a week (1 day maintenance, 1 day play). o Parks with wells were excluded. System o Pressure system capable of delivering 70 psi to sprinkler, 90 psi at street connection. o Constant pressure pump system. o 5 fps maximum velocity. o Minimum 4 inch diameter pipe. o Storage peak demand over irrigation period minus treated effluent flow rate from plant plus operational volume (50% of irrigation storage). o Plant able to gravity flow into storage. Cost Analysis o O&M cost $120/af same as in January 2008 report. o Project life 25 years, interest rate 6%. Alternate Non- Potable Water Systems Three base alternates were established in the scope of work. The base alternate systems are; 1) Minimize pipeline length, 2) Maximize demand areas and 3) Connect to IEUA s reclaimed water system. Results of the first two alternates were used to build the third alternate resulting in Alternate system 3A minimize pipeline length and connect to IEUA and Alternate 3B- maximum demand areas and connect to IEUA. Figures 1 through 4 each show each of the four alternate systems analyzed. Due to reduced irrigation demands and increased cost as the system extends east of Interstate 15, it was determined to limit the analyses to the Eastvale area. Demands Figure 5 summarizes potential non-potable demands within the Eastvale area. These potential demands are the same as those contained in the 2008 JCSD Report. Using assumptions previously outlined, the demands for the alternate systems are: Annual Demand (AF/YR) Design Flow Rate (gpm) Alternate System 1 - Minimum Pipe Length Alternate System 2 Maximum Demand Areas Alternate System 3A Minimum Pipe Length and Connect to IEUA Alternate System 3B Maximum Demand Areas and Connect to IEUA Page 42 of 176 2

44 Demand for system 3A increased over that of the demand for system 1 due to adding additional demand areas as the pipeline was extended to connect to IEUA. There was no change in demand from system 2 to system 3B. Attachment 1 contains a breakdown of demands for the four alternate systems. Storage and Pumping Facilities A preliminary hydraulic analysis was completed to size pipelines shown on figures 1 through 4. Results of the preliminary hydraulic analysis were used to establish pumping requirements for the four alternate systems. Using information contained in the 2008 Report, it appears the same pumping facilities needed to deliver flows and pressures to the irrigation system in the Eastvale area should be capable of meeting requirements to deliver water into the IEUA system. Coordination with IEUA is needed to establish optimum connection location and operating parameters for the IEUA system. For purposes of this review, the similar pumping requirements meet needs for Alternate Systems 1 and 3A as well as for systems 2 and 3B. Approximate storage and pumping requirements for the four alternate systems are: Pumping Requirements Storage Volume Flow HP Gallons Rate (gpm) Alternate System 1 - Minimum Pipe Length ,000 Alternate System 2 Maximum Demand Areas ,610,000 Alternate System 3A Minimum Pipe Length and Connect to ,000 IEUA Alternate System 3B Maximum Demand Areas and Connect to IEUA ,610,000 Attachment 2 contains calculations to approximate storage volume and potential deliveries to the IEUA system. It is anticipated that in the event this project is feasible, more detailed operational calculations will be required to determine optimal storage as well as operating parameters for the irrigation system. Facility Cost A quantity and cost estimate was prepared for each alternate system. Unit costs used were those contained within the 2008 Report. Assumptions related to project overhead and contingency costs from the 2008 Report were also used in this analysis. Total project cost for the alternate systems are estimated to be: Project Cost Alternate System 1 - Minimum Pipe Length $8,300,000 Alternate System 2 Maximum Demand Areas $17,460,000 Alternate System 3A Minimum Pipe Length and Connect to IEUA $10,430,000 Alternate System 3B Maximum Demand Areas and Connect to IEUA $17,990,000 Attachment 3 contains quantity and cost breakdowns for each alternate system. Page 43 of 176 3

45 Present Worth Analysis To date no discussions have taken place with IEUA relative to system operation, capacity or ability of IEUA to use or transport additional recycled water. As a result three potential delivery quantities to IEUA were analyzed for both alternative systems 3A and 3B. The potential delivery quantities are minimum, maximum and average. Minimum is the volume of water delivered during a year net of average treated effluent generated by the plant and average rate required to replenish peak irrigation demands over a 16 hour period. Maximum is volume of treated effluent equivalent to the JCSD and WMWD purchased capacity at 8 MGD plant capacity (5802 af/yr) minus annual irrigation demand within Eastvale area. Operations, storage volume and other issues will need to be evaluated in more detail to optimize volume of water available to deliver into the IEUA system. Results of the present worth analysis are presented below. Details are contained in Attachment 4. Alternate System 1 - Minimum Pipe Length Alternate System 2 Maximum Demand Areas Alternate System 3A Minimum Pipe Length and Connect to IEUA Minimum Deliveries to IEUA Alternate System 3A Maximum Deliveries to IEUA Alternate System 3A Average Deliveries to IEUA Alternate System 3B Maximum Demand Areas and Connect to IEUA Minimum Deliveries to IEUA Alternate System 3B Maximum Deliveries to IEUA Alternate System 3B Average Deliveries to IEUA Project Cost ($) Annual O&M Cost ($/YR) Annual Irrigation Demand (AF/YR) Potential Deliveries to IEUA (AF/YR) Present Worth Cost ($/AF) 8,300,000 77, ,128 17,460, ,360 1, ,305 10,430, , , , ,990, ,520 1, ,240 1,153 4, ,880 1,153 2, Results At a concept level it was mutually agreed that developing a system to meet irrigation demands and convey recycled water into IEUA s system is feasible and worthy of additional review. Next steps are coordination with JCSD, IEUA, California Department of Public Health and other institutions having jurisdiction over such projects as proposed herein. Page 44 of 176 4

