Loading...
Item 3 - Water Rates and Status of New Programs AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY ~TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ~ FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~ INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage ,~ James R. Williams, Director of Public ce s Peggy A. Stewart, Director of Administrative Se DATE: April 27, 1995 SUBJECT: Water Rates and Status of New Programs Director Linda Brannon, Board of Directors for the San Diego County Water Authority, with the technical assistance of members of the SDCWA staff, will present to the Council current information regarding MWD's rate structure, actual rates adopted, as well as recent decisions of the SDCWA regarding their rates. City of Poway staff have monitored, from the beginning, the various elements of the changed rate structure and unit costs to evaluate and mitigate the impact to Poway water customers. Some of s~affs efforts are also discussed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This item is not subject to CEQA review. None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE A copy of this report has been provided to Director Linch Brannon. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. ACTION ;APR 2 7 1995 ITEM CITY OF POWAY TO: Honorable Mayor sad Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~ INITIATED BY: J. ohn D. F_it_.ch, Assist..a.nt City M__an.a.g. er_~~. ... oames R..w:flliams, wrector o~F oa¢ ~u 'c erv~ces ~ Peggy A. Stewart, Director of Administrative Sert,i~s DATE: April 27, 1995 SUBJECT: Water Rates and Status of New Programs Discussions and negotiations between the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) have been near continuous since MWD announced its intentions to restructure the methods by which it generates operating and capital revenues. Similarly, discussions between the general managers and staffs of water agencies (including Poway) and SDCWA have been frequent and purposeful. The negotiations have concluded; concerns of IvIXVD's member agencies and in turn those of SDCWA's member agencies have been addressed, and new rate structures and rates have now been adopted by the Board of Directors for both MWD and SDCWA. The MWD has adopted a rate structure consisting of: (1) a commodity charge placed upon the sale of each acre-foot of water sold; (2) a connection maintenance charge placed upon member agencies in the amount required to maintain and operate each connection to MWD's delivery system; (3) a readiness-to-serve charge intended to recover capital costs associated with maintaining MWD's 'ability to continue serving current customers at a level equal to the average of water delivered during Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994; and (4) a new demand charge that will be assessed initially in the amount of $I000 for each additional acre-foot of water purchased beyond the averages of Fiscal Years 1990 through 1992. ACTION: ~ ,~.~ ~ 1 ~PR 2 7 1995 Water Rates and New Programs Statu~ April 27, 1995 Page 2 Director Linda Brannon, who represents the City of Poway on the Board of Directors for the San Diego County Water Authority, has been an important player in bringing to conclusion the long discussions and negotiations surrounding the rates. With the technical assistance of members of the SDCWA staff, Director Brannon will present to the Council current information regarding MWD rate structure and actual rates adopted as well as recent decisions of the SDCWA regarding their rates. City of Poway staff have monitored, from the beginning, the various elements of the changed rate structure and unit costs to evaluate and mitigate the impact to Poway water customers. Poway's share ($407,525) of the Fiscal Year 1996 total MWD bill to SDCWA ($14,866,366) for their Readiness-to-Serve charge will be offset in part by standby charges collected with property tax. Attachment 'A" shows the impact of the MWD rate structure change and MWD/SDCWA rate increases to the cost per acre-foot of raw water purchased for Poway customers, beginning at $8.00 per acre foot in FY95-96 and increasing to $12.00 per acre foot by FY1999-2000. Water Cost Changes to Poway Consumers: Attachment "B" compares current (FY 1995) published rates for cities and water districts in San Diego County. Taking into consideration system losses due to leakage, evaporation at Lake Poway, seepage through the dam, and the costs of treatment, transmission and capital expense recovery, Attachment "C' delineates our staffs projection of the unit cost (100 cubic feet or 748 gallons) of potable water to our citizens. This table does not include rate increases necessary to construct the San Diego County Emergency Water Storage Project. Several initiatives are currently being investigated and developed to mitigate and lower the unit cost of water to Poway customers for the next several years. Increasing Water Supplies: The expense to develop through construction of suitable pumping, local treatment, and storage facilities for the test wells drilled approximately two years ago has not been cost effective, especially as a considerable up-front capital expense of approximately $1400 per acre-foot of yield would be faced. At a modest rate of growth (1% per annum) Poway will probably begin to incur additional obligation to MWD/SDCWA under the "New Demand" charge in Fiscal Year 1998. The "New Demand" charge is a one-time, up front expense initially of $1000 per acre-foot that is expected to grow to $1600 per acre-foot during the next five years. To avoid the "New Demand" charge, Poway should develop the wells which will also have the effect of further mitigating some of the projected rate increases. 3 of 17. ~APR 27 1995 ITEM Water Rates and New Pro,ams Stanl,S April 27, 1995 Page 3 Water Treatment Plant Upgrll~le: The Water Treatment Plant filter upgrade and reconstruction conlract was approved for award by the Council on April 18, 1995. Completion of this project and the others also underway will improve the reliability of the plant and allow staff to operate the plant closer to its design capacity of 24 million gallons per day (MGD). The new filters have been designed to allow future expansion of the plant to as much as 36 MGD. Considering Poway's General Plan and build-out projections for residential and industrial/commercial water users, staff projects our average daily use not to exceed 15 MGD or our peak day use not to exceed 22 MGD. Attachments "D" and "E" provide a pictorial history of water production and use over the last seven years. Using our reservoirs to maximum advantage to even out peak day use, staffprojects that we could sell an average of 5 MGD to others. SDCWA engineering staff have recently determined that the Ramona Pipeline is constructed with hydraulic gradients such that it would be possible to back feed treated water from our plant into the Second Aqueduct system. SDCWA engineers have agreed in principle that connections to allow two-way flow and metering of treated water in the Ramona Pipeline would be of regional benefit and therefore appropriate to SDCWA construction expense. Poway would then realize the benefits of operating at peak efficiency while also gaining the ability to receive treated water from the Ramona Pipeline in the event of a disaster that might prevent our plant from operating. Controlling Water Rates to Powav Consumcm: In discussions author/zed by the Council last year, the General Manager of the Ramona.Murdcipal Utilities District continues to express interest in purchasing treated water from Poway rather than from MWD to serve their southern boundary customers. He has also expressed a strong interest in renting storage space at Lake Ramona for Poway to capitalize on the MWD seasonal storage program. Attachment "F" is a summary of extensive expense/revenue calculations that compare four different options of a water sales and storage agreement with Ramona. Note that over an eight year period, implementing such an agreement would save Poway customers a total of nearly $3,000,000 in commodity rate expenses, and recover in our capital replacement fund an additional $360,000. Staff continues to refine the details of a potential agreement and plans to bring the agreement to Council for consideration by the end of May 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action is not subject to CEQA review. 4 of 11 '.APR 2 ? 1995 ITEM, - Water Rates and New Programs Stares April 27, 1995 Page 4 None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE A copy of this report has been provided to Director Brannon. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. Attachments: "A" - MWD & SDCWA Rate Projections "B" - San Diego County Water Rate Comparison "C" - Projection of Unit Cost of Water to Poway Customers "D" - Poway Water Production & Use History "E" - History of Average Monthly Water Use "F" - Comparison of Unit Rates & Calculated Savings Under Four Options JLB:JDF:JRW:pq APR ~ 7 1995 5 of 11 6 of 11 ATTACHMENT "A" ~? 1~% ITEM 7 of 11 ATTACI/L~ENT "B" ~ ~ ~ ~99s ITEM ~ "' ATTACHMENT "D" ATTACHMENT "E" ,PR ~, 7 1995 ATTACHMENT "F" APR 2 7 lgg5 ITEM 11 of 11 INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY SAN - DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY APR 27 1995 ITEM 3 " San Diego County Water Authority 3211 Fifth Avenue · Son Diego, Colifornio 92103-5718 (619) 682-4100 FAX (619) 297-0511 March 23, 1995 Mr. James L. Bowersox -'~ City Manager City of Poway r~--. ., ~..~ 13325 Civic Center Dr. Poway, CA 92064 ~,~ % ~ ~. ~ The County Water Authority Board of Directors has voted to raise the Authority's wholesale water rate from $70 to $80 per acre-foot as of July 1. The increase will raise the typical residential water bill by 42 cents per month, or less than 2 percent. The rate increase is necessary to pay for major new pipeline projects that will help to maintain San Diego County's reliable water supply. When Authority Directors approved this series of projects in 1989, the Authority sold bonds to pay for the projects over a 20-year period. At the same time, the Authority instituted a schedule of gradual rate increases designed to generate sufficient revenue to pay off the bonds without spikes in the water rate. This year's increase is part of that schedule. (For more information about the rate increase, please see the enclosed information package.) If you would like to receive an individual briefing on the rate increase or if you would like to schedule a briefing for your City Council - please contact the Authority's public affairs director, Patsy Tennyson, at 682-4126. Sincerely, Mark Watton, ~hair SDCWA Board of Directors Enclosure: Water rate package MEMBER AGENCIES .,,.,,c u,,,,.Y,,,..,c, .,o,.,,,,~.~c~ APR :~V 1995 1 of 6 San Diego County Water Authority A Public .Agency 3211 Fifth Avenue * San Diego, California 92103-5718 (619) 682-4100 FAX (619) 297-0511 The County Water Authority Board of Directors voted March 9 to raise the AuthoHty's wholesale water rate from $70 to $80 per ~'re-foot as of,l'uly 1. The increase will raise the typical residential water bill by 42 cents per month, or less than 2 percent. The rate is going up because: · Increased revenue is necessary to pay for capital improvement projects already completed or in progress. All of the revenues from a rate increase this year will be used for bond debt service costs associated with the Capital Improvement Program. These improvements represent investments necessary to maintain a reliable water supply, which is vital to San Diego County's S65 billion economy and quality of life. When Authority Directors approved the Capital Improvement Program in 1989, the Authority sold bonds to pay for the projects over a 20-year period. The Authority instituted a schedule of Wadual rate increases designed to generate sufficient revenue to pay off the bonds without spikes in the water rate. · The Authority deferred a water rate increase in 1994 and has drawn cash from - its rate stabilization fund to offset revenue deficits and avoid large rate increases in recent years. The Authority estimates it will draw S'/.4 million from the fund in fiscal 1995. An estimated S'7.6 million will be used from the fund in fiscal 1996 even if the rate is increased by $I0. If the rate is not increased, that figure will reach $12 million, creating a situation where rapid and large rate increases would be necessary in the future to pay for the Emergency Water Storage Project. A modest rate increase is necessary in lay 1996 to avoid such a situation and to avoid spikes in future rate increases due to the emergency storage project. · Completion of the Capital Improvement Program is fundamental to the Authority's mission, which is to provide the region with a safe, reliable water supply. A 1994 survey of 2,'735 San Diego County residents found they are willing to pay more on theL- water bills for improvements that reduce the threat of water shortages. For example, survey respondents said they would pay an average of $11 .