- Soquel Creek Water District

Transcription

Water Recycling Facilities Planning Study
Final Report
June 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... vii
Background ....................................................................................................................................... vii
Water Supply Alternatives ................................................................................................................. vii
Recycled Water Market Assessment.................................................................................................viii
Recycled Water Feasibility Assessment............................................................................................viii
Recommendation ............................................................................................................................... ix
1.0
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
2.0
Project Background .....................................................................................................................1
3.0
Study Area Characteristics ..........................................................................................................3
3.1
Hydrologic Features and Existing Water Resources ...............................................................3
3.2
Land Use and Population Projections......................................................................................4
3.3
Beneficial Use of Recycled Waters..........................................................................................5
4.0
Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities ................................................................................6
5.0
Project Alternative Analysis .........................................................................................................6
5.1
Water Recycling Alternatives...................................................................................................7
5.1.1
Regional Water Recycling Facility ...................................................................................7
5.1.2
Satellite Reclamation Plant ..............................................................................................7
5.2
Non-Recycled Water Alternatives............................................................................................7
5.2.1
Regional Seawater Desalination Plant.............................................................................8
5.2.2
Water Import/Groundwater Banking ................................................................................8
5.2.3
Soquel Creek Diversion ...................................................................................................8
5.2.4
On-Stream Reservoir .......................................................................................................8
5.3
No Project Alternative ..............................................................................................................9
5.4
Water Conservation/Reduction Analysis .................................................................................9
5.5
Pollution Control ....................................................................................................................11
5.6
Summary of Project Alternatives ...........................................................................................11
6.0
Recycled Water Market Assessment.........................................................................................13
6.1
Recycled Water Supply and Demand....................................................................................13
6.1.1
Seascape Golf Course...................................................................................................19
6.1.2
Seascape Resort and Seascape Greens ......................................................................20
6.1.3
Polo Grounds and Aptos Junior High.............................................................................21
6.2
Summary of Recycled Water Market Assessment ................................................................24
7.0
Wastewater characteristics and Facilities..................................................................................24
7.1
Existing Wastewater Facilities ...............................................................................................24
7.2
Wastewater Flow Monitoring and Characterization ...............................................................26
8.0
Treatment Requirements for Discharge and Reuse ..................................................................28
8.1
California Department of Public Health Requirements ..........................................................28
8.2
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements ...........................................30
9.0
Conceptual Satellite Reclamation Plant design .........................................................................30
9.1
Planning and Design Assumptions ........................................................................................30
9.2
SRP Treatment Processes ....................................................................................................31
9.3
SRP Certification Requirements ............................................................................................33
9.4
Seascape Golf Course SRP ..................................................................................................33
9.5
Polo Grounds Park/Aptos Junior High School SRP...............................................................38
9.6
Discussion on SRP Opinion of Cost ......................................................................................41
10.0 Jurisdictional Authority and Cooperation with Other Agencies ..................................................42
11.0 Potential Project Pitfalls.............................................................................................................42
12.0 Construction Financing Plan......................................................................................................43
12.1 Financing Alternatives ...........................................................................................................43
6/26/2009
i
12.2 Funding Sources....................................................................................................................43
12.2.1
Grant Funds ...................................................................................................................43
12.2.2
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) .....................................................................44
12.2.3
Issuance of Debt ............................................................................................................45
12.2.4
Funding from District Revenues –Rates, Charges, Reserves .......................................45
12.3 Financial Assumptions...........................................................................................................45
12.3.1
Other Revenue Sources ................................................................................................46
12.3.2
O&M Costs ....................................................................................................................46
12.4 Funding Alternatives ..............................................................................................................46
12.4.1
District’s Existing CIP.....................................................................................................46
12.5 Alternative A - Normal CIP with only SRP at Seascape Golf Course ....................................48
12.6 Alternative B - Normal CIP with Both Seawater Desalination and SRP ................................50
12.7 Impact on Customers.............................................................................................................52
13.0 Project summary........................................................................................................................56
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................57
6/26/2009
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Water Recycling Facility Study Area ........................................................................................2
Figure 2: Location of District’s Active Groundwater Wells and Service Boundary ..................................4
Figure 3: Location of Potential SRP Sites .............................................................................................17
Figure 4: SGC Summer Supply and Demand (2008)............................................................................20
Figure 5: Scenario #1 – SRP Wastewater Supply and Recycled Water Demand for Aptos JHS.........23
Figure 6: Scenario #2 - SRP Wastewater Supply and Recycled Water Demand for PGP...................23
Figure 7: Scenario #3 - SRP Wastewater Supply and Recycled Water Demand for Aptos JHS + PGP
..............................................................................................................................................................24
Figure 8: Santa Cruz County Sewer System (Soquel Creek Water District Service Area) ...................25
Figure 9: Conceptual Process Flow Schematic for the SRP .................................................................32
Figure 10: Preliminary Layout of the SGC SRP ....................................................................................36
Figure 11: Proposed Location of SRP at Seascape Golf Course..........................................................37
Figure 12: Preliminary Layout for PGP/Aptos JHS SRP .......................................................................40
Figure 13: Construction Cost Increases Since 2004 .............................................................................41
6/26/2009
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Estimated Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts for Santa Cruz County ..............5
Table 2: Summary of Recycled Water Benefits.......................................................................................5
Table 3: Average District Water Demand (in acre-feet per year) ............................................................6
Table 4: Current District Water Demand Management Measures ..........................................................9
Table 5: Summary of Project Alternatives .............................................................................................12
Table 6: Potential Recycled Water Users..............................................................................................14
Table 7: Summary of Potential Recycled Water Customers .................................................................18
Table 8: Irrigation Schedule and Demand at SGC ................................................................................19
Table 9: Dolphin Pump Station Daily Wastewater Flow Rates (Summer 2008)....................................20
Table 10: Average Summer Recycled Water Supply and Demand at Seascape Resort/Greens .........20