46 RIVER RD 6'' WRCWRA TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT WATER USE FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATE SYSTEM 1 Park 18 MINIMUM PIPE LENGTH I-1 18 I-15 AREA Park 22 Park Orchard Park 5 HAMMER AVE CLOVERDALE RD LIMONITE AVE Huber Park 6'' Parkview Meadows 27 Deer Creek Park ARCHIBALD AVE Parks Elementary HARRISON AVE 6'' 26 6'' Cedar Creek Park SUMNER AVE 6'' Harada Park 4'' 25 Harada Elementary I-15 EASEMENT 30 Park 19 6 School 6 68TH School 3 10'' 6'' SCHLEISMAN RD Eastvale Elementary Park 10 ORANGE ST Park 7 Park 8 10'' Providence Ranch Park 9 River Heights CLEVELAND AVE HALL AVE 34 WALTERS ST SELBY AVE Willow Ranch Park McCune Park 1 Barton Elementary 35 18'' 12'' 12'' CITRUS ST 12'' Roosevelt High 36 12'' Park '' CHANDLER ST 6'' RiverwalkPark TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH 18'' 3 18'' 18'' 2 RANGE 7 WEST RANGE 6 WEST Ooster Park 18'' Meadowside Park ARCHIBALD AVE 18'' O 0 2,000 4,000 Feet WRCWRA TREATMENT PLANT FIGURE 1 Page 45 of 176 LEGEND PROPOSED PIPELINE JCSD BOUNDARY PARCELS PARK SCHOOL TRAIL NON-POTABLE WELLS EXISTING JCSD EXISTING BY OTHERS This map contains Geographic Information owned by the County of Riverside Map created October 21, G:\2010\ \Gis\MinLength.mxd

47 RIVER RD 4'' 8'' 6'' WRCWRA TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT WATER USE FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATE SYSTEM 2 Park 18 MAXIMUM DEMAND AREAS I-1 18 I-15 AREA Park 22 Park Orchard Park 5 HAMMER AVE 4'' 4'' CLOVERDALE RD 4'' 4'' 4'' 4'' LIMONITE AVE 4'' 6'' Parkview Meadows 27 6'' Deer Creek Park ARCHIBALD AVE 6'' 8'' Huber Park 4'' 6'' 4'' Parks Elementary HARRISON AVE 4'' 26 6'' 4'' Cedar Creek Park 4'' 6'' SUMNER AVE 4'' Harada Park 12'' 25 Harada Elementary 4'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 6'' 6'' 4'' 4'' 4'' I-15 EASEMENT 30 Park 19 6 School 6 68TH 4'' School 3 6'' 6'' 10'' 6'' 4'' 4'' 6'' 4'' 4'' 4'' SCHLEISMAN RD Eastvale Elementary 4'' 4'' 4'' Park 10 4'' ORANGE ST 16'' 6'' Park 7 Park 8 10'' 8'' Providence Ranch Park 9 River Heights CLEVELAND AVE 4'' HALL AVE 34 WALTERS ST SELBY AVE Willow Ranch Park 4'' 4'' 12'' McCune Park 1 4'' Barton Elementary 35 20'' 18'' 6'' Roosevelt High CITRUS ST 16'' 36 10'' Park 6 6'' 31 4'' 4'' 4'' 6'' 6'' CHANDLER ST 20'' RiverwalkPark TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH 24'' 3 8'' 2 RANGE 7 WEST RANGE 6 WEST Ooster Park 8'' 8'' Meadowside Park 24'' ARCHIBALD AVE 24'' WRCWRA TREATMENT PLANT LEGEND O 0 2,000 4,000 Feet FIGURE 2 Page 46 of 176 JCSD BOUNDARY PROPOSED PIPELINE PARCELS PARK SCHOOL TRAIL NON-POTABLE WELLS EXISTING JCSD EXISTING BY OTHERS This map contains Geographic Information owned by the County of Riverside Map created October 21, G:\2010\ \Gis\MaxDemand.mxd