$8 more on their monthly water bill to avoid a 20 percent shortage that would occur once every 20 years. They would pay $10.6'/more per month to avoid a 10 percent shortage occurring once every three years. MEMBER AGENCIES 2 of 6 ......, o,, ,,:<.:,..,,, APP~ 2 7 1995 ITEM All of the revenue raised through the proPOsed rate increase will be devoted to debt service associated with capital projects, including: Pipeline 6, which will run 33 miles from Lake Skinner in south Riverside County to Twin Oaks Valley north of San Marcns. Thc project will increase the county's raw water supply by up to 400 million gallons per day. · Pipeline ~ Extension, which will deliver up to 400 million gallons of raw water daily to the central and southern county. The project will stretch 21 miles, from Twin Oaks Valley north of San Marcos to the ~ Mesa area. · Pipeline 4B and 4 Extension, which will deliver up to 290 million gallons of drinking water daily to the east, central and southern county areas. The project begins in Mira Mesa and reaches 30 miles south to Lower Otay Reservoir. · The North County Distribution Pipeline, which will extend four miles west from the AuthoHty's Second Aqueduct to an area north of Vista. The project will deliver up to 105 million gallons of drinking water daily to Vista, San Marcos, Oceanside and the Rainbow area. Authority Directors recognize the impact that rate increases have on the San Diego region. In 1994, they voted to maintain the $?0 rate for another year. This decision necessitated drawing an estimated $7.4 million from the rate stabilization fund, which was established to manage the impact of rate increases on the corttmunity. The Authority has reduced expenses and held rate increases to a wi,~iraum. However, the Authority also recognizes the need to invest in water supply and system improvements that are essential to maintaining a reliable water supply. The Authority is striving to balance the impact of rate increases against the need to maintain a reliable water supply. An unreliable water supply will be measured in lost jobs, lower quality of life, and further uncertainty for local businesses. Seen in these terms, the cost of an unreliable water supply is greater than the cost of investing in the region's economic future. at:achment: Questions and answers about water rates APR 27 1995 ri'EM 3of6 Questions and answers about water rates .. Q: Why is the cost of water going up ? A: Rate increases are necessary to pay for a prog~'~m of capital knprovcmcnts designed to upgrade and expand thc County Water Authority's water-delivery system, which typically delivers nine of every 10 gallons of water used in San Diego County. The Authority initiated its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in 1989 to maintain a reliable water supply for current and future county residents. Thc CI~ is projected to cost $740 million, although this amount will increase if the Authority board of directors decides to pursue the Emergency Water Storage Project now under study. Q: How are these improvements funded? A: Four sources pay for the CIP: water sales, standby charges (parcel charges) on all property in the Authority's service area. connection fees for new development and a small amount from property taxes. The Authority has sold $436 million in bonds for the L"IP. Water rate increases are necessary to pay this debt. Q: What do 1 get from the Capital Improvement Program? ' A: You get a more reliable water supply, which is essential to maintain San Diego County's $65 billion annual economy and quality of life, retain local businesses and attract new companies to the region. The capital program will allow the Authority to bring more water into the county and deliver it more efficiently throughout the region. It also will make the water-delivery system more flexible, facilitate pipeline maintenance and provide a second pipeline to areas now served by a single line. The CIP also is helping the local economy by providing an estimated 7,500 jobs of varying duration during the 1990s. Q: Who decides whether the Authority will raise its rates? A: A 34-member board of directors that represents the Authority's 24 member agencies sets the Authofity's rates. (The member agencies are special districts and cities that deliver water directly to consumers.) The directors, elected and appointed representatives of the member agencies, are business and civic leaders with diverse professional and technical backgrounds. Q: How much are rates going to increase? A: Following a public bearing, Authority directors voted March 9 to increase the Authority's wholesale water rate from $70 to $80 per acre-foot. This proposal wi]l increase the typical monthly residential water bill by about 42 cents --or less than 2 percent-- although the impact on individual bills will vary. (An acre-foot is 325,872 gallons, enough water to meet the needs of two average households for one year.) Q: Why don't you just cut your budget rather than raise rates? A: Rates must be raised to pay for capital improvements necessary to restore and maintain the reliability of our water supply. Only 5 percent of the Authority's fiscal 1995 budget goes for operating expenses. The rest of the agency's spending is devoted to purchasing water from MWD, debt service and capital improvements necessary to maintain the county's reliable water supply. APR ~ 7 1995 I'I'EM 4of6 Q: Doesn't all of the rain this year offset the need for capital improvements? A: No. This year's rainfall is certainly welcome, because it will augment local water supplies. But even in an abnormally wet year, water resulting from local precipitation only comprises 15 to 20 percent of our total water supply. In dry years, this figure falls az low az 5 percent. In either case, we remain largely dependent on imported water, which is delivered throughout the county through the Authority's pipelines. Moreover, the Authority must plan its facilities to meet the demand during dry years. This requirement drives water rates. Q: Aren't these capital improvements only necessar'y to accommodate populat~on growth in the county? A: No. We need to improve our water-delivery system to meet tl~ needs of t~ople who live here today. Two of the Authority's five pip~lincs are more than 40 years old: they are aging and were constructed for a much smaller population that was clustered in the central and ~uthem portions of the county. The new pipelines will allow the Authority to deliver more water more efficiently to areas that currently are hampered by bottlenecks in the delivery system. In addition, we are constructing a second treated-water pipeline to the South County, whkh presently is served by a single pipeline. This will benefit the enti~ county since it will allow for regular maintenance without severely limiting water supplies as occurs now. Certainly, these improvements will benefit future residents such as our children, but they are necessary for cun~nt residents as well. Q: Since future residents will benefit from capital projects taking place now, how will they help to pay for these improvements? A: Future growth pays it share in three ways. First, standby assessments charged by the Authority and MWD apply to ali property, regardless of whether it is developed. Second, anyone requiring a new hookup that impacts the Authority's system pays a connect/on charge. Third, the bonds used to pay for the Capital Improvement Program will be paid off through water sales over the next 20-30 years, meaning future residents will help pay for current capital projects when they buy water. Q: Is the Capital Improvement Program limited to pipeline construcn'on? A: No. It also includes an aqueduct protection project to prevent pipe damage where possible and replace damaged pipes and environmental mitigation for capital projects. In addition, the computerized aqueduct control system is being improved and an emergency pr~pareclness program is being established. Several major capital projects are under study: an expansion of emergency water storage capacity, a program to protect the aqueducts from erosion where they pass under the San Luis Rey River and a water-treatment facility. Q: Why do we need to expand the region's emergency water storage capacity? A: The county lacks sufficient water storage capacity reserved for use during an emergency that severs our imported-water pipelines. This shortfall will grow if we don't take ca~ of it. Without sufficient water stored within the county, San Diego's economy and quality of life wKl suffer dramatically during a pipeline outage. The Authority is conducting detailed envi~nmental, .APR g ? 1995 ITEM 5of6 agineering and operational studies of four systems that would meet emergency water storage needs through 2030. Draft environmental documents will be available for review in spring 1995. Q: Do we really need increased emergency storage capacity in'the count)'? A: There are about 25 major reservoirs in San Diego County, but they were built primarily to provide water and flood control for specific populated areas. They do not include sufficient emergency water storage capacity to meet current needs, much less those projected for the future. Moreover, most of the reservoirs were constructed before the Authority was organized to import water into the county. As such, few of the reservoirs are connected to the Authority's regional pipelines, making it difficult to deliver water around the county as may prove necessary during an emergency. (The Authority doesn't own or operate any reservoirs.) Q: Besides capital projects, what else is the Authority doing to ensure that we have a reliable water supply ? A: The Authority is acting with its member agencies to increase the amount of water available locally through water reclamation, groundwater development and conservation. This effort is expected to more than double the average annual local water supply by 2010. In addition, the Authority and other urban water agencies are seeking to arrange water transfers between willing sellers and buyers. The Authority expects water purchases from Central Valley farmers or irrigation districts to be an integral part of San Diego County's future water supply. - Q. How do the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's (MWD) rates and charges affect San Diego County water-users? A: The MWD boa.rd of directors voted March 14 to increase the district's raw water rate from $335 per acre-foot to S344. MWD' s rate for treating an acre-foot of water would increase from $77 to S$2 to offset the cost of meeting stringent new federal drinking water standards. The increase, which takes effect July I, will raise the typical local residential water bill by 58 cents per month, although this does not include the impact of new MWD charges. (MWD's rate is combined with the Authority's rate to form the wholesale cost of water in San Diego County. This means that, as of July 1, the per-acre-foot wholesale rate would be $424 for raw water and $506 for treated water.) Q. How will MWD's new charges for water affect San Diego County? A. MWD has overhauled its revenue structure, instituting several new charges designed to ensure that the district has a more reliable revenue stream than one that depends almost totally on water sales that var3, from year to year. Such stable revenue is necessary to allow MWD to fund and carry out vital capital improvement projects. One major new charge will cover the district's costs to maintain a reliable water supply for existing users. The other will do the same for those who place new demands on the MWD delivery system. The impact of the new charges will vary among the Authority'$ member agencies, depending on how much imported water they purchase and how much their demand for imported water will grow in the future. This means that as an agency's · - demand for imported water grows, so will the rate it pays for water. 