Item 4.2 - Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit and Potable Water ReuseG`� ( OF POl�i�i
T'
/�C�T},•1\ THE Gov .!F'
J
u,: of Poway
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
INITIATED BY:
SUBJECT:
Summary:
July 15, 2014
APPROVED
APPROVED AS AMENDED
(SEE MINUTES)
DENIED
REMOVED
CONTINUED
Resolution No.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Daniel Singer, City Manager)
Leah Browder, Director of Public Works (� `
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit and Potable
Water Reuse
In June 2013, Councilmember John Mullin was appointed to a regional Ad Hoc
Steering Committee on the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant' Permit and
Potable Water Reuse. The Committee is addressing issues that could have
significant financial ramifications for Metro wastewater ratepayers (including Poway
residents) and is exploring opportunities to avoid an estimated $300,000,000 in
costs. This report is for information only at this time and sets the stage for Council's
potential consideration of an agreement regarding water reuse this fall.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council accept and file this report.
Background:
The City of Poway is one of twelve participating agencies (PAS) party to agreements
with the City of San Diego (San Diego) for wastewater treatment. Per the
agreements, all of the wastewater generated by these agencies is conveyed to the
San Diego system for treatment.
Although San Diego's sewage system dates back to 1885, a formal agreement
between agencies was not established until 1998. The Metropolitan Wastewater
Commission (Metro Commission) was formed at that time pursuant to the terms of
the first Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement between PAS and San Diego.
In 2001, the Metro Joint Powers Authority (Metro JPA) was formed to provide the
PAS with a stronger voice in the operations of the Metro System, for which the PAS
collectively pay approximately 35% of the operation and capital costs. In Fiscal Year
2014/15, the City of Poway's currently projected costs for wastewater treatment total
an estimated $4.65 million.
Page 1 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit and Potable Water Reuse
July 15, 2014
Page 2
San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater System
San Diego's wastewater system consists of both Municipal and Metropolitan
infrastructure. A Municipal system (Muni) of pipelines and pump stations specific to
customer agencies and charged accordingly sends wastewater to the Metropolitan
wastewater system (Metro) for central conveyance to treatment facilities in the City
of San Diego.
The Metro system consists of several large pipelines and pump stations; three
treatment plants; a biosolids (sludge) processing plant; and two ocean outfalls.
The Pt. Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (Pt. Loma) is permitted as a 240 million
gallon per day (mgd) advanced ,primary (chemically enhanced) plant that discharges
treated wastewater through the Pt. Loma Ocean Outfall 4.5 miles out in the ocean at
a depth of 320 feet.
The North City Water Reclamation Plant (North City) is a 30 mgd tertiary treatment
plant that produces reclaimed water. Since North City does not have its own outfall,
wastewater not needed for reclaimed water customers is treated to a secondary level
and pumped to Pt. Loma.
Additionally, the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (South Bay) is a 15 mgd
tertiary treatment plant that produces reclaimed water. Wastewater not needed for
reclaimed water customers is treated to a secondary level and discharged through
the South Bay Ocean Outfall 3.5 miles out in the ocean in 90 feet of water.
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater treatment.is the process of removing solids from the wastewater.
• Primary treatment plants remove about 60% of the solids.
• Advanced primary treatment plants, such as Pt. Loma, use chemicals to
remove at least 88% of the solids.
• Secondary treatment plants follow primary treatment with a biological
treatment that removes about 90% of the solids.
• Tertiary treatment plants, like North City and South Bay, have both primary
and secondary treatment followed by filtration, resulting in the removal of
about 99% of the solids.
Wastewater Treatment Regulation
The federal Clean Water Act passed in 1972 required that all wastewater treatment
plants be permitted. The permitting process in California involves the Environmental
Protection Agency, the local Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water
Resources Control Board and the California Coastal Commission.
Page 2 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit and Potable Water Reuse
July 15, 2014
Page 3
The Clean Water Act required wastewater treatment plants to treat wastewater to at
least a secondary level. The actual treatment required varies depending on whether
discharging to a lake, river or ocean as well as the particular characteristics of the
receiving body of water. A number of dischargers are required to go to higher levels
of treatment than secondary.