48 RIVER RD 6'' WRCWRA TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT WATER USE FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATE SYSTEM 3A Park 18 MINIMUM PIPE LENGTH AND CONNECT TO IEUA I-1 18 I-15 AREA Park 22 Park Orchard Park 5 HAMMER AVE CLOVERDALE RD LIMONITE AVE Huber Park 6'' Parkview Meadows 27 Deer Creek Park ARCHIBALD AVE Parks Elementary HARRISON AVE 6'' 26 6'' Cedar Creek Park SUMNER AVE 6'' Harada Park 4'' 25 Harada Elementary I-15 EASEMENT 30 Park 19 6 School 6 68TH School 3 10'' 6'' 18'' 18'' 18'' 18'' SCHLEISMAN RD Eastvale Elementary ORANGE ST Park 10 Park 7 Park 8 18'' Providence Ranch Park 9 River Heights CLEVELAND AVE HALL AVE 34 WALTERS ST SELBY AVE Willow Ranch Park McCune Park 1 Barton Elementary 35 18'' 12'' 12'' CITRUS ST 12'' Roosevelt High 36 12'' Park '' 18'' CHANDLER ST RiverwalkPark TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH 3 18'' 18'' 2 RANGE 7 WEST RANGE 6 WEST Ooster Park 18'' Meadowside Park ARCHIBALD AVE 18'' LEGEND O 0 2,000 4,000 Feet WRCWRA TREATMENT PLANT FIGURE 3A Page 47 of 176 JCSD BOUNDARY PROPOSED PIPELINE EXISTING IEUA RECYCLED WATER PARCELS PARK SCHOOL TRAIL NON-POTABLE WELLS EXISTING JCSD EXISTING BY OTHERS This map contains Geographic Information owned by the County of Riverside Map created October 21, G:\2010\ \Gis\MinLegnth_IEUA.mxd

49 RIVER RD 4'' 12'' WRCWRA TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT WATER USE FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATE SYSTEM 3B Park 18 MAXIMUM DEMAND AREAS AND CONNECT TO IEUA I-1 18 I-15 AREA Park 22 Park Orchard Park 5 HAMMER AVE 4'' CLOVERDALE RD 4'' 4'' 4'' 4'' LIMONITE AVE 4'' 6'' Huber Park 4'' 12'' 6'' Parkview Meadows 27 6'' Deer Creek Park ARCHIBALD AVE 6'' 6'' 4'' 4'' Parks Elementary HARRISON AVE 26 4'' Cedar Creek Park 4'' 6'' SUMNER AVE 4'' Harada Park 25 Harada Elementary 4'' 4'' 6'' 4'' I-15 EASEMENT 30 Park 19 6 School 6 4'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 68TH Park 7 18'' HALL AVE 34 WALTERS ST SELBY AVE 18'' 4'' Park 10 Park 8 Willow Ranch Park 4'' 18'' 4'' 18'' 6'' 4'' 18'' 4'' McCune Park 1 4'' 4'' Barton Elementary School 3 6'' 6'' 35 16'' 4'' 16'' Providence Ranch Park 9 4'' 16'' 6'' 6'' 6'' SCHLEISMAN RD Eastvale Elementary ORANGE ST River Heights Roosevelt High CITRUS ST 16'' 12'' CLEVELAND AVE 36 12'' 4'' 8'' 4'' Park 6 4'' 6'' 6'' 6'' 4'' 31 4'' 4'' 4'' 6'' 18'' 16'' CHANDLER ST 16'' RiverwalkPark TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH 24'' 3 8'' 2 RANGE 7 WEST RANGE 6 WEST Ooster Park 8'' 8'' Meadowside Park 24'' ARCHIBALD AVE 24'' LEGEND O 0 2,000 4,000 Feet WRCWRA TREATMENT PLANT FIGURE 3B Page 48 of 176 JCSD BOUNDARY PROPOSED PIPELINE EXISTING IEUA RECYCLED WATER PARCELS PARK SCHOOL TRAIL NON-POTABLE WELLS EXISTING JCSD EXISTING BY OTHERS This map contains Geographic Information owned by the County of Riverside Map created October 21, G:\2010\ \Gis\MaxDemand_IEUA.mxd

50 RIVER RD WRCWRA TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT WATER USE FEASIBILITY STUDY NON-POTABLE WATER DEMAND AREAS 81 EASTVALE AREA XX.XX DESIGN FLOW RATE (GPM) = X.XX ANNUAL DEMAND (AF/YR) HALL AVE WALTERS ST SELBY AVE ARCHIBALD AVE HARRISON AVE CLOVERDALE RD SUMNER AVE SCHLEISMAN RD CITRUS ST ORANGE ST CLEVELAND AVE HAMMER AVE LIMONITE AVE TH CHANDLER ST RANGE 7 WEST RANGE 6 WEST TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH ARCHIBALD AVE O 0 2,000 4,000 Feet FIGURE 5 Page 49 of 176 LEGEND JCSD BOUNDARY PARCELS IRRIGATION TYPE PARK SCHOOLS REVERSED FRONTAGE IRRIGATION AREA TRAIL IRRIGATION AREA ID No. (REFER TO APPENDIX A) NON-POTABLE WELLS EXISTING JCSD EXISTING BY OTHERS This map contains Geographic Information owned by the County of Riverside Map revised January 17, G:\2010\ \Gis\Eastvale.mxd