Table 11: Average Monthly Recycled Water Demand at Polo Grounds Park .......................................21
Table 12: Average Monthly Irrigation Demand at Aptos JHS (1994-2008) ...........................................22
Table 13: Wastewater Quality Data at Dolphin Pump Station (July – September 2008).......................27
Table 14: Wastewater Quality Data at PGP/Aptos JHS ........................................................................28
Table 15: Recycled Water System Planning and Design Assumptions ................................................31
Table 16: Major Equipment List for SGC SRP ......................................................................................33
Table 17: Instrumentation List for SGC SRP.........................................................................................34
Table 18: Preliminary Opinion of Cost for SGC SRP ............................................................................35
Table 19: Major Equipment List for PGP/Aptos JHS SRP ....................................................................38
Table 20: Instrumentation List for PGP/Aptos JHS SRP .......................................................................39
Table 21: Preliminary Opinion of Cost for PGP/Aptos JHS SRP ..........................................................39
Table 22: Potential Project Pitfalls.........................................................................................................42
Table 23: SFR Eligibility and Terms ......................................................................................................44
Table 24: Financial Assumptions ..........................................................................................................46
Table 25: Rate Adjustments and Debt Issuance – District’s Existing CIP .............................................47
Table 26: Cash Flow Analysis ...............................................................................................................47
Table 27: Rate Adjustments and Debt Issuance - Alternative A ...........................................................49
Table 28: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative A .......................................................................................49
Table 29: Rate Adjustments and Debt Issuance - Alternative B ...........................................................51
Table 30: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative B .......................................................................................51
Table 31: Typical Bill – District’s Existing CIP .......................................................................................53
Table 32: Typical Bill - Alternative A......................................................................................................54
Table 33: Typical Bill - Alternative B......................................................................................................55
6/26/2009
iv
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ACP
AF
AFY
AJC
AMBAG
Aromas
BOD5
BMP
CII
CIP
County
CPI
CT
CWD
District
DMM
DPH
ea.
FM
ft2
ft/s
FY
gal
gfd
GO
gpd
gpf
gpm
hr
IRP
JHS
kW
max
MBR
mgd
mg/L
min
mJ/cm2
MLSS
MPN
N
N2
NA
Na2CO3
6/26/2009
Asbestos cement pipe
Acre-feet
Acre-feet per year
Anna Jean Cummings
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Aromas Red Sands Aquifer
5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Best Management Practice
Commercial, industrial, and institutional
Capital Improvement Plan
Santa Cruz County
Consumer price index
Contact time
Central Water District
Soquel Creek Water District
Demand Management Measure
California Department of Public Health
each
Force main
square feet
feet per second
fiscal year
gallon
gallons per square foot per day
General Obligation
gallons per day
gallons per flush
gallons per minute
hour
Integrated Resources Plan
Junior High School
kilowatt
Maximum
Membrane bioreactor
million gallons per day
milligrams per liter
minimum
milli-joules per square centimeter
Mixed liquor suspended solids
Most probable number
Nitrogen
Nitrogen gas
Not applicable
Sodium carbonate/soda ash
v
ND
O&M
P
PGP
PHF
PVWMA
RAS
RO
RWQCB
SCADA
scfm
SGC
SRF
SRP
Study
TKN
TOC
TSS
UV
VCP
WAS
WDO
WET
WWTP
6/26/2009
Non-Detect
Operations and maintenance
Phosphorus
Polo Grounds Park
Peak Hourly Flow
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
Return activated sludge
Reverse osmosis
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
standard cubic feet per minute
Seascape Golf Course
State Revolving Fund
Satellite Reclamation Plant
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total organic carbon
Total suspended solids
Ultraviolet light
Vitrified clay pipe
Waste activated sludge
Water demand offset
Water Education for Teachers
Wastewater treatment plant
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The Soquel Creek Water District (District) has embarked on a Water Recycling Facilities Planning
Study (Study) to evaluate the feasibility of providing recycled water to select customers through
satellite reclamation plants (SRP) within the District’s service area. This study is part of a
comprehensive program to mitigate overdrafting of the groundwater supply. As part of the District’s
recently adopted Integrated Resources Plan (IRP), the District is looking for new sources of water to
diversify and increase its current water supply portfolio to reliably meet current and future demands,
while at the same time protecting its existing groundwater supply from salt water intrusion. The small
size and siting flexibility of SRPs make them a potentially attractive option for the District, and the use
of recycled water produced by the SRPs would reduce groundwater pumping and help alleviate
groundwater overdraft.
Water Supply Alternatives
The District currently extracts 100 percent of its demand from two groundwater aquifers through 16
active operating groundwater extraction wells. Current demand is approximately 4,850 acre-feet per
year (AFY) and, despite a substantial reduction over the past five years attributable in large part to
conservation, overdraft conditions persist. The most recent future demand projections estimate an
average demand of 5,675 AFY at build out of the current General Plans, assuming continued
conservation savings. The IRP identified various alternatives to provide additional water supply. A
brief summary of those alternatives are provided in Table ES-1.
Table ES-1: Summary of Recycled and Non-Recycled Water Alternatives
Alternative
Status
Comments
Recycled Water Alternatives
Regional Water
Recycling Facility
Satellite Reclamation
Plant
Not Feasible
Feasible
Requires significant upgrades at the regional wastewater
treatment plant to meet Title 22 recycled water requirements
and new recycled water distribution system.
Allows the District to provide recycled water near the recycled
water user within the District’s service area.
Non- Recycled Water Alternatives
Regional Seawater
Desalination Facility
Water Import/
Groundwater Banking
Feasible –
Pilot Testing
Soquel Creek Diversion
Not Feasible
On-Stream Reservoir
Not Feasible
No Project
Not Feasible
Recently completed pilot testing of seawater desalination
facility.
Plans to pursue the pipeline project have been put on hold
indefinitely.
Regulatory issues regarding water rights and fish passage
appear to be fatal flaws for this project.
Numerous projects involving on-stream reservoirs in Central
California are currently engaged in long permitting phases and
many will likely not be approved.
Groundwater aquifers will continue to be over drafted
Implemented
in 2003
Implemented
in 1997
Provide water saving fixture retrofits and/or turf replacements
to offset new developments.
Measures have evolved to provide an annual water savings of
730 AFY or approximately 15% of the total water demand.
Not Feasible
Water Conservation
Water Demand Offset
(WDO)
Demand Management
Measures (DMM)
6/26/2009
vii
Recycled Water Market Assessment
A recycled water market assessment was performed for this Study to update the District’s 2005 market
assessment. A total of 25 potential recycled water users were evaluated based on estimated recycled
water demand and available supply. Potential recycled water users having less than 20 AFY of water
demand were eliminated from this assessment since the cost per acre-foot of recycled water produced
was not cost-effective for an SRP. This decision was made by the District after the 2005 Satellite
Reclamation Plant Feasibility Study, using the Anna Jeans Cummings Park SRP as a benchmark, and
resulted in two sites being considered for further evaluation in this Study (listed in Table ES-2).
Table ES-2: Shortlist of Feasible SRP Locations
Potential
Recycled Water
Customer(s)
Average
Wastewater
Source of Water
Supply Available
(Summer)1
Average
Summer Month
Irrigation
Demand1
Potential
Annual
Groundwater
Savings
Polo Grounds
Park2 & Aptos Jr.
High3
Groundwater Purisima Aquifer
0.04 mgd
0.09 mgd
34 AFY
Seascape Golf
Course2
Groundwater Purisima/Aromas
Aquifer
0.34 mgd
0.33 mgd
134 AFY
1
May 2008 through October 2008
Not a District Customer
3
Currently a District Customer
2
Recycled Water Feasibility Assessment
The Polo Grounds Park (PGP) and Aptos Jr. High School location has an adequate amount of
wastewater available to meet the recycled water demands and is a developed option. However,
adequate flushing velocity (2.5 feet per second) in the wastewater collection system is not available at
this time to scour the sewer system at least once per day and convey sludge generated at the SRP to the
Regional Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The existing collection system near this
location was sized to accommodate nearby communities currently using septic systems. If these
communities are connected to the sewer collection system in the future, the increase in overall sewer
flow and velocity could make the SRP feasible at this location.
The Seascape Golf Course (SGC) SRP has adequate wastewater supply (as indicated in Table ES-1)
available from the Dolphin Pump Station to meet the recycled water demands of the golf course as well
as maintain necessary flushing conditions in the sewer main to prevent solids settlement. The SRP
would utilize membrane bioreactors (MBR) as the primary treatment process to produce recycled water
that meets Title 22 requirements. A preliminary opinion of cost for the SGC SRP is provided in Table
ES-3. The SGC SRP is sized for a treatment capacity of 400,000 gpd (0.4 mgd) in order to meet the
average summer recycled water demand of 328,000 gpd (0.33 mgd). The cost summarized in the first
column in Table ES-3 assumes 24/7 operation of the SRP at plant capacity. However, the SRP would
not be operated at capacity throughout the year and the second cost column in Table ES-3 summarizes
6/26/2009
viii
the cost of recycled water produced based on estimated annual average production of recycled water or
groundwater conserved.
Table ES-3: Preliminary Opinion of Cost for SGC SRP (2008 Dollars)
Cost Based on
SGC SRP
Parameter
Actual Annual
Cost
Average Production
Capacity/Production (gpd)
400,000
121,000
Groundwater Conserved (AFY)
134
Total Estimated Capital Cost
Retrofit Cost