'APR ~. 7 1995 ITEM 3 '. 6of(~ WBter Supply for ~ ~ S~n Diego County briefing on water rates March I 995 APR 2 7 1995 ITEM Rel#a#le Water Su##ly for San D#ego County A briefing on water rates · San Diego County's $65 billion economy and quality of life depend on a reliable water supply. We must make investments -- capital improvements and local supply development programs-- in our water supply or face potential water shortages even in non-drought years. · The County Water Authority is acting to ensure that San Diego's water supply is reliable now and into the 21 st century. · The Authority initiated its Capital improvement Program (CIP) in 1989 to enhance, expand and restore the regional water delivery system. The major CIP projects will result in major new pipelines that will allow the Authority to import more water into the county and deliver it as efficiently as possible. · Another part of the CIP is analyzing the best way to ensure that the county has enough water to endure a lengthy interruption of its imported water supply without suffering lasting economic and environmental damage. · The Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which supplies water to the Authority, has its own CIP. Major portions of the MWD program will directly benefit San Diego County. The CIP's centerpiece is a reservoir in south Riverside County that will nearly double the amount of reservoir storage capacity owned by MWD. · The Authority and MWD are acting to increase local water sources through reclamation, groundwater development, desalination, conservation and potentially repurification. Such programs lessen the region's need for imported water and offer protection against imported water shortages. · The Authority is working with other urban water agencies to restore the State Water Project's reliability. This effort involves analysis of structural improvements, use of water transfers and negotiation of a comprehensive, long-term solution to the Bay-Delta situation. · We must invest in our water supply to maintain reliable service. These investments require rate increases by the Authority and MWD. Rate increases have a cost for the community, but the price of not making these vital investments is greater when measured in terms of lost jobs and productivity, uncertainty for local businesses, lower quality of life and landscaping Josses. f -' iable Water for San Di#go County A briefing on water rates Background: San Diego County's water supply County Water Authority Metropolitan Water District The situation Trouble spots Maintaining a reliable water supply: Delivery Storage Local water resources State water issues Wholesale water rates and other revenue sources MWD's new revenue structure Rates and reliability Policy choices Appendices Water Authority fact sheet Metropolitan Water District fact sheet Bay-Delta fact sheet Water Resources Ptan issue of WaterTalk Emergency water storage brochure Repurification brochure Domenigoni Valley reservoir brochure Inland Feeder brochure Bacilground: San ##ego CountYs water su##ly · The San Diego region typically depends on imported water for 90 percent of its supply. Even in a wet year, we import at least three-quarters o~ our water. · Reliable local water supplies can only support a population of about 150,000. · Our $65 billion economy and quality oF life are inextricably tied to a reliable supply of imported water. · The reliable local water supply must be expanded to lessen our dependence on imported water. · if we are to maintain our quality of life and economy, we must make the investments that are necessary to sustaining a reliable water supply now. San Diego County's Water Supply 1991- dry year 1994 - wet year 5% Local 20% Local Imported Imported 80% 95% - Water Authority Member Agencies 0 ~,~lNO ~ SECOND FIRST CO~JNTY AQUEDUCT AQUEDUCT J RIVERSIDE C OU~'~"-Y SAN DIEGO COUNTY FALLBROOK R U.D. . SAN VICENTE RESERVOIR EL - MEXICO Background: Count WBter luthor#ty · The San Diego County Water Authority's mission is to provide a safe, reliable* water supply to our member agencies serving the San Diego region. * Note: Reliability is defined as consistently providing a water supply that minimizes economic damage, now and in the future. · The San Diego County Water Authority was organized in 1944 under provisions of state law to augment local water supplies. Area voters approved the Authority's formation by a 15-1 margin. The Authority imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California and sells it at wholesale rates to its member agencies in San Diego County. All o~ this imported water reaches the county via Metropolitan Water District facilities. The County Water Authority: · Typically provides 90 percent of the water used in San Diego County. · Serves 2.6 million people living in a 1,418-square-mile service area. · Has service area economy worth $65 billion annually. · Serves 24 member agencies: -- 7 cities -- 15 special districts - -- 1 federal agency -- County of San Diego (ex-officio member) · Has 34-member board of directors: -- The member agencies appoint the directors. Each member agency is entitled to at least one director. The directors are business and civic leaders with diverse professional and technical backgrounds who Jive in the communities that they represent. Background: Metro#olitan Water District · The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's mission is to provide its service area with adequate and reliable supplies of high-quality water to meet present and Future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible way. · The Metropolitan Water District was created by voters in its original service area in 1928 under provisions of state law. Metropolitan's role is to provide supplemental water to its member agencies serving urban Southern California. All of San Diego County's imported water reaches here via Metropolitan's facilities. The Metropolitan Water District: · Typically provides nearly 60 percent o~ the water used in its service area, which includes about 225 cities and unincorporated areas in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. · Serves nearly 16 million people living in a 5,200-square-mile service area. · Has service area economy worth $450 billion annually. · Serves 27 member agencies: 4 cities 2 municipal water districts county water authority · Owns and operates the 242-mile Colorado River Aqueduct, which transports up to 1.2 million acre-feet of water to urban Southern California annually. · Has 51-member board of directors: -- The member agencies appoint the directors. Each member agency is entitled to at least one director. Six directors represent the County Water Authority. The directors are business and civic leaders with diverse professional and technical backgrounds who live in the communities they represent. · The County Water Authority is the largest user of Metropolitan water -- about 23 percent of all water provided by the district. Bacl~ground: The Situat#on · Unless water districts improve their facilities, San Diego County and the rest of urban Southern California face potential water shortages even in non-drought years. · The regional water delivery and storage system is inadequate to meet the needs of residents today: -- The pipeline system is plagued by bottlenecks that inhibit water delivery. Some parts of San Diego County are served by a single pipeline. -- The region lacks adequate capacity to store water avaiiabJe during wet years for use during droughts. San Diego County Water Authority Projected water demand AF (thousands) 1,200 1,000 8OO 6OO 4OO 2OO 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 · These problems will place additional strain on the regional water delivery system unless we oct to solve them today. -- San Diego County's population is projected to exceed 3 million in 2010. Water demand is expected to be 900,000 acre-feet per year (without taking planned conservation activities into account). Peak water usage thus far was 650,000 acre-feet in 1990. -- The population served by Metropolitan is projected to be almost 19.5 million in 2010. Annual water demand is expected to increase from 3.4 million to 4.5 million acre-feet in 2010. · Formerly reliable imported water sources such as the State Water Project, Colorado River and Los Angeles Aqueduct now are less dependable. - · The statewide water delivery system is aging and vulnerable to earthquakes and pipeline failures. · The demand for water SANDAG Series 8 Population Forecast for environmental enhancement is Population (millions) 4 increasing, especially in the Sacramento-San 3 Joaquin River Delta -- source of State Water 2 Project deliveries -- but also along the Colorado 1 River. 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year -- [] Historic · Forecast CWA Population 97% of County Populotion Trouble Spots · The County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District are addressing several particular trouble spots in the regional water delivery system, including: · Insufficient pipeline capacily. Existing facilities are inadequate to transport water from north to south, both in urban Southern California generally and in San Diego County particularly. During non-drought years in the past, the existing pipelines could not meet water demand during warmer months. · Lack of backup facilities. People living in south and east San Diego County areas are served by a single pipeline. · Inadequate reservoir storage. Additional storage facilities are needed so more water will be available in emergencies or severe, prolonged drought. The county's last major reservoir was completed in 1953. Since then, several water agencies, including the Authority, have attempted unsuccessfully to gain permission to construct major new reservoirs. · Lack of reliable local water supplies. Based on analysis of past rainfall totals, the Authority assumes local supplies have a dependable (minimum) annual yield of 25,000 acre-feet -- compared with annual local water use of about 550,000 acre-feet in recent years. Normal local yield is 60,000 acre-feet. ,,Bint ining e reliable water su##1y: Delivery County Wafer Authority · The County Water Authority initiated its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in 1989 as a long-range plan to ensure that the county's water supply is reliable now and into the 21 st century. CIP projects are designed to enhance, expand and repair the regional pipeline system that typically supplies 90 percent of the county's water. · The CIP projects ore designed to: -- Upgrade and expand the capacity of the Authority's pipelines to meet present and future water demand. -- Allow increased imported water deliveries from the Metropolitan Water District into the county. -- Eliminate operational bottlenecks and facilitate pipeline maintenance by increasing the water-delivery system's flexibility. -- Make the system more reliable, especially where water delivery depends on a single pipeline or source. -- Provide adequate storage capacity to meet emergency need. (See Emergency Water Storage Project section.) SAN LUIS REY CROSSINGS PIPELINE 6 NORTH COUNTY DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE SAN MARCOS PIPELINE PIPELINE 5E-I '* RAMONA RANCHO PENASQUITOS ~ ~ BYPASS PIPELINE " SCRIPPS RANCH PIPELINE MISSION TRAILS PIPELINE , L~ MESA-LEMON GROVE ~ ,~ ¢ L~KE JEr,lrZlN¥-S PIPELINE '-~' LOWER OTAY PIPELINE ¢" -- PADRE DAM & OTAY PIPELINE4E-[I TREATED WATER SUPPLY - AQUEDUCT PROTECTION PROGRAM - - EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS - AQUEDUCT CONTROL SYSTEM - EMERGENCY STORAGE PROJECT - MITIGATION PROGRAM LEGEND PLANNING / EIR DESIGN STAGE COMPLETE, IN USE UNDER