51 Attachment 1 Demands Page 50 of 176

52 Area Annual Demand Design Flow Rate ID Irrigated Area (1) AF/YR (2) (gpm) (3) (AC) Parks Meadowside Ooster Riverwalk Cedar Creek Harada Huber Subtotal Schools Alternate System 1 Estimate of Demand using Minimum Pipe Length Eastvale Elementary River Heights Intermediate Roosevelt High ,083.5 School Harada Elementary Subtotal ,523.5 Reverse Frontage (1/2) (1/2) (1/2) Subtotal Totals ) Assumptions: 80% of park acreage, 50% of school acreage & 75% of medians irrigated 2) 4 af/ acre of irrigated area 3) 25 gpm/ac for 8 hour watering window 5 days per week. G:\2010\ \Demands for various scenarios.xlsxmin. Pipe Lengths Page 51 of 176

53 Alternate Systems 2 & 3B Estimate of Demand using Maximum Demand Areas Area Annual Demand Design Flow Rate ID Irrigated Area (1) AF/YR (2) (gpm) (3) (AC) Parks Meadowside Ooster Riverwalk Willow Ranch Park Park Deer Creek Parkview Meadows Cedar Creek Harada Huber Subtotals Schools Barton Elementary Eastvale Elementary River Heights Intermediate Roosevelt High ,083.5 School Harada Elementary Subtotals ,622.5 Reverse Frontage G:\2010\ \Demands for various scenarios.xlsxmax. Demand Page 52 of 176

54 ID Alternate Systems 2 & 3B Estimate of Demand using Maximum Demand Areas Area Irrigated Area (1) (AC) Annual Demand Design Flow Rate AF/YR (2) (gpm) (3) G:\2010\ \Demands for various scenarios.xlsxmax. Demand Page 53 of 176

55 Alternate Systems 2 & 3B Estimate of Demand using Maximum Demand Areas Area Annual Demand Design Flow Rate ID Irrigated Area (1) (AC) AF/YR (2) (gpm) (3) Subtotal Totals ) Assumptions: 80% of park acreage, 50% of school acreage & 75% of medians irrigated 2) 4 af/ acre of irrigated area 3) 25 gpm/ac for 8 hour watering window 5 days per week. G:\2010\ \Demands for various scenarios.xlsxmax. Demand Page 54 of 176

56 Alternate System 3A Estimate of Demand using Minimum Pipe Length w/ Connection to IEUA System Area Annual Demand Design Flow Rate ID Irrigated Area (1) AF/YR (2) (gpm) (3) (AC) Parks Meadowside Ooster Riverwalk Cedar Creek Harada Huber Subtotal Schools Eastvale Elementary River Heights Intermediate Roosevelt High ,083.5 School Harada Elementary Subtotal ,523.5 Reverse Frontage (1/2) (1/2) (1/2) Subtotal Totals ) Assumptions: 80% of park acreage, 50% of school acreage & 75% of medians irrigated 2) 4 af/ acre of irrigated area 3) 25 gpm/ac for 8 hour watering window 5 days per week. G:\2010\ \Demands for various scenarios.xlsxmin. Pipe Lengths w conn IEUA Page 55 of 176

57 Attachment 2 Storage Requirements & Potential Deliveries to IEUA Page 56 of 176

58 STORAGE REQUIREMENTS WRCWRA Plant Treated Effluent Generated = 3771 existing plant influent flows (total 8 MGD plant capacity (WMWD & JCSD 3597 gpm purchased capacity) use Alternate System 1 Minimum Pipe Length Peak Flow = 4025 gpm Storage required equals volume to meet irrigation needs during 8 hour watering window minus flow from WRCWRA plant during same time period plus operational storage Volume required during 8 hour watering window = ( )*480= 210,000 gal Operational storage volume (50% of irrigation storage) = gal Total storage needed = 315,000 gal Use Volume available to refill storage in 16 hours = 3597*960 = 3,453,120 gal Greater than 315k needed O.K Alternate System 2 Maximum Demand Areas Peak Flow = 7207 gpm Storage required equals volume to meet irrigation needs during 8 hour watering window minus flow from WRCWRA plant during same time period plus operational storage Volume required during 8 hour watering window = ( )*480= 1,740,000 gal Operational storage volume (50% of irrigation storage) = gal Total storage needed = 2,610,000 gal Use Volume available to refill storage in 16 hours = 3597*960 = 3,453,120 gal Greater than 2.61 MG needed O.K Alternate System 3a Minimum Pipe Length & Connect to IEUA Peak Flow = 4135 gpm Annual Irrigation Demand = 661 af/yr WRCWRA plant inflow = 6082 af/yr Existing (5.43 MGD) 5802 af/yr WMWD/JCSD (5.18 MGD purch 8 MGD) Assumption: Use 5802 af/yr as max. water available Storage required equals volume to meet irrigation needs during 8 hour watering window minus flow from WRCWRA plant during same time period plus operational storage Volume required during 8 hour watering window = ( )*480= 260,000 gal Operational storage volume (50% of irrigation storage) = gal G:\2010\ \Gis\Tables\storage requirements.xlsx Page 57 of 176