Several years after the Clean Water Act was enacted, it was amended to allow a
modified permit (waiver of secondary) if the discharger could demonstrate the safe
discharge of wastewater to the receiving water at a treatment level lower than
secondary.
Initially, San Diego applied for a modified permit for Pt. Loma but later withdrew the
application and began planning to convert Pt. Loma to secondary treatment.
Subsequently, the EPA and several environmental groups sued San Diego for not
being at secondary. In 1994, the federal Ocean Pollution Reduction Act was passed.
The Act gave San Diego the opportunity to apply for a modified permit for Pt. Loma.
In return, San Diego agreed to construct 45 mgd of reclaimed water capacity. This
resulted in the construction of North City, South Bay and the South Bay Ocean
Outfall. San Diego was granted a modified permit for Pt. Loma in 1994 with
environmental stakeholder support because of the development of reclaimed water
capacity.
Pt. Loma Permit Requirements to Date
San Diego must apply for a new permit or modified permit every five years for Pt.
Loma. San Diego agreed to complete a wide range of studies, as described below,
to secure initial support from the environmental community for a modified permit:
0 Secondary Conversion Cost — The Navy, Cabrillo National Monument, the
ocean and a cliff hem in Pt. Loma. This leads to higher construction costs for
the addition of secondary treatment to the site. An initial study indicated a
capital cost of $1 billion. When updated to current dollars, and including wet
weather peaking needs, the cost has increased to an estimated $2.1 billion.
Additionally, secondary treatment requires a great deal of electricity. Pt. Loma
would go from being a net energy provider to the grid to one of the top 20
loads in San Diego. Annual operating and energy costs would increase by
about $44 million.
Enhanced Ocean Monitoring — San Diego hired experts from esteemed
scientific organizations such as Scripps and Woods Hole to review and
enhance the Ocean Monitoring Program. The expanded monitoring program
includes over 150,000 samples taken annually. Over 20 years of data
indicates there has been no adverse impact to the ocean environment from Pt.
Loma discharge.
Page 3 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit and Potable Water Reuse
July 15, 2014
Page 4
It is also important to note that Pt. Loma's 4.5 mile long outfall (one of the
longest in the country) terminates in a dispersement structure that spans a
mile across at 320 feet deep (the deepest in the United States). The unique
natural ocean environment particular to Pt. Loma further diffuses any potential
discharge impacts.
® Optimizing Wastewater Reuse — While the original settlement included
construction of reclaimed water facilities as noted above, the agreement also
required further study of additional water reuse possibilities, which were
presented in "The Recycled Water Study" (2012).
The product of years of collaboration between stakeholders and technical
experts, the Recycled Water Study outlines a concept to divert almost 100
mgd of wastewater that would otherwise have to be treated. This concept
would allow the permitted capacity of Pt. Loma to be reduced from 240 mgd to
143 mgd.
San Diego constructed a one mgd demonstration project at North City and
pursued studies of San Vicente Reservoir to determine the feasibility of
implementing an indirect potable reuse effort there. The demonstration project
and studies showed that wastewater could be treated at North City to a level
sufficient for safe placement in San Vicente Reservoir for subsequent
treatment at a water treatment plant for potable water uses.
Findings:
The current modified permit for Pt. Loma expires on July 31, 2015. The application
for a new permit must be submitted no later than January 2015. It takes
approximately one year to collect and assemble the data required for the permit
application. That process began in January of this year (2014).
Metro JPA Position
Although a waiver was successfully secured in 2010, the Coastal Commission
indicated that another waiver would be highly unlikely (see Attachment A).
Additionally, all large wastewater treatment plants previously allowed to operate at
less than secondary have recently been ordered to upgrade to secondary treatment
regardless of individual circumstances and cost.
In 2013, San Diego staff indicated that their City would likely pursue another waiver.
Metro JPA and staff met in June 2013 to review the situation and discuss options.