Capital Recovery1
Estimated Annual O&M Costs2,3
Total Estimated Annual Cost
Cost of Water ($/1000gal)
Cost of Water ($/AF)
Cost of Water $/gal of facility capacity
$9,644,000
$686,000
$841,000
$9,644,000
$686,000
$841,000
$272,000
$140,0004
$1,113,000
$981,000
$7.62
$2,500
$2.78
$22.21
$7,300
$8.11
1
Calculated based on a 6 percent discount rate over a 20-year period.
Does not include supplemental water costs
3
Includes 3rd party contract operation costs (approximately $83,000 per year)
4
O&M Cost adjusted based on actual production.
2
Overall, the SGC SRP is technically feasible, providing approximately 134 AFY of recycled water to
offset groundwater pumping within the District’s service area. However, as discussed above, the
District’s other feasible alternative for a new water supply is a regional seawater desalination facility.
The regional seawater desalination facility would have a total capacity of 2.5 mgd and deliver
approximately 1.0 mgd (1,120 AFY) of potable water to the District. A preliminary estimate for the
cost of water produced by the regional seawater desalination facility is within the range of $1,500 to
$2,000 per AF. Based on estimated annual production of the SGC SRP, the cost of water is
approximately $7,300 per AF, which is considerably higher compared to a regional seawater
desalination facility. Providing recycled water within the District to offset groundwater pumping is
technically feasible, but it requires adequate federal/state grant or other outside funding sources (i.e.
State Revolving Loans) to make recycled water financially feasible and comparable with other water
supply alternatives.
Recommendation
The findings and recommendations of this Study was presented at the District’s public Board Meeting
held on June 2, 2009 (meeting agenda and minutes are attached in the appendix). In summary, adding
recycled water to the District’s water supply portfolio is technically feasible. However, recycled water
is not a cost-effective alternative at this time for the District and is not recommended unless grants or
other outside funding sources could be secured to lower the cost of recycled water for it to be
comparable with seawater desalination. A regional seawater desalination facility is a more cost6/26/2009
ix
effective alternative for the District to decrease groundwater pumping and add a new sustainable water
supply to its portfolio.
6/26/2009
x
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Soquel Creek Water District is implementing a comprehensive program to mitigate over drafting of
its groundwater supply. As part of this program, the District is conducting a Water Recycling Facilities
Planning Study to evaluate the feasibility of providing recycled water near potential recycled water
customers through an SRP. The small size and flexibility of SRPs make them a potentially attractive
option for the District, and the use of recycled water produced by the SRPs would reduce groundwater
pumping and help alleviate groundwater overdraft.
The District completed a Feasibility Study in 2005 that identified and evaluated the potential of
providing SRP facilities within the District’s service area. From the 2005 Study, one site warranted
further investigation (i.e., additional wastewater flow monitoring and water quality sampling) to
determine its feasibility. This Study seeks to build on the District’s previous efforts to collect
additional wastewater data, update the recycled water market analysis, and identify any potential
project pitfalls for providing an SRP.
2.0
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The District currently supplies approximately 4,850 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water to its nearby
communities. The District receives 100 percent of its water from two groundwater aquifers, the
Purisima Formation and Aromas Red Sands (Aromas) Aquifers. The Purisima Formation provides
about two-thirds of District's annual production for Capitola, Soquel, and Aptos. The Aromas Aquifer
provides the remaining one-third for the communities of Seascape, Rio Del Mar, and La Selva Beach.
A map of the study area highlighting the service area is provided in Figure 1.
The District recently adopted an IRP in 2006 to mitigate over drafting of its groundwater supply. The
District, like many other utilities in California, is looking for new sources of water to diversify and
increase its current water supply portfolio to reliably meet current and future demands, while at the
same time protecting its existing supply from salt water intrusion. As part of this program, the District
is exploring the possibility of providing recycled water through an SRP for irrigation and non-potable
uses within the District’s service area in an effort to increase water supply.
In addition to stringent planning, demand management, and conservation efforts, the District is seeking
to identify supplemental water supply projects to reduce pumping requirements in the local
groundwater basins. SRPs offer the only viable option for the Soquel Creek Water District to utilize
recycled water, given that the wastewater treatment plant for wastewater generated within the District’s
service area is owned by another agency and is located several miles away. The cost of treatment and
infrastructure upgrades associated with pumping, piping, and conveyance facilities often make
traditional, regional water recycling facilities challenging to implement.
SRPs offer a promising alternative to traditional water recycling facilities constructed as part of a
wastewater treatment plant, where recycled water is produced and delivered to recycled water users.
An SRP using MBR technology allows for a fully automated, small packaged plant to be placed
remotely within the service area to meet the recycled water demands without major infrastructure
upgrades.
6/26/2009
1
Figure 1: Water Recycling Facility Study Area
6/26/2009
2
3.0
STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The hydrologic features, existing water resources, land use/population projections, and potential
beneficial uses of recycled water are discussed in this section.
3.1
Hydrologic Features and Existing Water Resources
The District, the Central Water District (CWD), and the City of Santa Cruz all operate municipal
wells in the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin. The Aromas Aquifer and the Purisima Formation
represent the two primary geologic formations associated with groundwater resources in the
Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin. The Aromas Aquifer underlies the southern third of the
District’s service area and comprises sedimentary deposits that form the hills and coastal terraces
east and southeast of Aptos. The Aromas is composed of sand deposited by rivers, the bay, and
wind, and contains inter-bedded layers of silt and clay. The total Aromas deposit within the
study area is about 400 feet thick and divided into a 225-foot thick upper aquifer unit and a 175foot-thick lower aquifer unit. The Purisima Formation, a collection of distinct geologic subunits, tilts (dips) from west to east due to gradual uplift along the California coast. Geologic
orientation and tilting has caused the Purisima Formation to extend offshore. This structural
configuration allows for the transmission of freshwater to the ocean and under some conditions
may cause saltwater to move inland (i.e., saltwater intrusion). The Purisima Formation
encompasses a 2,000-foot-thick body of sandstone interbedded with layers of siltstone and
claystone. The Purisima Formation beneath the Soquel–Santa Cruz area overlies a “basement”
rock made up of ancient intrusive (i.e., granite) and chemically and structurally altered
(metamorphic) rocks.
The District pumps groundwater from the confined aquifers of the Purisima Formation and the
semi-confined and unconfined units of the Aromas Aquifer. Hydrogeologic studies indicate that
collectively, the District, the City of Santa Cruz, CWD, and other public and private groundwater
users (i.e., golf courses, home owner associations, parks, mutual water companies, etc.) exceed
the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin. Furthermore, groundwater monitoring in the
District service area indicates a landward movement of the freshwater/saltwater interface in the
Aromas Aquifer along the southern coast. There is also reasonable concern that saltwater
intrusion may be affecting the Purisima Formation aquifers under current conditions. Protecting
the District’s groundwater resources involves monitoring and managing groundwater levels and
storage, protecting groundwater quality, preventing groundwater overdraft, maintaining
sustainable groundwater yields, and avoiding saltwater intrusion. Hydrogeologic studies indicate
more water is pumped annually from the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin than is naturally
recharged through precipitation. This annual deficit has resulted in lower groundwater levels and
increased potential for saltwater intrusion. To manage the basin within its safe sustainable yield,
the District needs additional water supplies to: (1) supplement groundwater pumping to meet
customers’ consumptive needs, and (2) arrest the landward movement of seawater and
aggressively push the saltwater/freshwater interface further offshore by raising coastal
groundwater levels. In addition to developing new sources of supply, the District has put
together a Well Master Plan to relocate groundwater production wells in-land to reduce the
potential of salt water intrusion.
6/26/2009
3
The District currently extracts 100 percent of its demand from groundwater using 18 operating
production wells (of which 16 are currently active) located in four service sub areas. Locations
of the District’s active production wells and its service area boundary are provided in Figure 2.
Wells extracting from the Aromas Aquifer are located between Highway 1 and the coast in the
communities of Rio Del Mar, Seascape, and La Selva Beach. Over the past seven years, the
District has extracted 44 percent of the supply from the Service Area I (lower Purisima
Formation aquifers A and AA); 18 percent from Service Area II (Purisima Formation aquifers;
and 38 percent from Service Areas III and IV (Purisima Formation and Aromas Aquifers).
Additional information on the local hydrologic characteristics can be found in the District’s 2006
IRP.
Figure 2: Location of District’s Active Groundwater Wells and Service Boundary
Land Use and Population Projections
3.2
Santa Cruz County (County) is the second smallest county in California with a current estimated
population of 265,000. Every five years, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
(AMBAG) produces a regional forecast of population growth, housing, and employment. Table
1 summarizes the projected population growth for the County, as provided in the 2008 AMBAG
Regional Forecast.
6/26/2009
4
Table 1: Estimated Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts
for Santa Cruz County
The District has made future water demand projections based on continued land developments
and population growth within the urban areas of the County. These projections were made using