59 Total storage needed = 390,000 gal Use Assumption: Deliver to IEUA entire 16 hours system not irrigating Flow rate during 16 hr non irrigating time needed to refil storage = 260,000/960min.= 280 gpm Min. flow rate available to deliver to IEUA = 3597 gpm 280 gpm = 3317 gpm Potential deliveries to IEUA: Minimum Deliveries based on flow rate over 16 hour period = gpd = 3567 af/yr Max. Deliveries to IEUA based on WMWD/JCSD 8MGD allocation & annual Irr. Demands = 5141 af/yr Avg Deliveries = 4354 af/yr Alternate System 3B Maximum Demand Areas & Connect to IEUA Peak Flow = 7207 gpm Annual Irrigation Demand = 1153 af/yr WRCWRA plant inflow = 6082 af/yr Existing (5.43 MGD) 5802 af/yr WMWD/JCSD (5.18 MGD purch 8 MGD) Assumption: Use 5802 af/yr as max. water available Storage required equals volume to meet irrigation needs during 8 hour watering window minus flow from WRCWRA plant during same time period plus operational storage Volume required during 8 hour watering window = ( )*480= 1,740,000 gal Operational storage volume (50% of irrigation storage) = gal Total storage needed = 2,610,000 gal Use Assumption: Deliver to IEUA entire 16 hours system not irrigating Flow rate during 16 hr non irrigating time needed to refil storage = 2,610,000/960min.= 2720 gpm Min. flow rate available to deliver to IEUA = 3597 gpm 2720 gpm = 877 gpm Potential deliveries to IEUA: Minimum Deliveries based on flow rate over 16 hour period = gpd = 943 af/yr Max. Deliveries to IEUA based on WMWD/JCSD 8MGD allocation & annual Irr. Demands = 4649 af/yr Avg Deliveries = 2796 af/yr G:\2010\ \Gis\Tables\storage requirements.xlsx Page 58 of 176

60 Attachment 3 Cost Estimates Page 59 of 176

61 Facility Cost Alternate System 1 Minimum Pipe Length Pipes DIAMETER Unit Price Construction Cost (1) Length 4 1,430 $35 $50, ,055 $50 $552, ,876 $70 $411, ,687 $85 $738, ,885 $125 $2,110,595 Project Cost (2) Pipe Subtotals 43,933 $3,863,128 $5,410,000 Booster Station (4025 gpm, 500 hp) $1,750,000 $2,450,000 Storage (315,000 gal) $315,000 $440,000 Total $8,300,000 1 Includes material and installation cost for pipes, fittings, appurtenances and pavement removal disposal and replacement. 2 Project cost is 1.4 times construction cost rounded to nearest $10,000. Project cost includes: construction costs, construction contingencies, design engineering including plans and specifications; design and construction surveying and mapping; geotechnical evaluation and report; engineering contract administration; field inspection and basic environmental documentation. Costs are based on Engineering News Record (ENR) Escalation (January 2008, ), financing, interest during construction, legal, land, R-O-W agent, and environmental impact report costs are not included. G:\2010\ \Gis\Tables\PipeLengths.xlsxMIN_PIPE_LENGTH Page 60 of 176

62 Facility Cost Alternate System 2 Maximum Demand Areas Pipes DIAMETER Length Unit Price Construction Cost (1) 4 54,130 $35 $1,894, ,718 $50 $1,585, ,177 $60 $850, ,132 $70 $359, ,412 $85 $290, ,044 $110 $664, ,286 $125 $160, ,460 $140 $624, ,081 $155 $1,562,555 Project Cost (2) Pipe Subtotals 130,440 $7,992,875 $11,190,000 Booster Station (7200 gpm, 900 hp) $2,520,000 $3,530,000 Storage (2,610,000 gal) $1,957,500 $2,740,000 Total $17,460,000 removal disposal and replacement. pp, g, pp p 2 Project cost is 1.4 times construction cost rounded to nearest $10,000. Project cost includes: construction costs, construction contingencies, design engineering including plans and specifications; design and construction surveying and mapping; geotechnical evaluation and report; engineering contract administration; field inspection and basic environmental documentation. Costs are based on Engineering News Record (ENR) Escalation (January 2008, ), financing, interest during construction, legal, land, R- O-W agent, and environmental impact report costs are not included. G:\2010\ \Gis\Tables\PipeLengths.xlsxMAX_DEMAND Page 61 of 176