Metro JPA determined that it was in the best interest of ratepayers to pursue
permanent acceptance of Pt. Loma at a smaller capacity with secondary
equivalency. The alternative was to risk a failed waiver application and a regulatory
directive to proceed with immediate conversion of Pt. Loma to full secondary at an
estimated cost of $2.1 billion. The JPA felt that an expenditure of this magnitude was
unnecessary and should not be imposed upon Metro sewer ratepayers.
Page 4 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit and Potable Water Reuse
July 15, 2014
Page 5
Separately, San Diego was preparing to recommend that its one mgd water
purification project be expanded to a 15 mgd plant. While such a project would
certainly benefit local water supply, the cost of this project would be in addition to the
estimated cost to convert Pt. Loma to secondary.
In the JPA's estimation, the most prudent and cost - effective course of action would
be to pursue a larger water purification project which would have the dual benefit.of
offloading Pt. Loma and creating additional local water supply. The ultimate result
would be to avoid the $2.1 billion cost to upgrade Pt. Loma and invest a smaller
amount of funding (now estimated to be $1.8 billion) to help create 83 mgd of new
water for the region.
The JPA initiated an extensive series of meetings with City of San Diego and
member agency City Councils and Boards of Directors; individual Councilmembers
and Water District Board Members; federal, state and local legislators; environmental
stakeholders; business groups; advocacy groups and many others to generate
support for the modified approach. Additionally, the Metro JPA submitted a letter
outlining its position to San Diego decision makers (see Attachment B) preparing to
provide direction at a July 31, 2013 meeting. Poway has been an active participant in
these regional efforts, with Councilmember Mullin and Public Works Director. Leah
Browder as the City's representatives.
As a result, San Diego staff revised their recommendation to reflect the JPA's
position (see Attachment C) and San Diego's Committee on the Environment
adopted the revised recommendation at their July 31, 2013 meeting.
Current Circumstances
Since then, San Diego staff, PA staff, the Metro Steering Committee, Metro
Commissioners, environmental and other stakeholders have been working to reach
agreement on the details of what is now called the Pure Water Program. Agreement
details include:
• Facilities Plan — the type, size, estimated cost and timing of a 20 -year facility
plan that will ultimately deliver 83 mgd of potable water realized from
offloading flow to Pt. Loma.
• Secondary Equivalency — technical specifications that will constitute
"secondary equivalency" for Pt. Loma at a smaller capacity.
• Legislation — formal legislation must be crafted and adopted to ensure the
varying, but inter - related goals of direct stakeholders are achieved. The
legislation would permanently accept Pt. Loma as secondary equivalent;
identify Pure Water milestones, and eliminate the risk associated with the 5-
year waiver application process.
• Cost Allocation — methodology for sharing costs between San Diego and the
PAs as well as addressing the resulting new water commodity.
Page 5 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit and Potable Water Reuse
July 15, 2014
Page 6
These components will be central to the permit application San Diego must file with
regulators in January 2015. Initial meetings with regulatory staff indicate a
willingness to consider this alternative to a secondary upgrade at Pt. Loma that
instead offloads the facility and creates new local water.
Should Pt. Loma secondary equivalency and Pure Water efforts be successful, Metro
wastewater ratepayers will avoid about $300,000,000 in costs (the current estimated
difference between constructing secondary treatment at Pt. Loma and implementing
Pure Water). Additionally, 83 mgd of new local water supply will be developed and
could potentially further offset water and /or wastewater costs.
It is important to note that the $300,000,000 savings will not result in a lowering of
current rates. Rather the avoided cost would temper inevitable rate increases.
Current indications are that San Diego will request, at the Metro Commission
meeting of October 2, 2014, the Commission's support of San Diego's January 2015
permit application including many of the details discussed above. City of Poway staff
expects to return to City Council in September 2014 with further details and a
recommendation in preparation for the October, 2nd meeting.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact at this time. However it is anticipated that wastewater
treatment costs will rise markedly in the coming years whether due to implementation of
secondary treatment at Pt. Loma (should the secondary equivalency effort fail) or
implementation of the potable reuse effort.