CONSTRUCTION Specific Water Authority Capifal Improvement projects include: - Project Project significance Pipeline 6 Increases raw water supply into county, (joint project improves delivery capacity to entire service area, with MWD) provides additional raw water capacity to treat- ment plants, allows pumping from south to north Pipeline 5E: Increases raw and treated water delivery capacity to county south of Vista, allows pumping from south to north Pipeline 4B: Parallels pipeline serving area south of I-8, increases raw and treated water delivery capacity to South County, allows pumping from south to north Pipeline 4E: increases reliability and capacity of raw water deliveries to Alvarado and Lower Otay Pipeline Otay treatment plants, provides ability to deliver treated water south of Sweetwater River and to pump from south to north North County increases ability to deliver treated water to Vista, Distribution San Marcos, Rainbow and Oceanside Valley Center Pipeline increases reliability and capacity of treated water (2A) deliveries to First Aqueduct, provides flows to first or second aqueduct in emergency Ramona Pipeline Provides treated water deliveries to Ramona, _ Oiivenhain, Rancho Bernardo and Rancho Penasquitos Metropolitan Water District The Metropolitan Water District has its own Capital Improvement Program to main- tain the reliability of urban Southern California's water supply. Many of the projects will result in additional water delivery and storage capacity serving San Diego County. They include: Project Project significance Inland Feeder Nearly doubles capacity to deliver state project water into Lake Skinner service area (which supplies San Diego County), improves water quality, provides second water source for Domenigoni Valley reservoir San Diego (:anal Significantly increases water delivery capacity into service area that includes San Diego County Pipeline 6 Increases raw water delivery capacity to (joint project San Diego County, provides additional raw water with Authority) capacity to treatment plants Metropolitan Water District The Metropolitan Water District has its own Capital Improvement Program to main- tain the reliability of urban Southern California's water supply. Many of the projects will result in additional water delivery and storage capacity serving San Diego County. They include: Project Project significance Inland Feeder Nearly doubles capacity to deliver state project water into Lake Skinner service area (which supplies San Diego County), improves water quality, provides second water source for Domenigoni Valley reservoir San Diego Canal Significantly increases water delivery capacity into service area that includes San Diego County Pipeline 6 increases raw water delivery capacity to (joint project) San Diego County, provides additional raw water capacity to treatment plants Emergency storage systems 90,100 AF · The four alternative emer- gency water storage systems vary in terms of cost, environ- mental impacts and location, but each would provide approxi- mately 90,100 acre-feet of addi- tional capacity. This figure, when combined with storage capacity already dedicated for emergency use, would meet the county's projected emergency needs through 2030. ESCONDIDO Reop. = reoperatiee, which involves allocating more reser- voir capacity for emergency storage and adding pipelines and pump stations so water can be delivered as required in an emergency. · AF = acre-feet. One acre-foot SANTEE is about 326,000 gallons, enough water to meet the house- hold needs of two average fami- lies for one year. I Maintaining a Jliable water su##ly: Storage · San Diego County's imported water supply is vulnerable to interruption because of earthquakes, flooding and severe drought. The Authority is acting to ensure the region has enough water to endure a lengthy interruption of its imported water supply without suffering lasting economic and environmental damage. · If the region Joses 60 percent of its imported deliveries for six months, econo'mic damages could total $25 billion (25 percent of projected county economy in 2015) and eliminate 400,000 jobs (23 percent of total in 2015). · The Authority's Emergency Water Storage Project is conducting a combined environmental impact report/environmental impact statement on four emergency storage and delivery systems. When combined with local reservoir capacity aJready dedicated for emergency use, each of the systems would provide enough storage to meet the county's projected emergency needs through 2030. · The four systems are: -- A combination of a new reservoir in Moosa Canyon and the existing Lake Hodges. -- An expansion oF San Vicente Reservoir. -- A combination of a new reservoir in the Olivenhain area with the existing Lake Hodges and San Vicente. -- An expansion and reoperation of San Vicente Reservoir. · The draft EIR/E[S is scheduled to be re[eased this spring for public review and comment. The final EIR/FIS will be presented to the Authority board of directors for a final decision [ate in 1995. · Metropolitan Water District is acting to increase the amount of storage capacity that serves San Diego County and the rest of urban Southern California. · Metropolitan is building a reservoir in the Domenigoni Valley, near Hemet in south Riverside County. The reservoir's capacity of 800,000 acre-feet nearly doubles the amount of reservoir storage owned by Metropolitan and significantly increases the amount of storage available to serve San Diego. The Authority's emergency storage project assumes a supply from the Domenigoni reservoir with be available during a six-month imported water outage. - Maintaining a ~JIi;~#le w;ter su##ly: zocal water resources · The efforts of the Authority and Metropolitan to maintain a reliable water supply includes a commitment to the intensive and cost-effective development of the region's water resources (as opposed to imported water). Development of local water supplies will lessen the region's dependence on imported water. It also offers protection against droughts that affect San Diego's imported water supply. San Diego County's Water Supply 1990s 2010 Projected IMPORTED IMPORTED 82% 9O% * Runoff and * Runoff, groundwater groundwater reclama- t on & desal nation (About 550,000 acre-feet per year} (About 832,000 acre-feet per year, including 70,000 acre- feet saved through long-term conservation measures) · A variety of Authority and Metropolitan programs will increase the amount and reliability of local water sources. They include: -- Conservation: installation of ultra-low-flush toilets, Iow-flow showerheads and other water-efficient plumbing fixtures; use of drought-tolerant landscaping; public education (including a program aimed at students in grades 1 through -- Water reclamation: treating wastewater so it can be reused for several purposes, primarily irrigation. -- Water repurification: treating reclaimed water so it is suitable for introduction into a drinking water reservoir. -- Groundwater recovery and development: recovery involves reclaiming and reusing contaminated groundwater for potable and nonpotable purposes; development comprises the injection of imported water into a high-quality groundwater basin to increase the basin's yield. -- Seawater desalination: removing salt from seawater so it can be used as a potable water source. State water #ssues · The Authority is working with Metropolitan and other urban water agencies to restore the State Water Project's reliability. In an average year, the project delivers no more than half of the water it contracted to provide. -: · Structural improvements can increase the project's yield. They include a new facility to transport water through or around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta more efficiently. New storage facilities are needed north and south of the Delta to capture excess flows during wet years for use during droughts. · As members of the California Urban Water Agencies, the Authority and Metropolitan were closely involved with the establishment of a comprehensive package of actions designed to meet water supply and environmental needs in - the Delta. The joint state-federal agreement has a three-year life; during this time, interested parties must negotiate a comprehensive, long-term management strategy for the Delta. · The Authority and Metropolitan are seeking to arrange water transfer agreements with Central Valley farmers who contract with the federal Central Valley Project. Transfers will enable local water agencies to close shortfalls that result during droughts. However, the state still needs to develop a system to allow voluntary, equitable transfers within the State Water Project. · Metropolitan is acting on several fronts to increase its supply of imported water. The district is funding conservation measures in the Imperial Valley; in exchange, urban Southern California will receive the water that is saved. In addition, Metropolitan has negotiated fallowing agreements with Palo Verde Irrigation District farmers that will result in more water for urban Southern ._ California during shortages. Metropolitan also is negotiating transfer agreements with Central Valley water agencies. ?lolesale water rates other revellue sources · In order to maintain a reliable water supply and avoid frequent shortages, we must invest in our water supply system. These investments will require water rate increases by both the Authority and Metropolitan. · The amount charged by Metropolitan for water is added to the Authority's charge to form the wholesale water rate for San Diego County, which covers the cost of delivering imported water to San Diego. Retail water agencies add their own charge to cover the cost of deliveries to consumers. · The typical monthly residential household water bill in San Diego County is $26.34 (although this figure varies depending on how much water a household uses and where it is located). This is one-third of the typical monthly gas and electric bill and comparable to the monthly cost of cable television service without premium channels. County Water Authority · The rate that the Authority charges its member agencies has been $70 per acre-foot since 1993. On July 1, 1995, the rate will increase by $10 in help fund continued investments in new and upgraded water delivery facilities. The incease will add 42 cents to the typical monthly residential household water bill. · Authority projections indicate that the Authority's rate will increase to $95 per acre-foot by 2003. The increases are necessary to pay for capital projects essential to the region's economic health. If the Emergency Water Storage Project is built, the rate would rise gradually and reach between $130 and $175 per acre-~oot by approximately 2005, depending on the extent o~ the - project chosen for construction. · Water rates provide the bulk of the funds for the Authority's Capital Improvement Program. Three other sources pay for the CIP: standby charges (parcel charges) on all property in the Authority's service area, connection fees for new development and proceeds from bond sales. Metropolitan Water District · Metropolitan's per-acre-foot rate is $335 for raw water and $412 for treated water. As of July 1, 1995, the rate will be $344 for raw water and $426 for treated. · San Diego County's wholesale rate -- adding together the amount charged by the Authority and Metropolitan -- is $424 for raw water and $506 for treated water. · In 2003, Metropolitan's per-acre-foot rate is projected to be $393 for row water. The treated water rate is projected to be $505 per acre-foot, largely because of stringent new treatment regulations. The increases are necessary to pay for capital projects essential to the region's economic health. The rate increase originally was projected to be greater, but MWD instituted austerity measures and scaled back some capital projects to lower the increase by 28 percent compared to 1993 estimates. · Like the Authority, Metropolitan also collects a standby charge on all property in the its service area. The funds are devoted to the district's Capital Improvement Program. #WD's new revenue structure · Metropolitan has conducted a major overhaul of its revenue