the current Santa Cruz County and Capitola General Plans. Development data was provided by
the County and the City of Capitola to conduct a land use analysis. The District expects total
build-out of current General Plans to occur in 2050. The District has a very comprehensive
conservation program and plans o achieve annual savings of 14% or more by build-out. The
District’s per capita water use is already amongst the lowest in the State of California.
Beneficial Use of Recycled Waters
3.3
The use of recycled water will provide a new sustainable water supply for the District by
replacing potable water used for irrigation. The construction and use of SRPs could potentially
provide a new supplemental water supply to help alleviate over drafting of the two groundwater
aquifers. Doing so would reduce the total potable water demand used by irrigation and mitigate
over drafting of the groundwater wells. Furthermore, this will support the District’s goal of
increasing the groundwater supply back to sustainable levels. A summary of the State and local
benefits in recycled water projects is provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Recycled Water Benefits
Benefit
State
Local
Mitigates overdraft of groundwater aquifers.
9
Reduces potential of seawater intrusion into
9
the groundwater aquifers.
9
Preserves quality of groundwater
Increases local water supply portfolio to meet
9
future demands.
9
9
Conservation of groundwater supply.
9
9
Provides sustainable water supply.
9
9
Reduces overall potable water demand.
However, there are potential obstacles and concerns that may need to be addressed with the use
of recycled water at satellite locations. The following lists some of the concerns of constructing
an SRP:
•
•
•
6/26/2009
Capital cost of SRP and possible construction of conveyance piping from source water
Associated annual O&M costs
Solids produced from wastewater treatment process would need to be discharged to a
sanitary sewer
5
•
4.0
Strict water quality monitoring may be required
WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES
The District supplies potable water to a population of approximately 49,000 in the City of
Capitola and in the unincorporated communities of Aptos, La Selva Beach, Rio Del Mar,
Seascape, Seacliff Beach, and Soquel in Santa Cruz County. Approximately 90 percent of the
District’s customers are residential, and the remaining 10 percent are mostly commercial and
institutional. The District receives 100 percent of its water from two ground water aquifers: the
confined aquifer of the Purisima Formation and the Aromas Aquifer. The Purisima Formation
provides about two-thirds of the District's annual production for Capitola, Soquel, and Aptos.
The Aromas Aquifer provides the remaining one-third for the communities of Seascape, Rio Del
Mar, and La Selva Beach.
The District currently operates 16 production wells with a distribution system encompassing
approximately 130 miles of pipeline and 15,300 connections (none are agricultural). The pipes
range in diameter from two to 16 inches. A total of eight groundwater filtration facilities are
provided primarily for iron and manganese removal. Seven of the groundwater filtration
facilities are sand/anthracite pressure filters, and one uses pyrolucite media. The District also
operates 18 water storage tanks with a total capacity of 7.5 million gallons.
Recent hydrological studies indicate the sustainable groundwater yield for the District is
approximately 4,800 AFY or less (3,000 AFY from the Purisima Formation and 1,800 AFY from
the Aromas Aquifer). Through its conservation efforts the District has reduced demand by more
than 10% over the past five years; however, serious overdraft conditions continue to exist. Over
drafting of the groundwater wells has resulted in lower groundwater levels and increased
potential for saltwater intrusion and degradation of groundwater quality. In the Aromas Aquifer,
the District’s monitoring wells indicate that the saltwater/freshwater interface has been moving
onshore. Furthermore, water demand will continue to increase with projected growth. The
District’s projected future demands up to the year 2050 are summarized in Table 3. The adjusted
average demands in Table 3 are based on the District’s estimated water savings from
conservation, decreasing the overall water demands.
Table 3: Average District Water Demand (in acre-feet per year)
2000 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040
5,463 5,530 5,725 5,915 6,145 6,375
Average Demand (AF)
Adjusted Average Demand (AF) 5,463 4,800 4,911 5,016 5,235 5,445
2050
6,625
5,675
To better manage the groundwater at sustainable levels, the District has been implementing water
conservation programs for customers and evaluating alternative water supplies to augment
groundwater pumping.
5.0
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Available alternatives to provide a supplemental water supply to the District are discussed in this
section. The available alternatives are categorized into water recycling alternatives, nonrecycled water alternatives, no project alternative, and water conservation/reduction. Additional
information related to each of the project alternatives can be found in the District’s 2006 IRP.
6/26/2009
6
5.1
Water Recycling Alternatives
The District has two alternatives available to provide recycled water to potential customers
within the District’s service area. These two alternatives are listed below and are discussed
further in this section.
1) Obtain recycled water from a Regional Water Recycling Facility
2) Provide SRPs on-site to the recycled water customer
5.1.1 Regional Water Recycling Facility
The District does not own or operate any wastewater treatment facilities. As summarized later in
Section 7.1, the sewer collection system in the District’s service area is operated by the Santa
Cruz County Sanitation District and the wastewater is treated at a Regional WWTP operated by
the City of Santa Cruz. The treated water at the Santa Cruz WWTP does not meet recycled
water regulations and would need to be upgraded to meet Title 22 regulations. In addition, a
recycled water distribution network would need to be constructed in order to deliver the recycled
water from the Santa Cruz WWTP to the recycled water users in the District’s service area. It
would not be cost-effective to upgrade the treatment processes at the Santa Cruz WWTP and
install new recycled water pipelines just to serve the potential recycled water users in the
District’s service area due to the relatively small recycled water demand. As indicated in the
District’s IRP, the regional recycled water distribution will be re-evaluated if, in the future, the
regional WWTP were to be upgraded to meet recycled water requirements.
5.1.2 Satellite Reclamation Plant
SRPs offer a promising alternative to traditional water recycling facilities constructed as part of a
wastewater treatment plant where recycled water is produced and delivered to recycled water
users. The small footprint and flexibility of SRPs allows the treatment facility to be located in
close proximity to the recycled water user. The main treatment processes at the SRP would be
MBR and ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection. However, potential challenges in providing an SRP
include user agreements/assurances, inter-agency agreements to pump wastewater from the
sewer system, and high production costs associated with smaller capacity treatment systems.
Non-Recycled Water Alternatives
5.2
The 2006 IRP identifies various conjunctive use alternatives to mitigate overdrafting of its
groundwater aquifers. In addition to the use of recycled water, the IRP lists other potable water
supply alternatives including:
1) A regional seawater desalination plant in conjunction with the City of Santa Cruz
2) Imported supply with ground banking utilizing the proposed Pajaro Valley Water
Management Agency’s (PVWMA) import pipeline
3) An off-stream diversion from Soquel Creek for treatment for direct use, and/or for
injection for artificial groundwater recharge
4) An on-stream reservoir on the upper west branch of Soquel Creek (the Glenwood
Reservoir site is District owned property purchased in the 1960’s)
A brief description of each non-recycled water alternative is provided below.
6/26/2009
7
5.2.1 Regional Seawater Desalination Plant
This alternative would involve a partnership between the District and the City of Santa Cruz for
the construction and operation of a regional desalination plant along the coast.
The use of a desalination plant would provide a long-term supplemental water supply for the
district and allow them to keep certain wells out of operation for a prolonged period of time and
in turn allow groundwater to return to sustainable levels. The proposed plant would incorporate
the use of an abandoned wastewater outfall as an intake structure to pull seawater into the plant,
where it would undergo desalination through reverse osmosis (RO) membranes. The waste
stream from the process (concentrate) would be mixed with the effluent from the City of Santa
Cruz wastewater treatment plant and discharged into the ocean through a separate existing ocean
outfall. The plant would have a capacity of 2.5 mgd, and the treated water would be transmitted
to the District through the City of Santa Cruz’s distribution system with some additional
upgrades.
5.2.2 Water Import/Groundwater Banking
Under this alternative, the District would purchase 2,000 AFY of imported water from an out-of
area water supply through the PVWMA’s proposed import pipeline to enhance the recovery of
the Pajaro Valley coastal groundwater basin. About 1,000 AFY of the imported water would
replace the groundwater that is presently being used by agricultural operations in this area and
help speed up the recovery of the aquifer within the PVWMA boundaries. The remaining water
would be used for other agricultural purposes elsewhere in the Pajaro Valley, directly injected
into the Aromas Aquifer that underlies the Pajaro Valley, or stored in facilities outside of the
area for later use. In exchange for providing supplemental agricultural supply to the Valley, the
District would receive potable water from a new groundwater well in Watsonville. This
alternative would require construction of a new groundwater well along with a seven mile-long
transmission pipeline to convey the pumped groundwater.
Plans to pursue the pipeline project have been put on hold indefinitely by the PVWMA;
therefore, this project is unlikely to proceed in the foreseeable future.
5.2.3 Soquel Creek Diversion
The Soquel Creek Diversion alternative would divert up to 9.0 mgd of surface water from Soquel
Creek. The diverted water would be pumped into a settling pond, treated at a new surface water
treatment plant, and conveyed through the District’s water distribution system. When the
diverted water exceeds the demand in the water distribution system, the water would be injected
into the local aquifer through artificial recharge of the groundwater basin. However, this
alternative would also require the construction of approximately 2.5 miles of pipeline for the
delivery of treated diverted water to the District’s distribution system and construction of up to