Environmental Review:
This staff update is not subject to CEQA review.
Public Notification:
None.
Attachment:
A. Coastal Commission Letter (October 25, 2012)
B. Metro JPA Letter to Committee on the Environment
Culture Committee) (July 29, 2013)
C. City of San Diego Memo, Alternative Recommendation
(Natural Resources &
(July 29, 2013)
Page 6 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND a. BROWN, co,,am v
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONTSTREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 -2119
VOICE AND TOO (415) 9045200
October 25, 2012
The Honorable Jerry Sanders, Mayor of City of San Diego
City Administration Building
202 C St., 11th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Members of City Council
City of San Diego
City Administration Building
202 C Street, MS #10A
San Diego, CA 92101
Re: City of San Diego, Secondary Treatment Waiver
Dear Mayor Jerry Sanders and Members of City Council:
On October 10, 2012, the City of San Diego (City) briefed the California Coastal Commission
(Commission) on the status of its ongoing efforts to pursue wastewater reclamation and recycling.
This briefing, which summarized the City's July 17, 2012, Recycled Water Study, was intended to
satisfy the condition adopted by the Commission in its October 7, 2009, conditional concurrence
with the City of San Diego's consistency certification for its most recent secondary treatment waiver
for the Point Loma Wastewater Facility (Consistency Certification CC- 056 -09). Prior to the
Commission's October 7, 2009, conditional concurrence, on August 13, 2009, the Commission had
objected to the City's earlier consistency certification for this same secondary treatment waiver (CC-
043-09).
In response to the City's briefing last week, the Commission expressed appreciation for the City's
efforts taken and commitments made to date. However, the Commission also expressed significant
concern that the City has not yet committed to milestones and implementation schedules that would
enable the City to end the pursuit of future secondary treatment waivers. The Commission requested
that I send you this letter to communicate its sense of the urgency on this matter.
Because the City's current waiver will expire relatively soon (on July 31, 2015), the concern
expressed was that it is incumbent on the City to immediately accelerate its planning and
implementation efforts before this deadline occurs, and that short of that the Commission would
again consider objecting if the City pursues another waiver beyond this deadline. It was also
observed that due to historically low current interest rates, the current economic climate is
particularly conducive to the issuance of construction bonds to pay for the types of expanded
wastewater and recycling facilities outlined in the City's Recycled Water Study.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 7 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
The Honorable Jerry Sanders and Members of City Council
October 25, 2012
Page 2
Finally, the Commission urged the City to commit to clearer and more expedited implementation
measures, including specific, enforceable, and realistically implementable timetables and milestones
to assure that the City's discharges will be brought into compliance with the secondary treatment
requirements of the Clean Water Act, compliance that has now either been achieved, or is on a
defined path to assure such achievement, by every other municipal sewage treatment facility in
California, as well as by every other large city in the nation.
The Commission staff shares these important concerns, and on behalf of the Commission, we stand
ready to assist the City in any necessary . planning, coastal permitting, or federal consistency review
needed to help expedite implementation. Please feel free to contact Mark Delaplaine, the
Commission's Federal Consistency Manager, at (415) 904 -5289, Jack Gregg, the Commission's
Water Quality Manager, at (415) 904 -5246, or Deborah Lee, the Commission's San Diego District
Manager, at (619) 767 -2370, if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Y'd �- 9—,
CHARLES F. LESTER
Executive Director
cc: Coastal Commission
CCC, San Diego District
Alexis Strauss, EPA, Region IX
David Gibson, Executive Officer, RWQCB, San Diego Region
Tom Howard, Executive Director, S WRCB
City of San Diego, Public Utilities Department
Honorable Jan Goldsmith, San Diego City Attorney
Honorable Bob Filner
Jay Goldstone, Chief Operating Officer, City of San Diego
Andrea Tevlin, Independent Budget Analyst
Megan Baehrens, Executive Director, San Diego Coastkeeper
Bruce Bell, President, Carpenter Environmental Associates, Inc.