structure. The new policy, which takes effect in July 1995, institutes a series of new charges designed to ensure that the district has a more reliable revenue stream rather than one almost totally dependent on water sales that vary from year to year. It also gives Metropolitan the stable revenue it needs to fund vital capital improvements. · The new charges will serve as a foundation of fixed revenue for MWD, constituting about 15 percent of: the district's total revenue. The basic wholesale rate for treated and untreated water will remain in place. · The new charges will be passed through to Metropolitan's member agencies as surcharges above the district's regular water rate. The new charges are: -- Readiness-to-Serve Charge. It will cover the district's debt service for construction projects necessary to maintain a reliable water supply for current water-users, as opposed to new customers. The charge will be allocated to Metropolitan's member agencies based on a rolling average of historic water purchases from the district. In FY 1995-96, the Authority will pay about 23 percent of the charge -- $14 million -- because it purchases about 23 percent of MWD's annual deliveries. The charge will increase when MWD's debt service on construction projects increases. -- New Demand Charge. It.is designed to recover the cost of accommodating new demand for MWD water. The charge will be allocated to each member agency based on its use of MWD water above an existing base level for current use. It will start at $1,000 per acre-foot in FY '95-96 and be reviewed annually. The charge does not take effect until an agency's average sales exceeds its base. The Authority anticipates hitting that point in FY 2000-01 on an agency-wide basis. However, some of the member agencies will incur the charge sooner. --Treated Water Peaking Charge. Intended to discourage member agencies J:rom relying on MWD for treated supplies during peak summer demand periods, it is not expected to have a major impact on the Authority. -- Connection maintenance charge. It will recover a portion of the cost o~ maintaining connections beh, veen MWD's regional distribution system and those of its member agencies. As the Authority has few such connections, this charge isn't expected to have o great impact on San Diego County. · The Authority will pass the readiness-to-serve and new demand charges through to its member agencies on the same basis that MWD uses when charging the Authority. The Authority is assessing how to handle the treated water peaking and connection maintenance charges. · The impact of the new charges will vary between the Authority's member agencies. An agency with o growing service area can expect to pay more of the New Demand Charge, while an agency with a static service area may pay nothing toward that charge. All agencies will pay a share of the Readiness-to- Serve Charge, based on their present demand for imported water. Dollars/Acre-Foot Ch~go IL~ $321 ~7 Denver CO Atl~ta GA $628 - MWD Average $633 $1,066 Rates and reliability · The Authority recognizes the impact that rate increases have on o region such as San Diego that is recovering from a recession. · The Authority is reducing expenses wherever such reductions will not impair its 'i mission of providing the county with a safe, reliable supply of water supply. .J · The Authority will strive to hold rate increases to a minimum, whether they occur on the MWD level or at the Authority. · The Authority recognizes the need to maintain progress on water supply and system improvements that are essential to maintaining a reliable water supply. Policy ~,hoices reliable water supply comes with an associated cost. , We must choose between lower rates and improved supply reliability. We cannot have both. , An unreliable water supply will be measured in: -- Lost jobs. -- Lower quality ot: life. -- Further uncertainty for local business. -- Lost investment in landscaping. The cost o~ an unreliabJe water supply is greater than the cost of investing in our economic future. Water Cost vs. Reliability added effect of supply improvements ~r WATER STORAGE PIPELINE ADDITIONS WATER RECLAMATION REPURIFIED WATER CONSERVATION WATER TRANSFERS I-- GROUNDWATER r../) DESALINATION O O -- EXISTING SYSTEM I I I RELIABILITY · The cost of transporting awrage DeliverY,rS treatmer . elements i Water gains in expense as it flows to San Diego County. This map shows what percent of the final, total cost was incurred each step of the wa~ on average for the pedod _ of 1983-1992. For example, during that time, moving water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to the Edmonston ?umping Plant accounted for 8.4 percent of the'tot~ Between 1983 and 1992, 64 percent of the Wat, the Metropolitan Water Distdct of Southern. California (MWD) came from the Colorado River and 36 percent from theState Water Project (SWP). With this blend; the average cost of moving one acre-foot to urban Southern California was $116.79. When system and treatment costs are added in, the MWD spent an average of $245.8~ to deliver one acre-foot du~ng the period from 1983 to 1992. The district used monie~ from its rate stabilization f~nd to lower the aver- age wholesale rate to $217.50. ~ ' ~... ,.~: :: The Water Authority added an average.of $27.50 over th~ 10-year period, So the average wholesale rate in San Diego County was $245 per acm-foot of treat- ed water. L '- ' '~ "~ Today, a wholesale acre-foOt of treated water costS non-agricultural users $482 in San Diego County, with $412 going to the MWD and $70 to the Authority. Par~ of this rate reflects the expense of delivering water to consumers. The rest is invested in the future, going toward capital improvements to make the regional water delivery system more reliable for current and future water- users. *System costs include bond debt service, capital costs, operations and maintenance, financial contributions to water management programs and adjustments to financial reserves. - One acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons. meet the average annual household ~ ~ J ;r to San Diego County Wter is free in California. That's Water must go to 1992. The figures were pro- the law. through a rigorous fil- vided by the Metropolitan Water So why does the typical urban tration treatment District of Southern California homeowner in San Dieg(~ County process so it is safe (MWD). pay about $25 per month for water? to drink. About 90 percent of San Diego Three words: Delivery. In general, County's water is impor[ed in a typi- fge, Storage. Treatment. the farther you cai year via the MWD. Some of the Water must be deliv- live from the county's imported water originates ered from where it is to water's source the in the Sierra Nevada mountains in /ater billwhere people need it for more water costs i Northern California. This water flows residential, business and California. The down the Sacramento River into the recreational purposes, accompanying Sacramento-San Joaquin River Water must be stored, either map illustrates Delta, 500 miles no~th of San Diego. before or after delivery, or both. In this point. The From there, it is pumped by the San Diego County, water is stored in map shows the State Water Project (SWP) into the surface reservoirs -- either artificial average cost of delivering one California Aqueduct. At the lakes formed by dams, or steel tanks acre-foot of water to San Diego Tehachapis, north of Los Angeles, -- until it is needed. County during the period of 1983 the giant Edmonston pumps raise the water 1,926 feet in a single lift -- the highest single lift of any pumps in the world. Colorado River The east branch of the SWP ends at Lake Perris. From there, Aqueduct: MWD's facilities deliver the water to Lake Uavasu to Lake Skinner, in south Riverside Lake Skinner County near Temecula. 4.9% The rest of the county's imporl- ed water comes from the Colorado ~WO River. It makes its way from the Rocky Mountains through six states before reaching Lake Havasu. It then is pumped into the MWD's ~r -liar'. '~=~1. i Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), which extends 242 miles west to Lake Skinner. As the map indicates, Colorado River water is much less experts,ye than that provided by the SWP. This is primarily because the initial stage of the CRA was constructed more than 50 years ago. Moreover, the CRA requires less pumping than does the California Aqueduct. ~h w~ter to Continued from front of future shortages caused by educates people about why they delivery of the county's imported drought, should conserve water and how water supply. Combinations of they can do so. In addition, the water storage and deliver~ Dp- · The Authority continues to Authority funds several programs tions are undergoing environmen- research and develop innovative that evaluate the operations of tal and engineering analysis with ways to meet San Diego County's large-scale water-users and rec- the goal of providing an additional water needs. Among the methods ommend ways they can be more 90,000 acre-feet of reservoir being used and/or studied are efficient. capacity set aside for emergency water conservation, water recla- use within the county, mation, groundwater recovery and · San Diego County students possibly seawater desalination, in kindergarten through the 12th · The Authority has adopted a grade learn about water sources Water Resources Plan that out- · The Authority promotes water and delivewi critical water issues lines how local water supplies conservation as a way of life for and conservation through the may be developed in the future, the San Diego region. In fiscal Authority's school education The plan calls for the Authority to 1994-95, the region's water suppli- program. The program offers diversify its water sources, in- ers will spend $6 million to help classroom visits by Authority crease the amount of water pro- provide ultra-low-flush toilets to personnel and in-service training duced locally and reduce the level county residents. The agency also for teachers. County Water Authority service area and member agencies San Diego County Water Authority A Public Agency - 3211 Fifth Avenue · San Diego, CaJifornla 92103-5718 (619) 682-4100 FAX (619) 297-0511 Dec. 22,199a Interim standards for the Bay-Delta · Background · The consensus agreement · What's next? Background · The estuary formed by the meeting of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay provides water to two-thirds of all California residents, including 2.6 million San Diegans. Water pumped from the Delta by the State Water Project has made up as much as half of urban Southern California's imported water supply. · California agriculture uses Delta water provided by the federal Cenu'al Valley Project to irrigate 200 crops, including 45 percent of the nation's fruits and vegetables. · The Bay-Delta is the West Coast's largest estuary, supporting more than 120 species of fish and large fisheries. It also is the largest wetland habitat in the West. · Because of its dual role as water supply and environmental resource, the estuary is the crossroads where California's $800 billion economy and environment meet. · Urban water-users, farmers, environmentalists and government officials all agree that the Bay-Delta no longer functions as a reliable water supply or an adequate habitat for fish and wildlife. · Responding to mandates of federal water quality and endangered species legislation, federal and state officials have worked for the past year to draft an interim solution to the estuary's problems. Urban water agencies, agricultural irrigation districts and environmental groups played major roles in developing a consensus approach. The consensus agreement · On Dec. 15, federal and state officials announced a comprehensive, coordinated package of actions designed to meet water supply and environmental needs. The resulting agreement, endorsed by all major interests, offers water agencies three years of certainty regarding how much water they will receive from the Bay-Delta. · The new state-federal agreement includes the following features: -- Fresh water requirements. A major point of contention involved how much fresh water must be provided for