nine new wells for groundwater injection.
Regulatory issues regarding water rights and fish passage appear to be fatal flaws for this project
and thus, the Soquel Creek Diversion alternative have been eliminated from further
consideration.
5.2.4 On-Stream Reservoir
This alternative would include the construction of an on-stream reservoir (Glenwood Reservoir)
on Soquel Creek. The reservoir would be located on District property purchased in the 1960’s.
6/26/2009
8
From its conception, this alternative has faced criticism for being infeasible due to environmental
impacts, public perception, and permitting issues. However, the District has retained this
alternative as an option for the distant future in case this type of project is needed. The following
are the main factors that lead to the dismissal of the project:
•
Soquel Creek is a federally designated habitat of the endangered steelhead fish species
•
A dam could create a barrier to fish migrations
•
A dam could disrupt downstream aquatic habitats by restricting sediment transport
•
Non-native predator species may become established in the reservoir
•
Numerous projects involving on-stream reservoirs in central California are currently
engaged in long permitting phases and many will likely not be approved.
5.3
No Project Alternative
The no project alternative would result in the District continuing to overdraft from its two
groundwater aquifers, exceeding the basins’ sustainable yield. Over pumping the groundwater
wells will continue to lower the groundwater levels and ultimately lead to saltwater intrusion and
degradation of groundwater quality. The District has already experienced saltwater intrusion
issues in the Aromas Aquifer, leading to significantly reducing the production from one well.
5.4
Water Conservation/Reduction Analysis
In 1997, a water conservation program analysis was developed as part of the District’s long-term
supply planning and IRP. Based on the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s 16 Best
Management Practices (BMPs), the District developed and implemented fourteen (14) DMMs
for water conservation and these are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Current District Water Demand Management Measures
DMM
Description
• Provides indoor and outdoor water surveys for residential
DMM 1 – Residential
customers
Water Survey Program
• Identifies water waste and provides information to improve
water efficiency
• Provides free low-flow showerheads, faucet aerators, and lowDMM 2 – Residential
flow hose nozzles to customers
Plumbing Retrofit
• Tracks customers with a significant water use increase and mails
out leak detection tablets
DMM 3 – System Water
• Maintains a database of leaks within the distribution system
Audits, Leak Detection,
• Areas prone to leaking are given high priority for main
and Repair
replacement
• Meters recording water usage are required on all services
DMM 4 – Metering with
• Allows the District to identify, monitor, and respond to high use
Commodity Rates
customers
DMM 5 – Large
• Improves irrigation efficiency and reduces peak demand of large
Landscape Conservation
landscapes (greater than 3 acres)
6/26/2009
9
DMM
Programs
DMM 6 – High
Efficiency Clothes
Washing Machine Rebate
Program
DMM 7 – Public
Information
•
•
Provides a $100 credit to customers who purchase and install
high-efficiency rated washing machines.
•
Increases community awareness of groundwater management
and water quality issues
Bi-monthly newsletter notifies customers of current District
activities and incentive programs
Utilizes internet, local newspaper, radio and television media to
promote water conservation
Promotes water conservation to students through “water-wise”
school education programs
Provides Water Education for Teachers (WET)
curriculum/training
Provides commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII)
customers free interior and/or exterior water survey
Survey reports provide valuable water-saving information, such
as leak tests, process water improvements, recycling
opportunities, and possible irrigation/landscaping improvements
The District is a retail water supplier exclusively, and this
measure is not applicable
Provides a three tiered price structure for residential customers
with 5/8, ¾ and 1-inch water meters
A full-time Water Conservation Coordinator plans and manages
the District’s water conservation programs with program
dedicated support staff
Establishes interior and exterior policies for all new
developments
Prohibits certain wasteful uses of water and establishes the
District’s authority to disconnect service for constant violators
Provides a credit to customers toward replacing their high water
use toilets (3.5-7gallons per flush [gpf]) with high efficiency
flush toilets (1.1 gpf)
•
•
•
DMM 8 – School
Education
DMM 9 – Commercial,
Industrial, and
Institutional Water
Conservation
DMM 10 –Wholesale
Agency Programs
DMM 11 – Conservation
Pricing
DMM 12 - Water
Conservation Coordinator
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DMM 13 – Water Waste
Prohibition
DMM 14 – Ultra low
Flush Toilet Replacement
Description
Provides participants with water savings information, such as
efficient watering schedules and weather-based irrigation
controllers
•
•
In addition, the District implemented a WDO program in 2003 that allows new growth to have
zero impact on the existing water supply by requiring developers to retrofit existing customers
with water saving fixtures and /or turf replacements. However, there is a limited supply of
retrofits and turf replacements, so this program will eventually sunset. Developer participation
in new water sources such as recycled water is open for discussion.
From establishing and implementing the DMMs, the District projects an annual water
conservation savings of 730 AFY, or roughly 15% of the total potable water demand in 2010.
6/26/2009
10
The District has reviewed and implemented all feasible water conservation programs throughout
the district’s service area. Additional information regarding District water conservation
projections can be found in the 2006 IRP.
Pollution Control
5.5
The waste streams generated by the membrane bioreactor process at the SRP are the waste
activated sludge and periodic chemical waste from membrane cleanings. The two waste streams
are suitable for direct discharge back into the sewer collection system to be treated ultimately at
the Santa Cruz WWTP. It is recommended that the waste streams be discharged during peak
flow periods to minimize settlements in the sewer collection system. The chemical waste would
be diluted or neutralized on-site, if necessary.
Summary of Project Alternatives
5.6
The project alternatives discussed in this section are summarized in Table 5. The District’s 2006
IRP has already ruled out the following alternatives from further consideration, due to a
combination of environmental concerns, project uncertainties and delays, permitting issues, and
other implementation challenges discussed in the 2006 IRP:
•
Regional Water Recycling Facility (Water Recycling Alternative)
•
Water Import/Groundwater Banking (Non-Recycled Water Alternative)
•
Soquel Creek Diversion (Non-Recycled Water Alternative)
• On-Stream Reservoir (Non-Recycled Water Alternative).
The District’s conservation program is already accounting for over 10 percent of its total water
supply and is not a part of the scope of this Study. The No-Project Alternative is not an option
since it would only continue to overdraft the District’s groundwater basins. A separate project is
underway to evaluate the Regional Seawater Desalination Facility alternative and is currently in
the evaluation phase with one year of pilot testing complete.
This Study will focus on evaluating the feasibility of providing SRPs in the District’s service
area to produce recycled water to supplement its current groundwater supply. The feasibility
analysis will include:
•
Recycled water market assessment
•
Analysis of recycled water supply and demand
•
Wastewater flow monitoring and characteristics
•
Treatment requirements
•
Conceptual SRP design and preliminary opinion of cost.
•
Recycled water user assurance
6/26/2009
11
Alternative
Table 5: Summary of Project Alternatives
Energy
Cost
Environmental Considerations
Consumption
Description
Comments & Implementation Concerns
WATER RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES
Regional Water
Recycling Facility
Regional WWTP that produces recycled water
and is distributed through a separate recycled
water distribution network to various users
Varies, depends
on treatment
process selected
Varies, depends
on treatment
process selected.
Meet Title 22 Recycled Water
Requirements
SRP
Small, satellite water recycling facility that
could be located near the recycled water user
$2 to $10 Million,
depending on
capacity
1 to 6 kW-hr/
1,000 gallons
Meet Title 22 Recycled Water
Requirements
Requires treatment upgrades at regional WWTPs
Requires new recycled water distribution pipelines to
be installed from regional WWTP to the District’s
service area
May require user assurances
Potential high cost to produce recycled water
Potential users may not be District’s customers
NON-RECYCLED WATER ALTERNATIVES
Regional Seawater
Desalination Facility
A regional seawater desalination facility to
provide an initial supplement water supply of
To be determined
2.5 mgd (2,800 AFY) to the City of Santa Cruz
and the District
10 to 14 kW-hr/
1,000 gallons
Water Import/
Groundwater Banking
The District would construct new pipeline and
import 2,000 AFY of potable water for
PVWMA, and in exchange, the District would
receive a new groundwater well
To be determined
Soquel Creek Diversion
Divert up to 9 mgd of surface water from
Soquel Creek and pump into a settling pond to
be treated at a new surface water treatment
facility
On Stream Reservoir
Construct an on-stream reservoir (Glenwood
Reservoir) on Soquel Creek to provide a
surface water supply to the District
To be determined
Impact of brine discharge on
marine environment
Impact of seawater intake on
aquatic life
Finished water compatibility
Pipeline runs along biologically
sensitive Harkins Slough
Removing water from an
overdrafted basin may not
acceptable
Requires partnership with the City of Santa Cruz
Complex and extensive permitting
Construction traffic impacts
Due to uncertainties and continuous project delays, the
Water Import/Groundwater Banking alternative was
removed from further consideration
Eliminated from consideration in 2006 IRP due to
various uncertainties of hydrological and
environmental impacts
Unlikely to produce the required volume of water
needed to meet the supply needs
NA
The creek is biologically sensitive
Impacts to stream flow will directly
impact fisheries in the creek
NA
NA
A dam would create a barrier to fish
migrations and disrupt downstream Alternative determined infeasible in 2006 IRP due to
aquatic habitats
environmental impacts, public perception, and
Non-native predator species may
permitting issues
become established in the reservoir
None
None
None
Varies depending
on program
Varies depending
on program
None
To be determined
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Continue to overdraft District’s groundwater