Julia Chunn -Heer, Representative, Surfrider Foundation
Marco Gonzalez, Chairperson, Coast Law Group, LLP
Dawn Guendert, Representative, Surfrider Foundation
Scott Huth, Past Chairperson, Metro -TAC
Karyn Keese, Representative, Metro - TAC /Atkins
Jim Peugh, Past Chairperson, IROC
Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, Planning & Conservation League
Toby Roy, Representative, San Diego County Water Authority
Jill Witkowski, Representative, San Diego Coastkeeper .
Page 8 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
METRO I
WASTEWATER J PA
July 29, 2013
Councilmember David Alvarez, Chair
Natural Resources & Culture Committee
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Councilmember Alvarez:
This letter is sent on behalf of the Metro Wastewater JPA regarding the City of San Diego Advanced Water
Purification Demonstration Project scheduled for discussion at the July 31, 2013 meeting of the Natural
Resources & Culture Committee.
The Metro Wastewater JPA is a coalition of municipalities and special districts in the southern and central
portions of San Diego County that share in the use of the City of San Diego's regional wastewater
collection and treatment facilities. This coalition represents 35% flow and a $65 million annual budget in
relation to the Metro wastewater system. The JPA member agencies include the cities of Chula Vista,
Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City and Poway; the Lemon Grove
Sanitation District; the Padre Dam Municipal and Otay Water Districts; and the County of San Diego on
behalf of the County Sanitation Districts.
We applaud the City of San Diego and its staff for the recent success of the Advanced Water Purification
Demonstration Project and associated progress on the legislative front. This accomplishment establishes
wastewater reuse as a critical component of the region's future water supply. As a result, we respectfully
request the Committee's support for a broader effort to include the following:
1. That staff, in partnership with stakeholders, undertake a process to create a Long -Range Regional
Water Reuse Program that includes water reuse options beyond a single facility, incorporating the
most cost effective possibilities within Metro's service boundary thus maximizing opportunities to
create new, local sustainable water supply while at the same tirne significantly reducing Point
Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant flows.
2. That staff, in partnership with stakeholders, pursue legislation to permit a smaller, secondary
equivalent Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant that continues to protect the ocean
environment but avoids billions of dollars in unnecessary capital, financing, energy and operating
costs associated with an upgrade to Secondary Treatment.
Future steps would include participation of the San Diego County Water Authority to ensure that water
supply planning incorporates expanded water reuse opportunities, and coordinated multi- agency
legislative outreach to implement a plan that might serve as a model of fiscal and environmental
stewardship for the state and nation.
Page 9 of 15 ATTACHMENT s July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
Councilmember David Alvarez
Advanced Water Purification Project
July 29, 2013
Thank you for considering the Metro JPA's request that hopes to create a true alliance between the City of
San Diego, member agencies, and environmental and ratepayer stakeholders to realize the maximization
of water reuse to the benefit of our region's ratepayers and the environment.
Respectfully,
Cheryl Cox
Chair, Metropolitan Wastewater JPA.
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
Attachment
c: Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers Authority Board Members and Agency Councils and Boards
Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers Authority Technical Advisory Committee. Members
Members of the Independent Rate Oversight Committee
Walt Ekard, City of San Diego, Chief Operating Officer
Roger Bailey, Director, City of San Diego Public Utilities Department
Ann Sasaki, Assistant Director, City of San Diego Public Utilities Department
Marsi Steirer, Deputy Director, City of San Diego Public Utilities Department
Page 10 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
o ) o
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 29, 2013
TO: Honorable Councilmember David Alvarez, Chair, Natural Resources & Culture
Committee
FROM: Marsi A. Steirer, Deputy Director, Public Utilities Department,
Long -Range Planning and Water Resources Division
SUBJECT: 2012 Long -Range Water Resources Plan — Alternative Recommendation
We would like to request that an alternative motion be added to the adoption of Council Action -
Resolutions R- 2014 -11 and R- 2014 -12 (attached) to, adopt the Final Draft of the 2012 Long -
Range Water Resources Plan ( LRWRP).