environmental needs in the estuary, notably those of the endangered winter-mn chinook salmon and Delta smelt. This amounts to a restriction on pumping from the Delta by the SWP and CVP. The agreement require~ about 400,000 acre-feet of water during a normal water year and about 1.1 million MEMBER AGENCIES under severe drought conditions. This latter figure translates to a loss of no more than 5 percent of urban Southern Ca ifornia's total supply. -- Water supply guarantees. The fresh water requirements represent the maximum amount required from the SWP and CVP for the next three years. The federal government will purchase and provide any additional water needed for environmental needs. -- Water quality standards. The federal Environmental Protection Agency issued salinity standards for Suisun Bay, the estuary's nursery, where fresh water from the Delta and salt water from the Bay meet. The EPA also issued survival targets for young mi~ating chinook salmon. -- Requirements for Delta smelt. The federal Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the Delta smelt. The service's final biological opinion on the effect of water project pumping on the Delta smelt is due Feb. 15, 1995 and will include recommendations on fresh water flows that are consistent with the agreement and will ensure adequate habitat for the species -- Other impacts on the estuary. Water agencies agreed to pay $10 million annuaily for tttree years to finance solutions for other causes of fishery decline in the estuary. Chief among these are unscreened pumps that kill thousands of young salmon and smelt in the Sacramento River. · Thanks in large part to the Cahfomta Urban Water AoenC es efforts, the new' agreement offers operational flexibility while still fulfilling environmental requirements. Pumping from the Delta is restricted to differing degrees depending on the time of year. Pumping may be increased or decreased in any month based on best available data to ensure biological protection and consistency with endangered species legislation. This means providing fresh water flows for fish exactly when they need it to help their migration or keep them away from the pumps and allowing increased pumping when harm is not evident. _ · A joint state-federal group -- dubbed CALFED -- will administer the agreement, including the provisions for operational flexibility. What's next? · In March [995, the State Water Resources Control Board will adopt a Bay-Delta water quality con[roi plan that meets both federal and state requirements. With this done, the EPA will withdraw its federal standards in favor of the state's plan. · This agreement represents a three-year truce in which to negotiate a comprehensive, long-term management strategy that meets the needs of water-users and the environment. The long-term agreement should include: -- An ecosystem approach that considers the Bay-Delta and all its fish and wildlife as an organic whole, as opposed to solutions for individual species that do not take other needs into account. -- Consideration of all impacts on fish, wildlife and habitat in the estuary. Factors other than pumping include dredging and filling of channels and marshes, unscreened water diversions from the Delta and its upstream tributaries, pollution, fishing regulations and the introduction of destructive non-native species such as the Asian clam. -- An examination of' facility improvements that isolate the pumps' impacts from the environmentally sensitive central Delta. Other facility improvements may include increased storage north and south of the Delta to hold excess water that is available during flood flows. - SPECIAL EDITIO WaterTalk San Diego County Water Au~norffy VOLUME8 NUMBER5 1993-94 Meeting San Diego County's water needs The Water Authority 'works throngh 2010. diversif?ing its count?wvide during normal ~ears and through its ntember agencies to pro- sources, increasing the alnount of not less than 88 percent of demand vide a safe, reliable water supply to water produced locally and slightly during years of shortage. nlo:'e than 2.6 million San Diego rectucing the county's reliance on Acceptance of the plan indicates Cuuntv residents..~s such. the imported water, the direction the Authoriw vdll fi011ow Authority mnst tbrecast how much The Authority plans to develop to ensure that the regional ~ater sup- water the region will need in the up to 155,000 additional acre-feet of ply remains reliable. It isn't a commit- future and then supply the water in local water annually by 2010, when ment to certain projects, but rather a a cost-effective, environmentally the county's population is projected long-term planning docnment that responsible manner, to be 3.5 million and water demand will be updated every m'o years so it The Authority board of direc- will be about 900,000 acre-feet, meets changing re~onal needs. tots recently accepted a Water Another 75.000 acre-feet will be Resources Plan that will help the available through water transfers t i' Authority accomplish this task. The during do' years. plan outlines bow the Authority Such development will allow the Lester A. Snow might develop water supplies Authority to meet all water demand General Manager To help meet San Diego , : reclamation County's future water needs, the Water Authori~Y plans to develop up to 155,000 additional acre- feet of water, through Conservation conservation and local supply programs. In years of water shortage, Groundwater an additional 75,000 development acre-feet would come from water transfers, primarily from agriculture. Seawater desalination *Note ~,n acre4oot s about 326000 gailons, enough water to meet the household needs of two average families for one .¢ear 2 WaterTalk [ Water for the region San Diego County's local water tiveness of conservation techniques supply -- that which results from rain, require people to change their water- snow and groundwater -- is limited in use habits or to accurately quantify rl s ze and varies wildly from year to year. able long-term water sa~fngs. 1 For planning purposes the Water .Ks such. sa~hngs generated by con- Authority assumes the county can servation measures are used cautious~ depend on ha~dng no less than 25,000 The Authorit7 estimates that through~ acre-feet of local water available annual- conservation, the region can save Iv. The average amount is 60.000 acre- 70.000 acre-tket of water annually by F' feet per year. 20 l 0. Yet local water, if -------.I--,,-~ The Authority, plans to bring about such conservation by properly developed, can be more reliable working with its member agen and less expensive ~ cies to manage water resources* in the most efficient and cost- than the imported water that typically, , effective manner possible. ~ This is done primarily comprises 90 percent of the coun~"s total through use of consep:ation supply. The ! methods -- called "best man- Authority's Water ., g ~ ~ agement practices" (BMPs) --4 Resources Plan that have been describes how the Authoriw, proven to ~ -'- might develop local water erate long- sources through 2010. term ~ater- Local supply development saltings. will take several forms: water The conservation, water reclama- Authoritv's lion, groundwater water conser- development and seawater ration section offers programs in suc~- desalination. Approximately 155,000 areas as audits of large-scale water-us~ .: acre-feet of additional local water will plmnbing retrofits, including the instal- be developed for annual use by 2010. lation of ultra-low-flush toilets; and (An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, detection programs. ~ _ The Water enough water to meet the household In addition, the Authority educates Authority is st~v- needs of two average families for one the public abottt the county's ~ater lng to diverd~*~, San year.) sources, the need to be water-wise at Diego County's water The cost of local supply' develop- times and consep, ation methocls. ~ources through dec, el merit varies, with conservation generally ,p*nent of local supptie~. However, even after the A utho~,ty undertakes the ambi- the least expensive and seawater desali- Water reclamation tiou$ water det,elopmeni effort outlined in nation the most ct)sd?r, The ,&uthorit,,, Twenty water reclamation project; the Water P~source~ Plan. the county will will only develop those local supplies adm n stered by' k)cal agencies me in remain largely de/;endent on imported that cost less than imported water, various stages of development couut~' water. This water reaches the courzty jkom wide. The total annual reuse potenuz~.. .Vorttlern Cali/btTzia. via dw State Water Water conservation from these proiects is projected to be Project. und the Colorado River. v~a (tn Water conservatim~ programs oftSer approximately 50,000 acre-feet bx 20 aquedttct ope'rated by the Metropolitan a local water resource with several bene- The .Mlthorit3"s Water Reclamatik tU erDistm't o]' Southern Cali/brma. fits to the Authority. Deparnnc ~t provides funding and tech But it is difficult to gauge the effkeo nical support tbr reclamation progtaI} - ~VaterTalk 3 J.,d promotes reclaimed water use water to Seawater desalination regionally, recharge The Authority' has evaluated several ~ The ,~.udiority assists reclamation high-qual- specific seawater desalination projects. 4. brts with nvo thnding programs. The iw including a joint desalination/power- Financial ,assistance Program pro,Ades groundwa- generation facility in Baja California. 'e to $50,000 in matching funds for the ter basins .Mso analyzed was a desalination { tdy of potential reclamation projects, for future project that would be constructed along Fhe Reclaimed Water Development potable with the repowering of San Diego Gas ~md makes reclamation projec/s more uses. 8,: Electric's South Bay Power Plant. ,~ st-effective bv providing Authority Since Due to power costs and a varieW of fiaember agencies with up to $100 per such regulator}, issues, seawater desalination acre-foot of water that is reclaimed and basins remains more expensive than other [sed. methods for developing local water sup- generally are plies. However, it remains ~dable on a Groundwater development already long-term basis. The Authority contin- ': San Diego County's groundwater being ues to examine desatinadon through :iources are small compared to those used, management agreements would involvement in a pilot project in Orange and Los Angeles counties, have to be negotiated to establish sponsored bv the Metropotitan Water l[-en so, the Authori~' estimates that by rights, responsibilities and operational District of Southern California. ~ La it can develop 15,000 acre-feet of arrangements. The Anthorit~ g; dwater beyond that already being The second category concerns forecasts it ]sed coun%'wide, basins in which the groundwater is may develop L The Authority is examining con- degraded. Such basins may not have up to 20,000 lunctive -- or shared -- use of local institutional and operational complica- acre-feet of 'ZToundwater basins. Potential uses are tions, but the water would require desaited water ~{ nded into ~vo categories, extensive treatment such as desalina- tbr local use ~- The first involves using imported tion prior to any use. bv 2010. Transfers will help when supplies run short Transfers of water bep,¥een willing sellers and buyers will make another water source available to San Diego County, during future times of shortage. For this reason, the Water Authority plans to secure water transfers amounting to approximately 75,000 acre-feet for use when traditional imported and local sources come up short. Most likely, the transfers would be negotiated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern CalLfomia (MM,~D) on behalf of its member agencies, including the Authority. Water transfers might result from so-called dry-year options, under which a landowner such as a farmer agrees to make available part of his or her water supply Continued on page 4 4 WaterTalk -- IEMBER AGENCIES Water Transfers... Del Mar C,mtinued/?r.,~ Page ~ tile federal Central Valleyr Project (CWP). the Escondido first such pact under ktst ~ear's Nati0ual Cit,l during drought years iii exchange for [mplo~ement Act. Oeeanside