63 Facility Cost Alternate System 3A Minimum Pipe Length Connect to IEUA Pipes DIAMETER Unit Price Construction Cost (1) Length 4 1,430 $35 $50, ,147 $50 $507, ,628 $70 $183, ,687 $85 $738, ,635 $125 $3,829,423 Project Cost (2) Pipe Subtotals 53,528 $5,309,256 $7,430,000 Booster Station (4135 gpm, 500 hp) $1,750,000 $2,450,000 Storage (390,000 gal) $390,000 $550,000 Total $10,430,000 1 Includes material and installation cost for pipes, fittings, appurtenances and pavement removal disposal and replacement. 2 Project cost is 1.4 times construction cost rounded to nearest $10,000. Project cost includes: construction costs, construction contingencies, design engineering including plans and specifications; design and construction surveying and mapping; geotechnical evaluation and report; engineering contract administration; field inspection and basic environmental documentation. Costs are based on Engineering News Record (ENR) Escalation (January 2008, ), financing, interest during construction, legal, land, R-O-W agent, and environmental impact report costs are not included. G:\2010\ \Gis\Tables\PipeLengths.xlsxMIN_PIPE_LENGTH_IEUA Page 62 of 176

64 Facility Cost Alternate System 3B Maximum Demand Areas Connect to IEUA Pipes DIAMETER Length Unit Price Construction Cost (1) 4 54,130 $35 $1,894, ,718 $50 $1,585, ,177 $60 $850, ,132 $70 $359, ,412 $85 $290, ,044 $110 $664, ,286 $125 $535, ,460 $140 $624, ,081 $155 $1,562,555 Project Cost (2) Pipe Subtotals 133,440 $8,367,875 $11,720,000 Booster Station (7200 gpm, 900 hp) $2,520,000 $3,530,000 Storage (2,610,000 gal) $1,957,500 $2,740,000 Total $17,990,000 1 Includes material and installation cost for pipes, fittings, appurtenances and pavement removal disposal and replacement. 2 Project cost is 1.4 times construction cost rounded to nearest $10,000. Project cost includes: construction costs, construction contingencies, design engineering including plans and specifications; design and construction surveying and mapping; geotechnical evaluation and report; engineering contract administration; field inspection and basic environmental documentation. Costs are based on Engineering News Record (ENR) Escalation (January 2008, ), financing, interest during construction, legal, land, R-O-W agent, and environmental impact report costs are not included. G:\2010\ \Gis\Tables\PipeLengths.xlsxMAX_DEMAND_IEUA Page 63 of 176

65 Attachment 4 Present Worth Analysis Page 64 of 176

66 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS Assumptions: Annual O&M Cost = Term: 25 years, 6% interest $120/af Alternate System 1 Minimum Pipe Length Total Project Cost = $8,300,000 Annual Irrigation Demand = 644 af/yr O&M Cost = $77,280 /yr (P/A, 6%, 25) = O&M Present Worth = $987,870 Total PW Cost = $9,287,870 PW of Demand = 8232 af PW Cost = $1,128 /af Alternate System 2 Maximum Demand Areas Total Project Cost = $17,460,000 Annual Irrigation Demand = 1,153 af/yr O&M Cost = $138,360 /yr (P/A, 6%, 25) = O&M Present Worth = $1,768,656 Total PW Cost = $19,228,656 PW of Demand = af PW Cost = $1,305 /af Alternate System 3A Minimum Pipe Length W/ Connection to IEUA System Total Project Cost = $10,430,000 Annual Irrigation Demand = 662 af/yr Minimum Deliveries to IEUA (based on 16 hour operation) = Maximum Deliveries to IEUA (based on annual operation) = Average Deliveries to IEUA = Total Annual Deliveries (Irrigation plus Min. Del's to IEUA) = Total Annual Deliveries (Irrigation plus Max. Del's to IEUA) = 3567 af/yr 5140 af/yr 4354 af/yr 4,229 af/yr 5,802 af/yr G:\2010\ \Present Worrth Analysis.xlsxSheet1 Page 65 of 176

67 Total Annual Deliveries (Irrigation plus Avg. Del's to IEUA) = 5,016 af/yr O&M Cost (Irrigation plus Min. Del's to IEUA) = $507,480 O&M Cost (Irrigation plus Max. Del's to IEUA) = $696,240 O&M Cost (Irrigation plus Avg. Del's to IEUA) = $601,920 (P/A, 6%, 25) = Present Worth O&M (Irrigation plus Min. Del's to IEUA) = $6,487,117 Present Worth O&M (Irrigation plus Max. Del's to IEUA) = $8,900,036 Present Worth O&M (Irrigation plus Avg. Del's to IEUA) = $7,694,343 Total PW Cost (Irrigation plus Min. Del's to IEUA) = $16,917,117 Total PW Cost (Irrigation plus Max. Del's to IEUA) = $19,330,036 Total PW Cost (Irrigation plus Avg. Del's to IEUA) = $18,124,343 PW of Deliveries (Minimum deliveries) = PW of Deliveries (Maximum deliveries) = PW of Deliveries (Average deliveries) = PW Cost (Minimum deliveries) = PW Cost (Maximum deliveries) = PW Cost (Average deliveries) = af 74,167 af 64,120 af $313 /af $261 /af $283 /af Alternate System 3B Maximum Demand Areas W/ Connection to IEUA System Total Project Cost = $17,990,000 Annual Irrigation Demand = 1,153 af/yr Minimum Deliveries to IEUA (based on 16 hour operation) = Maximum Deliveries to IEUA (based on annual operation) = Average Deliveries to IEUA = Total Annual Deliveries (Irrigation plus Min. Del's to IEUA) = Total Annual Deliveries (Irrigation plus Max. Del's to IEUA) = Total Annual Deliveries (Irrigation plus Avg. Del's to IEUA) = 943 af/yr 4649 af/yr 2796 af/yr 2,096 af/yr 5,802 af/yr 3,949 af/yr O&M Cost (Irrigation plus Min. Del's to IEUA) = $251,520 O&M Cost (Irrigation plus Max. Del's to IEUA) = $696,240 O&M Cost (Irrigation plus Avg. Del's to IEUA) = $473,880 (P/A, 6%, 25) = G:\2010\ \Present Worrth Analysis.xlsxSheet1 Page 66 of 176