The LRWRP has been a lengthy process that utilized various studies, including the Recycled
Water Study and the Demonstration Project Report, to identify water resource options that were
included in the report. The LRWRP report was finalized earlier this calendar year, and it
contains the following implementation recommendation:
Near Term. Actions (2013 — 2020)
Additional Active Conservation - 20,900 Acre -Feet a Year (AFY)/ 18.7 million gallons a
day (mgd)
Rainwater Harvesting — 420 AFY/ .38 mgd
Groundwater Supply — up to 4,000 AFY/ 3.57 mgd
Indirect Potable Reuse (lPR) — 16,800 AFY/ 15 mgd
Lon& -Term Measures (if warranted) 2020- 2035
Indirect Potable Reuse Phases 2 & 3 — 76,160 AFY/ 68 mgd
Additional groundwater — 10,000 AFY/ 8.93 mgd
Page 11 of 15 ATTACHMENT C July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
Page 2
Honorable Councilmember David Alvarez
July 29, 2012
Given the length of time necessary to plan, design and construct Potable Reuse facilities,
combined with the City Council direction on April 23, 2013 to determine a preferred
implementation plan and schedule that considers potable reuse options for maximizing local
water supply and reduces flows to Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Public Utilities
Department is recommending the City Council consider an alternative motion that would grant
planning level approval to pursuing all three Phases of IPR. This motion contains the same
water resource options listed above under "Near Term Actions," although it increases the amount
of IPR from 15 to 83 mgd.
Alternative Motion for the 2012 LRWRP
Additional Active Conservation - 20,900 Acre -Feet a Year/ 18.7 mgd
Rainwater- Harvesting — 420 AFY/ .38 mgd
Groundwater Supply — up to 4,000 AFY/ 3.57 mgd
Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) — 92,960 AFY / 83 mgd (for all 3 phases)
Should the City Council vote to approve the proposed Alternative Motion, the final 2012
LRWRP document will be modified to reflect this action.
Should you have any questions or concerns, I can be reached at (6 19) 533 -4112, or by email at
msteirer @sandiego.gov,
_kA. ,
Marsi A. Steirer
Deputy Director
SB /tm
cc: Honorable NR &C Committee members
Honorable City Attorney Jan Goldsmith
Attachments: 1. Resolution R- 2014 -11
2, Resolution R- 2014 -12
Page 12 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
COUNCIL ACTION
EXECZTTIVE SUMMARY SHEET
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
DATE: 06/07/2013
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Public Utilities - Water
SUBJECT: 2012 Long -Range Water Resources Plan (LRWRP)
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S): All
CONTACT /PHONE NUMBER: George Adrian /619 -533 -4680, M.S. 906
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY OF ITEM:
This action is to adopt the 2012 Long -Range Water Resources Plan (LRWRP) in fulfillment of
the Council action regarding the LRWRP in 2009. This previous action included elements that
directed staff to update the 2002 LRWRP and revist its water resources strategy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the requested action.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF ITEM BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Strategic
Plan for Water Supply (Strategic Plan) on August 12, 1997 which included a water resources
strategy to meet future water demands through 2015. A changing water supply situation led to a
decision by the Public Utilities Department (Department) to update the Strategic Plan and
develop a more comprehensive strategy. On December 9, 2002, the City Council adopted the
2002 Long -Range Water Resources Plan (LRWRP), which updated the City's water resources
strategy providing direction to pursue additional conservation, recycled water, groundwater, and
other water supply options through the planning horizon of 2030: The Department moved
forward to update the LRWRP and prepare the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in
2009. The City Council approved an agreement with Brown and Caldwell, who sub - contracted
with CDM Smith, to update the 2002 LRWRP. The Department initiated work on the 2012
LRWRP after the 2010 UWMP was final, and the majority of the work on the Recycled Water
Study (RWS), commissioned in 2009 to review maximizing wastewater reuse, was complete as
data and technical analyses from both documents were foundational components of the 2012
LRWRP.
Like the 2002 LRWRP, the 2012 LRWRP was developed using an open participatory planning
process, with input from an I I - member Stakeholder Committee who met over fifteen months.