annual payments. Additional payments are The CX~ Improvement ?0way made when the agency buving the water transIbr of project water to non-CA? users fk)r San Die§0 exercises its "dry-year option" to take deliv- the first time. Since tile CVP controls more Hell× of dronght, this greatly increased the amount of ~ater 0lay San 0ieguit0 ~4.11 be more expensi,,e than the county's Califbrnia lacks legislation streamfining Vailecit0s existing water supply. Water is free under tile n'ansfer process within tile State Water Califbnda law; the cost lies in deliverT, stol Project. Se,~eral bills have I)een introduced Irrigation Districts age and treatment, in Sacramento that would clang' and expo- Santa Fe NB~T) has transfer agreements in place (lite transfers, but none has 3'et gained South Bay ~4th several agricultural water agencies. It approval. Vista Public Utility District Fallbr00k ~ The San Diego County Water Colorado River and the State Water Federal Agency 1~1111~' Authority works through its 24 member Project to the Authority and 26 other Pendlet0o Military ~ ~ agencies to supply water to 2.6 million member agencies. Reservation San Diego County residents. The After readin~ WaterTalk, please pass Municipal ~ater Districts _~llllla~ Authority was established as a public it to someone else. If you ~ould like to be ~liveuhain ~m,... began delivering water in 1947, the Authority, call the Public ?fffairs Padre Dam i~ Authority has consistently ensured that Department at (619) 6824125. Ramona able water supply. WaterTalk The Authority which encompasses Copyright © 1993 aine0n del Diablo ~ 907.006 acres, is governed by a 34-mem- San Diego County Water Authority 'tuima ~ member agencies. Editor: Mark Stadler Court'~ ~ The Authority is a member of the Design: Sue King Sail Diego {ex officio) ~ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Public Affairs Director: California, which supplies water from the Patricia A. Tennyson Bulk ~ate U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 2325 San Diego County San Diego, CA Water Authority PRINTED ON RECYCLED P4PER Water Storage County Moose Canyon Olivenhain {68,000 acred:eet) + Water Storage Project reoperated Lake Hodges (18,000 c~cre-~eet ), (22,100 acre-J:eet) reoperated Lake Hodges (20,000 acre-Feet) · 340-~oot dam and new reservoir in and expanded Moosa Canyon, located in Valley San Vicente Reservoir Center. (52,100 acre-feet) · 84-inch pipeline and pump station to · 320-foot dam and new reservoir at deliver water from reservoir to existing Olivenhain project site southwest of Authority pipelines. Escondido. · 42-inch pipeline and pump station · 48-inch pipeline and pump station to connecting Lake Hodges to existing connect Olivenhain project and Lake Authority pipelines. Hodges so they can operate as one. · Water would be delivered to most of · 60-inch pipeline and pump station to county by gravity; two new pump sta- deliver water from Olivenhain project - finns would be needed to pump water to existing Authority pipelines. north oi Moosa. · 234-foot San Vicente dam would be · Various private citizens own portions of raised 54 feet. Moosa Canyon. The City of San Diego owns Lake Hodges. · 72-inch pipeline and pump station to deliver water from San Vicente to · Advantages: some potential to construct existing Authority pipelines. project in phases to reduce rate impacts; potential cost benefit of joint · in general, water would be delivered to use of Hodges with several member northern areas from Oiivenhain/ II,~'he four systems to be in, agencies; storage located at two sites; Hodges (using new pump stations) and reliable and efficient because of eleva- to the south from San Vicente. ronmentol impact.$tatement/~lle mental impacts and Iocotio rich, ability to deliver water by gravity · Olivenhain Municipal Water District acre-feet of emergency water and minimal pumping, owns Oiivenhain project site. City of combined with storage cap~ San Diego owns Lake Hodges and gency use and enhanced Io,,~ San Vicente. desalination and groundwater · Advantages: greatest potential to county's t~rojected emergen! construct project in phases to offset rate ed storage requirements tak~i'~ impacts; potential cost benefit of joint ongoing conservation and r,! use of facilities with several member rationing that would occur -- agencies; minimal residential displace- about 326,000 gallons, enou: ment; few environmental impacts; I storage located at two sites; potential needs of two average famili for hydroelectric power development. ! Expanded Expanded San Vicente Reservoir (68,000 acre-feet) (90,100 acre-feet) and reoperated · 234-foot San Vicente dam would be San Vicente Reservoir raised 83 feet. (22,100 acreJfeet) · 96-inch pipeline and pump station to · 234-foot San Vicente dam would be deliver water from reservoir to existing raised 65 feet. Authority pipelines. · 96-inch pipeline and pump station to · Two more new pump stations would be deliver water from reservoir to existing needed to move water north in the Authority pipelines. aqueduct. · Two more new pump stations would · City of San Diego owns San Vicente. be needed to move water north in the aqueduct. · Advantages: cost benefit of potential joint use of facility with City of San · Some existing usable storage capacity in Diego; minimal community impacts; no San Vicente would be redesignated as residential displacement; Few environ- emergency storage. mental impacts; Iow overall cost; · City of San Diego owns San Vicente. moderate potential to construct project ° Advantages: similar to San Vicente Stand in phases to offset rate impacts. Alone 'A" alternative; additional bene- fits include somewhat reduced environ- mental impacts due to lower dam height. Emergency .Storage Alternat,ves 90,100 Al~ Realizing San Diego County faces systems resulting from this process an emergency water storage shortfall, were announced in October t 993 the Authority established the Emeri and then subiected to further review. gency Water Storage Project (ESP) In April 1994, Authority staff in 1990. From the beginning, the unveiled a list of four systems for a ESP has had no preferred alternative; final, rigorous environmental review. every option has received equal When combined with existing reser- consideration. voir capacity, each of the systems will Project staff initially reviewed 57 meet the county's projected emer- sites where water could be stored, ger~cy storage needs through 2030. either above or below ground, for The Authority is presently pre- emergency use. Criteria such as Ioca- paring the required federal environ- tion, elevation and volume and envi- mental impact statement (ELS) and ronmental, operational and financial state environmental impact report yardsticks were used to narrow the (EIR). The draft EIR/EIS should be number of potential sites, available for public review and com- At this point, the Authority decid- ment in late 1994. Public meetings ed to combine the storage sites in and workshops will be scheduled various combinatlons of storage and and well publicized. delivery options that would meet the Alter the public comment period county's needs in a cost-effective, concludes, the final EIR/EIS environmentally sensitive fashion, will be completed and Some 32 of these systems were released before the Auth- reviewed using more detailed biologi- ority's board of directors cai, archaeological, land use, social, decides which alternative engineering and economic analyses, will be chosen. The Authority ESP staff used a two-step process then will seek the governmen- employing a computer-based deci- tal permit~ required to build sion analysis model to screen and ~e project. (See back page rank these alternatives. The top 13 for timeline.) The San Diego County Water Authority is acting to ensure that we have enough water to survive a lengthy interruption of our imported water supply without lasting economic and er~viron- mental damage? Everyone in San Diego County Most of the capacity in major would be affected if the facilities car- local reservoirs is designated for day- rying our imported water were sev- to-day use and existing emergency ered by an earthquake or other dis- storage, while some is reserved for aster. The Authority's Emergency flood control. This leaves little room Water Storage Project aims to correct for additional emergency storage this situation by increasing the capacity. amount of water available within the After accounting ~or mandatory county for emergencies, water rationing that would occur in Construction of additional emer- an emergency, the Authority calcu- gency water storage capacity is nec- lates the county is approximately essary because the county's existing 40,000 acre-feet short today of the reservoir system is inadequate. Our emergency water storage capacity it last major reservoir was constructed would need during a six-month in 1953, when the county's popula- interruption of the imported water tion was about one-quarter of what supply. it is today. Since almost all of the local reservoirs were built in the early 20th century, most are not connected to the imported water pipelines. This makes it difficult to deliver water around the county as may prove nec- essary during an emergency~ (None of the reservoirs are owned or oper- ated by the Authority.) 1988 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 2005 ,- Final Decision an8 EIR/EIS Ce~lification Public participation is an inte- the emergency storage issue. gral component of the Emergency The public outreach effort led to Water Storage Project (ESP). The the establishment of a 27-member Authority is actively seeking public citizen committee representing local - participation in the project well environmental, business, recreation- beyond legal requirements, al and other interests, including resi- The ESP public outreach pro- dents living near the sites where a gram includes presentations to com- reservoir may be built. Committee munity groups, government officials members helped the Authority to and media concerning the project, establish standards used in the ESP representatives conducted screening and ranking of 13 emer- approximately 100 briefings in 1993. gency storage alternatives. The Authority's outreach pro- The Authority has hosted sever- gram is a two-way street. Not only al community open house meetings do Authority representatives inform and workshops. In addition, the people about the storage project; project publishes an informational county residents also let the newsletter that is sent to everyone Authority know their feelings about on the ESP mailing list. To request a ~peaker, get on the proi~:t mailing list or ge more information, please call the Emergency Water Storage Project hotllne -- (619) 457-0993. REPURIFIED WATER - State-of-the-Art Technology for the year 2000 FACT SHEET Who and What The San Diego County Water Authority (Authority) and the City of San Diego are studying the feasibility of purifying reclaimed water so it can supplement the region's potable water supply. The water repurification proc. ess involves taking reclaimed water to a further step of treatment. Traditional water reclamation technology treats wastewater to a quality suitable for beneficial nonpotable uses such as irrigation. In water repu rification, state-of-the-art technology treats reclaimed water to meet or exceed stringent state and federal potable water quality standards. This advanced technology incorporates reverse osmosis treatment to remove organic and inorganic impurities. The California State Department of Health Services (DHS) has given conditional approval of the concept and encouraged further study. If studies show this repurification effort is feasibJe, repurified water would be blended with water in a local reservoir, augmenting both imported and local supplies. The blended water would be stored in a reservoir until it is delivered to a conventional water treatment plant for further filtration and disinfection. It then would be delivered to consumers. Where If approved, the initial water repurification project will involve City of San Diego facilities. Wastewater will be repurified at the North City Water Reclamation Plant and delivered to the