68 Present Worth O&M (Irrigation plus Min. Del's to IEUA) = $3,215,180 Present Worth O&M (Irrigation plus Max. Del's to IEUA) = $8,900,036 Present Worth O&M (Irrigation plus Avg. Del's to IEUA) = $6,057,608 Total PW Cost (Irrigation plus Min. Del's to IEUA) = $21,205,180 Total PW Cost (Irrigation plus Max. Del's to IEUA) = $26,890,036 Total PW Cost (Irrigation plus Avg. Del's to IEUA) = $24,047,608 PW of Deliveries (Minimum deliveries) = PW of Deliveries (Maximum deliveries) = PW of Deliveries (Average deliveries) = PW Cost (Minimum deliveries) = PW Cost (Maximum deliveries) = PW Cost (Average deliveries) = af 74,167 af 50,480 af $791 /af $363 /af $476 /af G:\2010\ \Present Worrth Analysis.xlsxSheet1 Page 67 of 176

69 This page intentionally left blank. Page 68 of 176

70 Appendix B - IEUA Recycled Water Quality Requirements for Recharge Page 69 of 176

71 This page intentionally left blank. Page 70 of 176

72 IEUA Recycled Water Quality Requirements for Recharge (Order No. R ) (All parameters are for recycled water before blending, unless otherwise noted) Constituent Permitted recycled water quality for recharge Constituent Permitted recycled water quality for recharge Microbiological Contaminants Non-Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) Total Coliform 2.2 MPN in 7-day median 23 MPN in more than one sample in any 30-day period Alachlor mg/l 240 MPN at any time Inorganic Chemicals Atrazine mg/l Aluminum 1 mg/l 0.2 mg/l (after blending) Bentazon mg/l Antimony mg/l Benzo(a)pyrene mg/l Arsenic 0.01 mg/l Carbofuran mg/l Asbestos 7 MFL Chlordane mg/l Barium 1 mg/l 2,4-D 0.07 mg/l Beryllium mg/l Dalapon 0.2 mg/l Cadmium mg/l Dibromochloroprop ane (DBCP) mg/l Chromium 0.05 mg/l Di(2- ethylhexyl)adipate 0.4 mg/l Copper 1.3 mg/l Di(2-ethylhexyI) 1 mg/l (after blending) phthalate mg/l Cyanide 0.15 mg/l Dinoseb mg/l Fluoride 2 mg/l Diquat 0.02 mg/l Iron 0.3 mg/l (after blending) Endothall 0.1 mg/l Lead mg/l Endrin mg/l Manganese 0.05 mg/l (after blending) Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) mg/l Mercury mg/l Glyphosate 0.7 mg/l Nickel 0.1 mg/l Heptachlor mg/l Selenium 0.05 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide mg/l Silver 0.1 mg/l (after blending) Hexachlorobenzene mg/l Thallium mg/l HexachlorocycIope ntadiene 0.05 mg/l Zinc 5 mg/l (after blending) Lindane mg/l VOCs Methoxychlor 0.03 mg/l Benzene mg/l Molinate 0.02 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride mg/l Oxamyl 0.05 mg/l 1,2- Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/l Pentachlorophenol mg/l 1,4- Dichlorobenzene mg/l Picloram 0.5 Page 71 of 176