This committee defined key planning objectives, provided insights and input on planning -level
options, reviewed evaluation results, provided suggestions for refinement, and reviewed and
provided comments on the final recommendations and report.
The 2012 LRWRP is a high -level Iook at our water supply options (options), and it evaluates key
planning objectives which serve as the major goals or reasons "why" the 2012 LRWRP.was
undertaken. The new options came from a variety of sources including the 2002 LRWRP, 2010
UWMP, annual Water Conservation Update, technical groundwater studies and the RWS.
Because no one option would be capable of meeting all of the City's water demands, eight
portfolio options were developed and the top three portfolios are:
1. Hybrid 1- groundwater; conservation and rainwater harvesting options
along with Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) supply at 16,800 acre -feet per
Page 13 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
year (AFY) or 15 million gallons per day (MGD)
2. Hybrid 2 - Additional groundwater, additional IPR supply in two phases
at 16,800 AFY (15 MGD) and 56,200 AFY (50 MGD), and rainwater harvesting
3. Maximize Water Use Efficiency - options that increase the efficiency of
how water is used in the City's water service area, including
conservation, reuse, graywater, and rainwater/ stormwater harvesting
The three top - scoring portfolios were evaluated for timing and trade -offs in terms of water
supply reliability benefits verses costs. The analysis showed that the resource options included in
Hybrid I should be prioritized as "near -term actions" within the 2012 -2020 timeframe, and the
remaining options under Hybrid 2 should be viewed as long -term actions (2020 - 2035). These top
portfolios were further evaluated regarding their adaptive capabilities in reducing water
shortages caused by climate change. The analysis indicated that Hybrid I reduces the City's
vulnerability by including more locally sourced water options. Hybrid 2, while costlier, would
significantly increase the City's water supply reliability in a changing climate. To provide a
flexible strategy that will allow the City to adapt to the future events, the long -term actions
identified uncertainty "risk triggers" such as the Bay -Delta fix, direct potable reuse regulations,
and groundwater viability. These risk triggers would indicate when and if the City should move
forward with some of the additional options included in the Hybrid 2 portfolio.
The 2012 LRWRP concludes with the following recommendations which summarize the
direction the City should take to enhance our water supply reliability:
1. Implement additional water conservation, initial groundwater projects,
rainwater harvesting, and IPR at 16,800 AFY (Hybrid 1 portfolio).
2. Implement water supply options from the Hybrid 2 portfolio for the
long -term, if uncertainty risk triggers warrant them.
3. Re- assess all uncertainty risk triggers in concurrence with the City's
UWMP schedule (2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035).
4. Update the entire LRWRP in ten year cycles, starting in 2020.
FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS: Not applicable at this time. A planning level cost analysis of
each of the supply options recommended is presented in the 2012 LRWRP Report.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CONTRACTING INFORMATION (IF APPLICABLE): Not
applicable at this time.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL and /or COMMITTEE ACTION (describe any changes made to the item
from what was presented at committee): On August 12, 1997, the City Council adopted
Resolution (R- 289102) approving the Strategic Plan for Water Supply. On December 9, 2002,
the City Council adopted Resolution (R- 297484) approving the 2002 LRWRP. On March 20,
2009, the City Council adopted Resolution (R- 304714) authorizing the preparation of the 2012
LRWRP.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS: The stakeholders
who participated in the development of the 2012 LRWRP represented many diverse interests.
The stakeholders in the 2012 LRWRP included representatives from the Independent Rates
Page 14 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2
Oversight Committee, American Planning Association, American Society of Landscape
Architects, Building Industry Association, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, San
Diego County Taxpayers Association, San Diego Coastkeeper and a City representative to the
San Diego County Water Authority Board. The Department plans to add presentations on the
2012 LRWRP to its Speakers Bureau offerings.
KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND PROJECTED IMPACTS: City of San Diego citizens and
ratepayers, and members of the 2012 LRWRP Stakeholder Committee,
Sasaki, Ann
Originating Department
Deputy Chief /Chief Operating Officer
Page 15 of 15 July 15, 2014 Item # 4.2