San Vicente Reservoir. After storage in the reservoir, the blended water will be conveyed to the Aivarado Water Filtration Plant for treatment and finally, distribution to consumers. Water repurification is practiced in other areas of the nation. In Orange County, California, repurified water has been injected into groundwater basins since 1976. A Northern Virginia agency has been blending repurified water into a reservoir since 1978. And, positive results have been achieved already with a 1 O-year study conducted at the Aquaculture plant that was initially located in Mission Valley, but recently moved to the San Pasqual Valley. FACT S H EET Continued Why San Diego County is 90 percent dependent on imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River. The Authority is committed to finding ways to decrease San Diego's future dependence on this imported water. The water repurification process would provide a reliable, renewable and local source of potable water that would expand the region's total avails, hie supply. Also, because repurified water can be stored in a reservoir, more water can be recovered and reused than with traditional reclaimed water that cannot be placed in existing stora§e facilities. When The Authority and the City of San Die§o submitted their comprehensive water repurification proposal to the DH$ for consideration in June 1994. In August 1994, the DHS responded by granting conceptual approval and calling for additional studies of system reliability and reservoir flow. Based on the results of these studies, the Authority could receive a conditional demonstration project permit from DH$. If the Authority Board of Directors approves the project, the conditional permit then would be converted to an unconditional permit after three years of successful operation. A water repudfication project could be fully operational by 2000. ANTICIPATED PROJECT TIMELINE I~ 1995 ................I.~99,6 ~ Definition ~ Permitting, Design For more information, call the San Diego County Water Authorityt 682-4100. REPURIFIEDWATER - State-of-the-Art Technology for the year 2000 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Acre-foot - A measurement for water that equals approximately 32.5,900 gallons, or the amount of water needed to cover one acre of land to the depth of one foot. An acre-foot will supply the water needs of two families for one year. Cryptosporidium - A pathogenic protozoa found in untreated water that feeds on bacteria and other micro-organisms. It is essential in the natural purification of streams and in biological water treatment processes because it maintains a balance of different groups of micro-organisms. If ingested by humans, cryptosporidium can cause diarrhea and may pose a health threat to those with already compromised immune systems. Cryptosporidium is removed during drinking water treatment by filtration, reverse osmosis and disinfection (chlorination). Desalting or Desalination - Specific treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis or multi- stage flash distillation, to demineralize sea water or brackish (saline) water for reuse. Desalination can also be used in wastewater treatment to remove salts and pollutants. Direct Reuse - When wastewater is treated and put in a pipe or reservoir for delivery to a specified user. Giardio lamblio - ^ protozoa similar to cryptosporidium found in untreated water. Humans exposed to giardia experience mild to severe diarrhea, nausea and indigestion. Giardia is removed during drinking water treatment by filtration and disinfection. lAP - The Independent Advisor,/. Panel is comprised of nationally recognized experts in the fields of public health, drinking water treatment and water reclamation. The I^P is advising the Authority and the California Department of Health Services on the proposed water repurification project. Indirect Potable Reuse - The advanced treatment of reclaimed water for augmentation of a local reservoir from which water intended for potable uses is drawn. Indirect Reuse - Wastewater that is returned to a river or underground reservoir that inadvertently becomes part of the water withdrawn for additional uses. MGD - Million gallons per day. - Primary Treatment - The first step in wastewater treatment using physical methods such as sedimentation to remove pollutants. GLOSSARY OF TERMS Continued Reverse Osmosis - The process by which minute impurities are removed from water as a result of pumping the water through a special membrane. RWRC - The Repurified Water Review Committee was convened at the request of the Authority to review the proposed repu rifled water project, identify potential public co ncerns and community issues, and suggest additional data needed to allow adequate evaluation of the proposal The 17-member RWRC met between July and November 1994. Secondary Treatment - The second step of the wastewater treatment process harnesses beneficial organisms to assist with the removal of pollutants, producing 85 percent removal efficiencies for biological oxygen demand (BAD) and suspended solids (TSS). Water undergoing secondary treatment is suitable for ocean disposal. State Water Proiect ($WP) - California's state-owned and operated water project consists of 444 miles of canal and reservoirs that deliver water from the Sacramento Valley to Southern California. Tertiary Treatment - The treatment of wastewater beyond the secondary biological stage for water reuse purposes. Tertiary treatment involves the removal of pathogens and a high percentage of suspended solids through filtration and disinfection. Water which has undergone tertiary treatment is suitable for any use not involving human consumption. Wastewater - Water that has been previously used by a municipality, industry or agriculture and has suffered a loss of quality as a result. Wastewater is §eneral]y 98 to 99 percent water and one to two percent waste. Water Reclamation - Treatment and management of municipal, industrial and agricultural wastewater to produce water of suitable quali~ for additional beneficial, nonpotable uses. Water Repurification - Reclaimed water that has undergone advanced treatment, improv- ins its quality so that it meets or exceeds state and federal drinking water standards. The repurified water is then stored in a surface reser,/oir with imported water supplies and local runoff, and eventually extracted for further treatment and distribution to users. Water Reuse - The beneficial use of reclaimed or repurified water. REPURIFIEDWATER - Slate-of-the-Art Technology for the year 2000 STEPS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPURIFIED WATER PROJECT 1978 Research and development of the City of San Diego's Aquaculture Project began. Project incorporated advanced treatment of reclaimed water using reverse osmosis. July 1985 Establishment of a blue ribbon Health Advisory Committee and start up of the Health Effects Study for the Aqua [I Project. The objective of the Health Effects Study was to investigate if advanced treatment of reclaimed water using reverse osmosis could reduce contaminants to levels where the health risks were no - greater than those of the existing water supply. Winter 1992 The Health Advisory Committee published the final results of the Aqua II Health Effects Study. The Committee found that the health risk associated with the use of the Aqua II advanced treated reclaimed water was less - than or equal to the use of the existing raw water supply from Lake Miramar. 1993 Construction of a full scale Aqua'ill facility in San Pasqual Valley. Continued refinement of the Advanced Water Treatment process and on-going health effects research on repurified water. June I993 The San Diego County Water Authority (Authority) begins development of a conceptual feasibility study that identifies a potential water repurification project using tertiary treated water produced at the City of San Diego's North City Water Reclamation Plant and storing the water for subsequent potable use at San Vicente Reservoir. August 1993 The Authority and the City of San Diego present the conceptual study to an audience of.regulatory agencies, which includes the California Department of Health Sewices (DHS), Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board and County of San Diego health officials. The DHS indicates it is cautiously optimistic that a project like this can be approved. DHS requests that a detailed feasibility study be prepared and submitted for its review. September 1993 The Authority and the City of San Diego agree to work jointly to develop a water repurffication project. As the regional water agency, the Authority is designated as the lead agency to conduct the necessary studies -- and work with DHS. Continued October 1993 To assess community attitudes toward the concept of repurified water, project planners implemented a three- pronged research program that included telephone surveys, focus groups and community leaders interviews. Public education efforts will continue including a media education campaign, developing information materials, conducting a Repurified Water Review Committee and making educational presentations. December 1993 The Authority Board of Directors approves the selection of Montgomery Watson to develop the detailed water repurification project proposal for submission to DHS. February 1994 An Independent Advisor~ Panel (lAP), made up of nationally recognized experts in the fields of water treatment and public health, is formed to provide technical oversight of the proposal and to act as an objective advisor to DHS in its review of the project. The members o[ the lAP were individually selected by DHS. March-April 1994 The lAP meets with Authority staff and consultants on four separate occasions to review key components of the proposal and recommend changes. - May 1994 The lAP completes its review of the draft project proposal and forwards its comments to the Authority and DHS. June 1994 The final proposal incorporating recommended ~:efinements from the lAP is forwarded to OHS for its review. DHS indicates that a decision will be given by the end of August. June 1994 - July 1994 RWRC members are recruited. Stakeholder interviews are conducted to gauge public awareness and identi[7 issues. July 14, 1994 RWRC Meeting #1 RWRC and project team members are introduced, the Statement of Purpose and Principles of Participation are reviewed and an overview of the Water Resources Plan and SANDAG Series Eight population and growth statistics is given. August 4, 1994 RWRC Meeting #2 Water and wastewater treatment, water repurification background and the DHS proposal are overviewed. A -- hands-on overview of membrane technology is given. August 20, 1994 RWRC Water FaciJities Bus Tour A tour of San Vicente Rese~oir, San Pasqual Water Treatment Plant, Miramar Water Treatment Facility and North City Water Reclamation Plant construction site is conducted. August 31, 1994 DHS grants conditional approval to the Authority to proceed with the proposed repurified water proiect. September 22, 1994 RWRC Meeting #3 A discussio~ of OHS conditional approval of repurified water proposal is held. An ove~,iew of project cost and economics ~s given. October 6, 1994 RWRC Meeting #4 A recap and discussion o(project cost and economics is held, and an overview of community outreach and public perception issues is given. Break-out sessions are held to discuss cost and public perception issues. November I, 1994 RWRC Meeting #5 A panel discussion is conducted with representatives or' the DHS, Environmental Protection Agency, Indepen- dent Advisory Pane[ and Western Consortium for Public Health. An open discussion is held, and a recap o~ a focus group meeting on technical i. easibility is given. November 17, 1994 RWRC Meeting #6 The RWRC reviews and finalizes its final report. December 1994 The Authority Board of Directors reviews staff recommendation and the RWRC final report. 1995- ! 996 Detailed planning phase of Repurified Water Project and environmental review begins. 1996-1998 The project enters the design phase. 1998-2000 The project enters the construction phase. 2000 Repurified water is produced to supplement local drinking water supplies.