supply
WATER CONSERVATION/REDUCTION
Various DMM measures are in place
6/26/2009
12
Over drafting will continue to lower the groundwater
levels and ultimately lead to saltwater intrusion and
degradation of groundwater quality
Conservation savings potential of approximately 750
AFY by 2010 and 950 AFY by 2050
6.0
RECYCLED WATER MARKET ASSESSMENT
A total of twenty potential users of recycled water were identified and evaluated (in the
2005 Satellite Reclamation Plant Feasibility Study completed by Black & Veatch) with
respect to their irrigation demand and the potential supply of wastewater for source water
near the sites. The estimated recycled water demands as well as five additional potential
recycled water users were added to the list developed during the 2005 Study. A complete
list of all 25 potential users is provided in Table 6. Locations of the potential SRP sites
summarized in Table 6 is given in Figure 3. All sites with potential recycled water
demands less than 20 AFY were eliminated from this assessment. The cost per acre-foot
of recycled water produced was not cost-effective for an SRP serving a site with less than
20 AFY in recycled water demand. This decision was made by the District after the 2005
Study, using the cost for Anna Jean Cummings (AJC) Park as a benchmark. From the
2005 Study, one site, SGC, warranted a more detailed evaluation to determine its
feasibility and two additional sites (Polo Grounds Park/Aptos Junior High School and
Seascape Greens/Seascape Resort) were identified since the 2005 Study to be evaluated
as part of this Study.
The potential sites for the SRP were selected because of their close proximity to a
potentially large wastewater supply for water recycling and a relatively larger recycled
water demand. A summary of the viable locations for an SRP facility and preliminary
analysis of each location is provided in Table 7. The potential recycled water customers
summarized in Table 7 contain both District customers and non-customers. Currently,
AJC Park, Aptos Jr. High, and Seascape Resort are all District customers. Soquel High
School, Polo Grounds Park, Seascape Golf Course, and Seascape Greens are not District
customers. With the District’s goal to reduce groundwater pumping in its two aquifers
that is shared with these non-customers and decrease the potential for saltwater intrusion,
the District will provide non-District customers with recycled water in exchange for
rights to the private groundwater wells. Estimated wastewater supplies for the SGC,
Seascape Resort, and Seascape Greens were updated based on flow data collected from
the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District’s Dolphin and Hidden Beach pump stations.
The Polo Grounds Park (PGP) and Aptos Junior High School (JHS) sites were identified
as prospective customers for an SRP located at or near the Aptos JHS. New information
about wastewater supplies being available for this site has emerged since the 2005 SRP
Feasibility Study. A large diameter sewer transmission main that runs through the
intersection of Polo Drive and Soquel Drive has been identified.
Recycled Water Supply and Demand
6.1
In order for the SRP to be cost-effective, an adequate supply of wastewater must be
available locally to meet recycled water demands. If an ample supply is available, the
recycled water produced at one SRP could be delivered to more than one recycled water
user. Since the format and availability of irrigation data varies for each location, site
specific estimates on irrigation demand were made. A supply and demand analysis for
the potential SRP sites is provided in Table 6.
6/26/2009
13
-
No.
Anchor
Tenant
1
Capitola
Community
Center
2
Soquel High
School
3
4
Hilltop Road
Cemetery
Soquel
(Elementary)
School
Nearest Large
Diameter Sewer
Main
• 16" force main (FM)
on Portola Dr
• 24" vitrified clay pipe
(VCP) on Bay at Hill
• 27" FM on Soquel Cr
and Center St
• 24" VCP on Bay at
Hill
and Center St
• 18" VCP in front of
school
• 12" airbrushed steel
(ABS) behind school
Table 6: Potential Recycled Water Users
Estimated Annual Estimated Annual
Assumed
Estimated
Average
Average
Demand
Irrigation
Wastewater
Wastewater
Rate
Demand
Available to
Available to
(AFY/Acre)
(AFY)
Recycle (mgd)
Recycle (AFY)
District
Customer?
Source of
Water
(Groundwater
Aquifer)
67
Yes
Purisima
0.04
45
No
Purisima
0.04
45
Yes
Purisima
Approx.
Distance
From User (ft)
Estimated
Irrigated
Acreage
100
5.2
1.5
7.8
0.06
9
2.0
18
4
2.0
8
5100
5700
5700
6300
50
3
2.0
6
0.14
157
16
0.18
202
Yes
Purisima
2.0
24
Negligible - Site is
located at top of
sewage system
0
No
Purisima
Line scheduled for relocation to
McGregor Dr
2.0
6
0.06
67
Yes
Purisima
-Wastewater flow estimated at Soquel Dr
and Wisteria Way
-No connection to 27" force main
Yes
Purisima
and Ledyard Way
11
Yes
Purisima
and Spreckles Dr
0
Yes
Purisima
• 27" VCP on Park Ave
6
Cabrillo
College
• 27" VCP on shore,
south of Pot Belly
Beach Rd
4200
12
7
Mar Vista
(Elementary)
School
• 24" FM on Las Olas
Dr
• 8" FM on Las Olas Dr
4700
3
8
Calvary
Cemetery
Dr
• 8" FM on Las Olas Dr
2900
1.6
2.0
3.2
0.05
56
9
Aptos Village
Community
Park
• 24" FM and Pump
station on Moosehead
4000
2
1.5
3
0.01
10
Valencia
(Elementary)
School
6
located in
neighborhood with
septic systems
6/26/2009
Purisima
-Wastewater flow estimated at Monterey
Ave and Bay Ave
-Might be clustered with locations 22
and 23.
5
650
7700
8
3
-Wastewater flow estimated at Topaz &
Jade
-Also referred to as Jade Street Park
-Wastewater flow monitored 7/04
-Could potentially be clustered with
locations 3 and 15
-Wastewater flow monitored 7/04.
-May be clustered with locations 2 and
15.
- Wastewater flow estimated in front of
school on Porter St
200
New Brighton
Middle School
• 24" FM and Pump
station on Moosehead
Yes
Notes
2.0
2.0
14
-
No.
11
12
Anchor
Tenant
Aptos Junior
High School
Seascape Golf
Course
13
Rio Del Mar
(Elementary)
School
14
Aptos Par 3
Golf Course
15
Anna Jean
Cummings
Park
16
17
18
6/26/2009
Polo Grounds
Park
Nearest Large
Diameter Sewer
Main
• 21" VCP in Via
Tornasol
14" FM and Pump
Station near Via
Concha
• 21" VCP in Sumner
Ave
• 10" FM and Pump
Station at Dolphin &
Sumner
Ave
• 10" FM and Pump
Sumner
Dr
8" FM on Las Olas Dr
Hill
and Center St
Hill
and Center St
Willowbrook
Park (County
Park)
south of Pot Belly
Beach Rd
Seascape
Resort
Ave
• 10" FM and Pump
Sumner
Estimated
Irrigated
Acreage
Assumed
Demand
Rate
(AFY/Acre)
Estimated
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Estimated Annual
Average
Wastewater
Available to
Recycle (mgd)
Estimated Annual
Average
Wastewater
Available to
Recycle (AFY)
District
Customer?
Source of
Water
(Groundwater
Aquifer)
8
2.0
16
0.1
112
Yes
Purisima
110
4.0
440
0.23
258
No
2800
8
2.0
16
located at top of
sewer system
0
Yes
Aromas
2900
Not Irrigated
0
0
0
No
Purisima
Approx.
Distance
From User (ft)
7600
9100
100
1600
-Near Monroe and Polo.
-At Hidden Beach Pump Station
-Might be clustered with location 16
-At Dolphin Pump Station
Purisima/Aromas -Might be clustered with locations 18, 19,
24, and 25
4500
9
2.9
26
0.04
45
Yes
Purisima
-Wastewater flow monitored 7/04
-Could be clustered with location 2 & 3
20
2.0
39 *
0.1
112
No
Purisima
-Wastewater flow estimated near Monroe
and Polo
-Could be clustered with location 11
2
0.7
1.83*
0.01
11
Yes
Purisima
-Wastewater flow estimated at Baseline
and Willowbrook
Aromas
-Wastewater flow estimated Dolphin
pump station
-42,142 gpd average weekly demand.
-Could be clustered with locations 12, 18,
24, and 25
5100
5100
5700
3000
Notes
4800
5.5
4.5
25
0.23
2000
15
-
258
Yes
No.
Anchor
Tenant
Nearest Large
Diameter Sewer
Main
Beachcliff
Condos
Ave
• 10" FM and Pump
Sumner
20
Imperial
Courts Condos
south of Pot Belly
Beach Rd
21
Main Street
School
Hill
and Center St
19
Approx.
Distance
From User (ft)
Estimated
Irrigated
Acreage
Assumed
Demand
Rate
(AFY/Acre)
Estimated
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Estimated Annual
Average
Wastewater
Available to
Recycle (mgd)
Estimated Annual
Average
Wastewater
Available to
Recycle (AFY)
District
Customer?
Source of
Water
(Groundwater
Aquifer)
Notes
3.2
4.0
12.8
0.2
224
Yes
Aromas
-Wastewater flow estimated at Dolphin
Pump Station
24, and 25
2
4.0
8
0.02
22
Yes
Purisima
-Wastewater flow estimated near
Willowbrook and Wimbleton
3.3
2.0
6.6
0.01
11
Yes
Purisima
-Wastewater flow estimated at 8" line
front of school
200
2000
5100
5700
22
Park at 370
• 12" ACP runs behind
Monterey Ave.
parcel
in Capitola
50
1
1.5
1.5
0.18
202
Yes
Purisima
23
Saint Joseph's
• 12" ACP runs behind
Church on
parcel
Monterey Ave.
200
0.5
2.0
1
0.18
202
Yes
Purisima
24
Seascape
Greens
Ave
• 10" FM and Pump
Sumner
35
located at top of
sewage system
Hidden Beach
Park
Ave
• 14" FM and Pump
Station near Via
Concha
25
6/26/2009
5800
14
2.5
3000
Runs through
site
1
1.5
1.5
0.32
16
-
0
358
No
Yes
Ave and Bay Ave
-Could be clustered with locations 5 & 23
Ave and Bay Ave
-Could be clustered with locations 5 and
22
Aromas
-295,000 gal/week high season demand
per Landscape Manager
19 & 25
Aromas
-Wastewater flow could be based on flow
at Rio Del Mar Pump Station
-This site is downstream of the Dolphin
Pump Station force main
-Could be clustered with locations 12, 18
19 & 24
Figure 3: Location of Potential SRP Sites
6/26/2009
17
-
Table 7: Summary of Potential Recycled Water Customers
Potential
Recycled Water
Customer(s)
AJC Park1 &
Soquel High
School2
Polo Grounds
Park2 & Aptos Jr.
High1
Source of Water
Estimated
Annual
Irrigation
Demand (Total)
Estimated
Wastewater
Supply
Available*
Potential SRP Location
Groundwater Purisima
Formation
44 AFY
(0.04 mgd)
45 AFY
(0.04 mgd)
1. AJC Park
2. Grass area in front of
Little League Field
Formation
55 AFY
(0.05 mgd)
112 AFY
(0.10 mgd)
258 AFY
(0.23 mgd)
Seascape Golf
Course2
Formation/Aromas
Aquifer
440 AFY
(0.39 mgd)
358 AFY
(0.33 mgd)
358 AFY
(0.32 mgd)
Seascape Resort1
& Seascape
Greens2
Groundwater Aromas Aquifer
60 AFY
(0.05 mgd)
258 AFY
(0.23 mgd)
1. Polo Grounds Park
1. Seascape Golf Course
2. Hidden Beach Park
3. Hidden Beach
(next to Pump Station)
1. Seascape Resort
Benefits of Location
SRP could be located where recycled water
demand is
Plenty of wastewater supply available for
recycling
demand is
Plenty of space available for SRP at Polo Grounds
Park
Aptos Jr. High is a District customer.
Considerable amount of groundwater supply
would be conserved
Located near wastewater supply (next to 21”
sewer line on Sumner)
demand is (minimal piping required)
would be conserved
Located near wastewater supply (21” and 14”
sewer collection lines run through the park
parking lot)
Located across the street from recycled water
customer (golf course)
would be conserved
Located near wastewater supply (next to
wastewater pump station)
Minimal community opposition
Seascape Resort is currently a District customer
Flat area available for SRP
1
Currently a District Customer
2
Not a District Customer
*Based on information received from Santa Cruz County Parks
6/26/2009
18
-
Potential Concerns
Recycled water cost would be over $6,000 /AF
Soquel High School is not a District customer
Wastewater would need to be pumped at least 2,000
linear feet from the nearest sewer line
Polo Grounds Park is currently not a District customer
(but may be in the near future).