73 Constituent Permitted recycled water quality for recharge Constituent Permitted recycled water quality for recharge 1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l Polychlorinated Biphenyls mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l Simazine mg/l 1, mg/l mg/l Thiobencarb Dichloroethylene mg/l (after blending) cis-l,2- Dichloroethylene mg/l Toxaphene mg/l trans-l,2-2,3,7,8-tcdd 0.01 mg/l Dichloroethylene (Dioxin) 3x10-8 mg/l Dichloromethane mg/l 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 mg/l 1,2- Dichloropropane mg/l Radionuclides 1,3- Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene IEUA Recycled Water Quality Requirements for Recharge (Order No. R ) (All parameters are for recycled water before blending, unless otherwise noted) mg/l 0.3 mg/l 5 pci/l 15 pci/l Combined Radium- 226 and Radium- 228 Gross Alpha particle activity Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/l Tritium 20,000 pci/l MTBE mg/l mg/l (after blending) Strontium-90 8 pci/l Styrene 0.1 mg/l Gross Beta particle activity 50 pci/l 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane mg/l Uranium 20 pci/l Tetrachloroethylene mg/l Disinfection Byproducts (after blending) Total Toluene 0.15 mg/l Trihalomethanes (TTHM) mg/l 1,2,4- Total Haloacetic mg/l Trichlorobenzene acids (five) (HAA5) mg/l 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/l Bromate mg/l 1,1,2- Trichloroethane mg/l Chlorite 1.0 mg/l Trichloroethylene mg/l Other Parameters Trichlorofluoromethane (MBAS) Foaming Agents 0.15 mg/l 0.5 mg/l (after blending) 1,1,2-Trichloro- l,2,2- Trifluoroethane 1.2 mg/l Odor-Threshold 3 Units mg/l (after blending) Page 72 of 176

74 Constituent Permitted recycled water quality for recharge Constituent Permitted recycled water quality for recharge VinylChloride mg/l Turbidity (average) 2 NTU within 24-hour period, 5 NTU more than 5% of the time, 10 NTU at any time Xylenes mg/l TDS (12-month running avg) 550 mg/l Nutrients ph between 6 and 9 units Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) (12- TOC (prior to 8 mg/l month running dilution) 16 mg/l average) Total Nitrogen IEUA Recycled Water Quality Requirements for Recharge (Order No. R ) (All parameters are for recycled water before blending, unless otherwise noted) 5 mg/l TOC (prior to reaching water table) Oil and grease Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Turbidity TOC(avg) = 0.5 mg/l + RWC(avg) 1 mg/l No limit listed 5 Units (after blending) Page 73 of 176

75 This page intentionally left blank. Page 74 of 176

76 Appendix C - RWQCB Permits for Intertied South Orange County Agency Recycled Water System Page 75 of 176

77 This page intentionally left blank. Page 76 of 176

78 Page 77 of 176

79 Page 78 of 176

80 Page 79 of 176

81 Page 80 of 176

82 Page 81 of 176

83 Page 82 of 176

84 Page 83 of 176

85 Page 84 of 176

86 Page 85 of 176

87 Page 86 of 176

88 Page 87 of 176

89 Page 88 of 176

90 Page 89 of 176

91 Page 90 of 176

92 Page 91 of 176

93 Page 92 of 176

94 Page 93 of 176

95 Page 94 of 176

96 Page 95 of 176

97 Page 96 of 176

98 Page 97 of 176

99 Page 98 of 176

100 Page 99 of 176

101 Page 100 of 176

102 Page 101 of 176

103 Page 102 of 176

104 Page 103 of 176

105 Page 104 of 176

106 Page 105 of 176

107 Page 106 of 176

108 Page 107 of 176

109 Page 108 of 176

110 Page 109 of 176

111 Page 110 of 176

112 Page 111 of 176

113 Page 112 of 176

114 Page 113 of 176

115 Page 114 of 176

116 Page 115 of 176

117 Page 116 of 176

118 Page 117 of 176

119 Page 118 of 176

120 Page 119 of 176

121 Page 120 of 176

122 Page 121 of 176

123 Page 122 of 176

124 Page 123 of 176

125 Page 124 of 176

126 Page 125 of 176

127 Page 126 of 176

128 Page 127 of 176

129 Page 128 of 176

130 Page 129 of 176

131 Page 130 of 176

132 Page 131 of 176

133 Page 132 of 176

134 Page 133 of 176

135 Page 134 of 176

136 Page 135 of 176

137 Page 136 of 176

138 Page 137 of 176

139 Page 138 of 176

140 Page 139 of 176

141 Page 140 of 176

142 Page 141 of 176

143 Page 142 of 176

144 Page 143 of 176

145 Page 144 of 176

146 Page 145 of 176

147 Page 146 of 176

148 Page 147 of 176

149 Page 148 of 176

150 Page 149 of 176

151 Page 150 of 176

152 Page 151 of 176

153 Page 152 of 176

154 Appendix D - Agreements for Recycled Water Services between the Vallecitos Water District and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Agreement for Sale of Recycled Water and Use of Mahr Reservoir between the Vallecitos Water District and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Agreement for Recycled Water Service between the Vallecitos Water District and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Note: Exhibits are not pertinent to the information in the report. Page 153 of 176

155 This page intentionally left blank. Page 154 of 176

156 Page 155 of 176

157 Page 156 of 176

158 Page 157 of 176

159 Page 158 of 176

160 Page 159 of 176

161 Page 160 of 176

162 Page 161 of 176

163 Page 162 of 176

164 Page 163 of 176

165 Page 164 of 176

166 Page 165 of 176

167 Page 166 of 176

168 Page 167 of 176

169 Page 168 of 176

170 Page 169 of 176

171 Page 170 of 176

172 Page 171 of 176

173 Page 172 of 176

174 Page 173 of 176

175 Page 174 of 176

176 Page 175 of 176

177 Page 176 of 176