Title XVI Recycled Water Feasibility Study. RMCSD Board Meeting June 19, 2013

Transcription

1 Title XVI Recycled Water Feasibility Study RMCSD Board Meeting

2 Study Purpose Click to edit Master title style 1. Determine which developments are most cost-effective for recycled water service (e.g., leverage existing infrastructure) 2. Determine whether RW program expansion is cost-effective compared to the No Project alternative 3. Satisfy Bureau of Reclamation feasibility study requirements Page 2

3 Title XVI Feasibility Study Requirements Feasibility Study Requirement Citation (Specific Report Section) Public Law Section 1603 (b) Feasibility Study Requirements 1. All potential uses of recycled water Section Water reclamation technology/opportunities for improvement Section Efforts to stimulate demand and eliminate obstacles Section 6.6, Appendix B (PCSM), etc. 4. Coordinate and streamline local, State, and Federal permitting Section Identify research needs (in any) Chapter 10 (none required) Public Law Section 1604 (c) Feasibility Study Requirements 6. Near and long-term water demands and supplies Section All potential uses of recycled water Section Minimum of 2 alternatives for water reclamation, distribution, and reuse Chapter 4 9. Public health and environmental quality issues Chapter Determine whether recycled water program would: A. Reduce, postpone, or eliminate development of new or expanded water supplies B. Reduce or eliminate use of existing diversions C. Reduce the demand on existing Federal water supply facilities Section 2.1 and 2.4 Section Market/dedicate use for recycled water in service area Section Financial capability of District to fund its share Chapter 9 Page 3

4 Level of Development and Projected RW Demands Phases and Developments Res. Units (No.) RW Demand (AFY) Current Conditions 2, Infill 44 0 Phase 1 ( ) Lakeview Murieta Gardens (+ comm.) Residences of Murieta Hills a Retreats Riverview Phase 2 ( ) 1, Apartments Esquela a Estates of Calero Estates of Chesbro Estates of Clementia Highlands Ind./Com./Residences River Canyon Terrace Total 4,244 1,076 b a Includes Stonehouse Park demand (14 AFY) b Supply and production capacity is estimated to be 920 AFY Page 4

5 Alternatives and Common Improvements Alternative 1- Upgrade and Expand Pastureland ( No Project ) Alternative 2- Expanded RW Program to Serve Future Residents and Existing Landscaping Improvements Common to Both Alternatives Disinfection Facilities Upgrade (2.3 to 3.0 MGD) Seasonal Storage Expansion (756 to 996 AF) Fairway 17 Pump Station (640 gpm) Page 5

6 Alternative 1. Upgrade and Expand Pastureland Environmental Compliance Permitting Upgrade and Expand Existing Conveyance System Expand Disposal Area (97 to 247 acres) Provide 1.2 MGD of Additional WTP Capacity Fairway 17 Pump Station Improvement Project Estimate of Probable Costs Construction ($) Project (Capital) ($) Improvements Specific to Alternative 1 Timeline When Improvement is Required to Be in Service Spray Field Improvements 3,290,000 4,280,000 January 1, 2015 Phase 1 Spray Field Expansion 2,470,000 3,210, Phase 2 Spray Field Expansion 3,270,000 4,250, Subtotal 9,030,000 11,740,000 Improvements Common to Both Alternatives Seasonal Storage 6,840,000 9,750, Disinfection Facilities Upgrade 930,000 1,300, Fairway 17 Pump Station 900,000 1,240, Subtotal 8,670,000 12,290,000 Total 17,700,000 24,030,000 Page 6

7 Alternative 2. Expand RW Program to Serve All Future Residences Leverage and Expand Existing RW Conveyance System Environmental and Regulatory Permitting Improvement Project Estimate of Probable Costs Construction ($) Project (Capital) ($) Timeline When Improvement is Required to Be in Service Improvements Specific to Alternative 2 Lakeview Pipeline (6-inch) 270, , Murieta Gardens (12- and 6-inch) 350, , Retreats (6-inch) 350, , Residences of Murieta Hills (10-inch) 2,170,000 3,040, Lookout Hill Tanks and Pump Station 1,770,000 2,080, North Course Pump Station 1,420,000 1,700, Industrial, Commercial, Residential (6-inch) 160, , Apartments (6-inch) 150, , Esquela (6-inch) 60,000 80, Bass Lake Tanks and Pump Station 2,070,000 2,900, River Canyon (8-inch) 90, , Terrace and Highlands (8- and 6-inch) 280, , Lake Estates (8- and 6-inch) 4,570,000 6,400, Subtotal 13,710,000 18,510,000 Improvements Common to Both Alternatives Seasonal Storage 6,840,000 9,750, Disinfection Facilities Upgrade 930,000 1,300, Fairway 17 Pump Station 900,000 1,240, Subtotal 8,670,000 12,290,000 Total 22,380,000 30,800,000 Page 7

8 Alternative 2. RW System Expansion Needs to Serve All Future Residents Installation of: Approx. 7 miles of 6 to 12-inch diameter pipe 3 storage tank locations 3 pumping stations South Golf Course System a Pressurize and tie existing piping together to avoid Ponds 16/17 Install new pumping station at WWRF a Required to address CDPH concerns (11/16/2012) Page 8

9 Click to edit Master title style Which Developments Are Most Cost-Effective to Serve? Page 9

10 Ranking of Developments According to Cost-Effectiveness Assigning Improvement Costs Based on developments service Costs for improvement serving multiple developments proportioned according to pipeline distance and demand Results Cost-effectiveness of Esquela and Res. of MH dependent on service to Stonehouse Park First two groups recommended for service Projected RW demand (920 AFY) in line with production RW becomes available in 2017 or 2020 Page 10

11 Recommended Improvements for Alternative 2 Installation of: Approx. 3 miles of 6 to 12-inch diameter pipe 2 storage tank locations 2 pumping stations Page 11

12 Click to edit Master title style Is Expanding the RW Program More Cost-Effective than the No Project Alternative? Page 12

13 Net Present Worth Comparison Results of Alternatives 1 and 2 Component Alternative 1 Upgrade Existing Pastureland Irrigation (No Project Alternative) Alternative 2 Expand Recycled Water Program to Serve Residential Irrigation Costs Associated With All Wastewater, Recycled Water/Treated Effluent Disposal, and Differential Potable Water Improvements Base Project Costs ($) a $21,585,000 $18,200,000 O&M Costs ($/yr) b $250,000 $185,000 Net Present Worth Costs ($) $24,430,000 $20,345,000 Relative (Savings) Difference (%) 16.7 Costs Limited to Differential Potable Water and Recycled Water/Treated Effluent Disposal Improvements Base Project Costs ($) $12,730,000 $9,345,000 O&M Costs ($/yr) $250,000 $185,000 Net Present Worth Costs ($) $15,575,000 $11,490,000 Relative (Savings) Difference (%) 26.2 a Indexed to ENR 20 City Average CCI of 9437 (January 2013) b Project costs include estimated construction costs and allowances for engineering, administration permitting, and contingency Page 13

14 Potential Methods to Reduce Program Costs Pursue Additional Title XVI Funding (Limited to 25% of Planning, Design, and Construction Costs) Ask CDPH to Re-Evaluate Their Position Regarding the Need to Provide Bass Lake Storage Tank Coordinate and Package Developer and District Infrastructure Improvements (Economy of Scale) Page 14

15 Click to edit Master title style Next Steps Page 15

16 Implementation Program (Working Document) Page 16

17 Near- and Long-Term Activities Ongoing Activities Adopted Feasibility Study July, 17, 2013 (Board Meeting) CDPH Response Letter July 17, 2013 Recycled Water Standards Aug. 21, 2013 (Board Meeting) Regulatory Permitting WDR & MRP by End 2014 Title 22 Engineering Report End of November 2013 Report of Waste Discharge End of 2013 RWQCB Negotiations Environmental Compliance Mid- to End of 2014 Infrastructure Improvements Operational Jan 1, 2016 Phase 1 Infrastructure th Quarter 2013 (Design) Phase 2 Infrastructure January 2018 Page 17

18 Click to edit Master title style Questions..Thank You! Page 18

19 Existing WWRF Has Sufficient Capacity to Accommodate Phase 1 and 2 Developments Page 19

20 So When Does Recycled Water Become Available? Equivalent to ADWF of about 0.6 MGD Page 20