Recycled water cost would be around $2,200 /AF
Golf course is not a District customer
Need golf course to agree on location of plant
Would need to cut down quite a few trees for the SRP
May require extensive cut and fill
May need to protect or re-locate oak trees
SRP will occupy approximately half of the Hidden
Beach Park
May be difficult to get community approval
Construction access through long, narrow residential
streets.
May require extensive cut and fill
May be difficult to get community approval
Construction access through long, narrow residential
streets
Construction cost may be higher to protect facility from
corrosion in seawater environment
Wastewater would need to be pumped from Dolphin
Pump Station to site (approximately 3-4,000 linear feet
of piping)
Seascape Greens is not a District customer
6.1.1 Seascape Golf Course
SGC irrigation practices were obtained from the facility and summarized in Table 8. The
schedule indicates spot watering, which entails as-needed watering by employees, and full
irrigation, which involves 9.5 hours of nightly watering through 20-24 irrigation heads, each
supplying 24 gallons per minute (gpm) of water. Daily full irrigation equates to roughly 328,000
gallons per day (gpd) of water or annual average of approximately 246,000 gpd. In order to
determine a conservative demand approximation, daily full irrigation was assumed for March
through November, as indicated in Table 8. The estimate provided in Table 8 is fairly
conservative since full irrigation is assumed for months where spot watering and full irrigation is
practiced. The District has indicated that average annual water usage at SGC is closer to 134
AFY (120,000 gpd).
Table 8: Irrigation Schedule and Demand at SGC
Estimated Irrigation
Month
Irrigation Schedule*
Demand (gpd)
January
Spot watering
0
February
Spot watering
0
March
Spot watering to full irrigation
328,320
April
328,320
May
Full irrigation nightly
328,320
June
328,320
July
328,320
August
328,320
September
328,320
October
328,320
November
328,320
December
Spot watering
0
*Full irrigation: nightly irrigation for entire water window (8pm-5:30am) using 20-24 irrigation
heads running continually
*Spot watering: done by hand in areas of need
The SRP at the SGC location is located near the sewer main downstream from the Dolphin Pump
Station, which operates on average at approximately 215 gpm. Hourly flow data for the pump
station was obtained from November 2005 to July 2008. The estimated wastewater available in
the sewer main from Dolphin Pump Station and recycled water demand at SGC is summarized in
Table 9 for May through October 2008. Only data from the latest summer months were analyzed
and summarized in Table 9, since recycled water demand is anticipated to be at its highest during
the summer and is approximately 335,000 gpd on average for the summer of 2008. Average
daily wastewater flows and the estimated recycled water demand is plotted for the 2008 summer
months in Figure 4. Depending on the amount of wastewater available for water recycling, a
supplemental potable water supply would likely be needed to meet the recycled water demand.
6/26/2009
19
-
Table 9: Dolphin Pump Station Daily Wastewater Flow Rates (Summer 2008)
May-08
Jun-08
Jul-08
Aug-08
Sep-08
Oct-08
Average, gpd
324,011
312,003
354,222
369,555
329,724
321,717
Minimum, gpd
229,277
248,098
252,720 292,089.6 230,054
267,566
Maximum, gpd
410,026
428,861
442,066 480,355.2 395,640
370,915
Figure 4: SGC Summer Supply and Demand (2008)
6.1.2 Seascape Resort and Seascape Greens
Irrigation data is not available for Seascape Greens since it is irrigated by a private groundwater
well owned by a local Home Owners Association. The Seascape Resort is a District customer
and is located in close proximity to Seascape Greens. The irrigation demand for Seascape Greens
was estimated based on the irrigation area and was combined with the average summer irrigation
demands at the Seascape Resort (summarized in Table 10). The Seascape Resort/Greens location
would also be served by wastewater flow, just downstream from the Dolphin Pump Station.
Table 10: Average Summer Recycled Water Supply and Demand at Seascape
Resort/Greens
Average Irrigation
Average Wastewater
Site
Demand (gpd)
Supply Available (gpd)
Seascape Greens
29,200
Seascape Resort
20,800
TOTAL
50,000
230,000
The wastewater supply for the SRP at the Seascape Resort/Greens location will be taken from
just downstream of the Dolphin Pump Station, which is also the same wastewater supply that
6/26/2009
20
-
would serve the SGC location. Thus, the Seascape Resort/Greens location is being held from
further consideration in this Study at this time due to
•
Insufficient wastewater supply available to serve both the SGC and Seascape
Resort/Greens location
•
The fact that the SGC location has a much larger recycled water demand
•
The need for a new pipeline (3-4,000 linear feet) to convey the wastewater from the
Dolphin Pump Station to the Seascape Resort/Greens site.
These sites may be reconsidered if an assurance agreement cannot be secured between the
District and Seascape Golf Course.
6.1.3 Polo Grounds and Aptos Junior High
For the PGP and Aptos JHS sites, the irrigation or recycled water demand is estimated from
monthly irrigation records. Based on the available irrigation data and discussions with staff at
the Santa Cruz County Parks Department, irrigation at PGP is typically conducted as needed and
ranges from 8-16 cycles per month. Each irrigation cycle was assumed to be completed within a
24-hour period. Average monthly irrigation demand at PGP is tabulated in Table 11. Historical
irrigation records for PGP are recorded for total gallons used per month and the average monthly
demand, in gpd, is estimated by assuming that the total gallons used per month is spread evenly
over a 30-day period.
Table 11: Average Monthly Recycled Water Demand at Polo Grounds Park
Gallons per
Approximate
Average
Total Gallons
Month
Irrigation
Cycles per
Monthly
Per Month
Cycle
Month1
Demand (gpd)
January
39,760
8
318,080
10,603
February
0
8
0
0
March
26,528
8
212,224
7,074
April
80,424
8
636,672
21,222
May
100,530
12
1,193,760
39,792
June
134,040
16
2,122,240
70,741
July
134,180
16
2,122,240
70,741
August
134,110
16
2,122,240
70,741
September
132,640
12
1,591,680
53,056
October
132,640
8
1,061,120
35,371
November
66,320
8
530,560
17,685
December
26,528
8
212,224
7,074
1
2
Assumes each cycle is one day
Averaged over 30 days
Minimal historical irrigation data is available for the Aptos JHS. Thus, an estimate of irrigation
demand was made for the months of March, May, July, and September. The average monthly
irrigation demand at Aptos JHS is summarized in Table 12.
6/26/2009
21
-
Table 12: Average Monthly Irrigation Demand at Aptos JHS (1994-2008)
Average Monthly Irrigation
Average Monthly
Month
Demand (gallons)
Irrigation Demand (gpd)
Jan
17,204
573
Feb
25,432
848
Mar
220,000
7,333
Apr
250,954
8,365
May
585,000
19,500
Jun
917,609
30,587
Jul
945,000
31,500
Aug
971,652
32,388
Sep
840,000
28,000
Oct
763,895
25,463
Nov
750,000
25,000
Dec
276,573
9,219
The anticipated wastewater supply for water recycling at the PGP and Aptos JHS locations
would be taken from an existing 15-inch sewer at the intersection of Rio del Mar Blvd. and
Monroe Ave. The average dry weather wastewater flow is estimated to be approximately 41,000
gpd (May 2008 Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study prepared by V&A
for the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District) at this location. Three different scenarios were
evaluated for the SRP at the PGP and Aptos JHS locations:
•
Scenario #1 - SRP provides recycled water to only Aptos JHS
•
Scenario #2 - SRP provides recycled water to only PGP
• Scenario #3 – SRP provides recycled water for Aptos JHS and PGP
A summary of the available wastewater supply and estimated recycled water demand for these
three scenarios are provided in Figure 5 through Figure 7. There is adequate wastewater supply
to serve just the Aptos JHS as indicated in Figure 5. For Scenarios #2 (Figure 6) and #3 (Figure
7), it appears that a supplemental potable water supply is needed during the summer months to
meet the recycled water demand.
6/26/2009
22
-
Aptos Junior High - Recycled Water Supply vs Demand
45,000
40,000
Gallons per Day
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Jan
Fe
Ma
Apr
Ma
Jun
Jul
Recycled Water Demand
Au
Se
Oc
No
De
No
De
ADWF Wastewater
Figure 5: Scenario #1 – SRP Wastewater Supply and
Recycled Water Demand for Aptos JHS
Polo Grounds Site - Recycled Water Supply vs Demand
80,000
70,000
Gallons per Day
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Jan
Fe
Ma
Apr
Ma
Jun
Jul
Au
Se
Oc
ADWF Wastewater
Figure 6: Scenario #2 - SRP Wastewater Supply and
Recycled Water Demand for PGP
6/26/2009
23
-
Aptos Jr. High School & Polo Grounds Site Recycled Water Supply vs Demand
120,000
Gallons per Day
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Jan
Fe
Ma
Apr
Ma
Jun
Jul
Au
Se
Oc
No
De
ADWF Wastewater
Figure 7: Scenario #3 - SRP Wastewater Supply and
Recycled Water Demand for Aptos JHS + PGP
Summary of Recycled Water Market Assessment
6.2
Based on the recycled water market and supply versus demand analysis provided above, the
District decided to move forward with wastewater monitoring and sampling at the SGC and
PGP/Aptos JHS locations. The two locations combined could potentially reduce groundwater
demand up to 400 AFY in the District’s service area. The wastewater quality data collected as
part of this study would serve as a basis for developing a conceptual level design and opinion of
cost to evaluate the economic feasibility of an SRP at these two locations.
7.0
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES
This section summarizes the existing wastewater collection facilities within the District’s service
area, as well as the treatment processes at the regional wastewater treatment facility. Water
quality data at the two potential SRP locations is also provided in this section.
7.1
Existing Wastewater Facilities
The District does not own or operate any wastewater treatment facilities. The sewer collection
system within the District’s service area is provided in Figure 8 and is operated by the Santa
Cruz County Sanitation District. All of the collected wastewater flows are sent to a regional
wastewater treatment plant located in the City of Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz Regional WWTP). The
District is located at the beginning of the eastern end of the Santa Cruz County Sanitation
District’s service area and bounded by ocean and rural areas that are served by on-site septic
systems. Therefore, all of the wastewater flows that flow through the District’s service area is
generated within the District.
6/26/2009
24
-
Figure 8: Santa Cruz County Sewer System (Soquel Creek Water District Service Area)
6/26/2009
25
The treatment processes at the Santa Cruz Regional WWTP consist of the following:
•
•
•
Treatment Processes:

Screening (mechanical bar rakes)

Aerated grit removal

Primary sedimentation/chemical addition

Trickling filter/solids contact

Final settling tanks

UV disinfection

Back-up disinfection, sodium hypochlorite
Solids Handling:

Gravity thickening

Anaerobic digestion

Centrifuge

Land application
Support Facilities:

Standby generation

Cogeneration

Odor reduction towers

Septage receiving facility
The treatment processes listed above for the Santa Cruz WWTP are not capable of providing an
effluent quality that meets Title 22 Recycled Water requirements. Process upgrades (i.e. tertiary
filtration) would be needed at the Santa Cruz WWTP in order to produce Title 22 Recycled
Water that is suitable for irrigation.
Wastewater Flow Monitoring and Characterization
7.2
Wastewater flow monitoring and characterization was completed at the SGC and PGP/Aptos
JHS locations. The SRP at the SGC location will be drawing from the sewer collection system
downstream of the Dolphin Pump Station. The force main that exits the Dolphin Pump Station
transitions into a gravity collection system near the proposed location for the SRP at SGC. Thus,
the wastewater flow data at the Dolphin Pump Station was deemed representative of the amount
of wastewater available for water recycling at the SGC location.
The latest summer month wastewater flows from the Dolphin Pump Station were summarized
above in Table 9. Weekly wastewater samples were collected at the Dolphin Pump Station from
July 2008 through September 2008 and tabulated in Table 13. Grab samples were collected in
July 2008 and composite samples were collected in August and September 2008. The average
concentrations of the constituents of interest were quite similar between the grab and composite
6/26/2009
26
samples, with the exception of the chemical oxygen demand. The five-day biological oxygen
demand (BOD5) and total phosphorus were higher than typical wastewater concentrations, but
was expected since the data was collected further up the wastewater collection system.
However, the high BOD5 values, together with the lower than typical total organic carbon (TOC)
and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations suggest that the wastewater could be influenced
by an industrial wastewater source. The nitrogen species in the wastewater at the SGC location
is somewhat unusual for typical wastewater. The Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is higher than
the typical range of 40-45 mg/L while the nitrate levels are non-detect. The high TKN will likely
result in a high demand for alkalinity in the biological nitrification process and may require the
addition of an external source of alkaline (i.e. sodium carbonate).
Table 13: Wastewater Quality Data at Dolphin Pump Station (July – September 2008)
Grab Samples
Composite Samples
Constituent
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/L
756
1500
480
557
810
400
BOD5, mg/L
410
530
260
408
820
200
Total Organic Carbon, mg/L
97
140
83
116
250
70
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/L
59
69
40
46
57
36
Nitrate as N, mg/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/L
10.31
13
8.5
8.22
10
7.1
Orthophosphate as P, mg/L
6.84
8.1
4.4
5.32
6.1
4.6
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
151
240
87
162
460
54
Volatile Suspended Solids, mg/L
129
220
68
145
410
51
ND = Non-Detect
At the PGP/Aptos JHS location, additional wastewater flow monitoring was not conducted since
a recent wastewater flow analysis was just completed in May 2008 by the Santa Cruz County
Sanitary District. The flow monitoring report published in May 2008 indicated that
approximately 41,000 gpd of wastewater is available at the PGP/Aptos JHS location. Based on
the drainage area and land use in the area, the District had originally estimated that the
wastewater flow near PGP/Aptos JHS would be closer to 100,000 gpd. The wastewater quality
at the PGP/Aptos JHS location is tabulated in Table 14. Only grab samples were taken, since a
composite sampler could not be set up at this location due to heavy vehicular traffic in the area.
Similar to the discussion on nitrogen species for the SGC location, the TKN levels at PGP/Aptos
JHS is really high and would need additional chemicals to be added to aid in the biological
nitrification process.
6/26/2009
27
Table 14: Wastewater Quality Data at PGP/Aptos JHS
Grab Samples
Constituent
Average Max
Min
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/L
503
690
180
BOD5, mg/L
326
630
190
Total Organic Carbon, mg/L
96
170
52
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/L
64
91
40
1
Nitrate as N , mg/L
ND
ND
ND
Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/L
9.63
14.00
6.80
Orthophosphate as P, mg/L
6.08
8.6
3.4
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
182
350
60
Volatile Suspended Solids, mg/L
146
320
50
ND = Non-Detect
On one occasion during the 3 month sampling period, the Nitrate concentration
was 0.59 mg/L.
1
8.0
TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGE AND REUSE
The recycled water produced by the SRP would need to meet treatment requirements established
by the California Department of Public Health (DPH) and the State of California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These requirements are briefly discussed in this section.
8.1
California Department of Public Health Requirements
Recycled water requirements for non-potable use have been established by DPH. Title 22 of the
California Code of Regulations under Division 4 – Environmental Health, Chapter 3 – Water
Recycling Criteria, lists the current regulations that will impact the design and operation of the
SRP.
For use of recycled water on the irrigation of unrestricted access golf courses and
parks/playgrounds, Article 2, Section 60304 of Title 22 lists the required water treatment level to
be “disinfected tertiary recycled water.” Title 22 defines tertiary recycled water to be a filtered
wastewater and subsequently disinfected wastewater that meets the following criteria:
1) The filtered wastewater has been disinfected by either:

A chlorine disinfection process following filtration that provides a contact time
(CT), defined as the product of total chlorine residual and modal contact time
measured at the same point) value of not less than 450 milligram-minutes per liter
at all times with a modal contact time of at least 90 minutes, based on peak dry
weather design flow; or

6/26/2009
A disinfection process that, when combined with the filtration process, has been
demonstrated to inactivate and/or remove 99.999 percent of the plaque forming
units of F-specific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus in the wastewater. A virus
that is at least as resistant to disinfection as polio virus may be used for purposes
of the demonstration.
28
2) The median concentration of total coliform bacteria measured in the disinfected effluent
does not exceed an most probable number (MPN) of 2.2 per 100 milliliters utilizing the
bacteriological results of the last seven days for which analyses have been completed and
the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed an MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters in
more than one sample in any 30-day period. No sample shall exceed an MPN of 240 total
coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters.
Article 4 of Title 22 also lists the area requirements for use of recycled water. The use of the
recycled water must comply with the following use area requirements:
1) No irrigation with disinfected tertiary recycled water shall take place within 50 feet of
any domestic water supply well unless all of the following conditions have been met:

A geological investigation demonstrates that an aquitard exists at the well
between the uppermost aquifer being drawn from and the ground surface.

The well contains an annular seal that extends from the surface into the aquitard.

The well is housed to prevent any recycled water spray from coming into contact
with the wellhead facilities. California Health Laws Related to Recycled Water
June 2001 Edition Title 22 56

The ground surface immediately around the wellhead is contoured to allow
surface water to drain away from the well.

The owner of the well approves of the elimination of the buffer zone requirement
take place within 150 feet of any domestic water supply well.
2) Any use of recycled water shall comply with the following:

Any irrigation runoff shall be confined to the recycled water use area, unless the
runoff does not pose a public health threat and is authorized by the regulatory
agency.

Spray, mist, or runoff shall not enter dwellings, designated outdoor eating areas,
or food handling facilities.

Drinking water fountains shall be protected against contact with recycled water
spray, mist, or runoff.
3) All areas where recycled water is used that are accessible to the public shall be posted
with signs that are visible to the public, in a size no less than 4 inches high by 8 inches
wide, that include the following wording: "RECYCLED WATER - DO NOT DRINK".
Each sign shall display an international symbol per California Health Laws Related to
Recycled Water June 2001 Edition, Title 22 57. The Department may accept alternative
signage and wording, or an educational program, provided the applicant demonstrates to
the Department that the alternative approach will assure an equivalent degree of public
notification.
4) Except as allowed under section 7604 of title 17, California Code of Regulations, no
physical connection shall be made or allowed to exist between any recycled water system
and any separate system conveying potable water.
6/26/2009
29
5) The portions of the recycled water piping system that are in areas subject to access by the
general public shall not include any hose bibs. Only quick couplers that differ from those
used on the potable water system shall be used on the portions of the recycled water
piping system in areas subject to public access.
8.2
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements
The RWQCB - Central Coast Region (Region 3) is the local enforcement branch for recycled
water in the District’s service area. An individual permit is required for each proposed SRP site.
A Master Reclamation Permit must be obtained from the RWQCB. Recycled water must be
treated to certain levels based on whether or not the irrigation will involve public contact. If the
total coliform count is less than 2.2 MPN/100 mL, irrigation can occur at any time, including
when people are present.
Pursuant to Water Code Section 13523.1, a Master Reclamation Permit shall include, at a
minimum, all of the following:
1) Waste discharge requirements, adopted pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section
13260) of Chapter 4.
2) A requirement that the permittee comply with the uniform statewide reclamation criteria
established pursuant to Section 13521. Permit conditions for a use of reclaimed water not
addressed by the uniform statewide water reclamation criteria shall be considered on a
case-by-case basis.
3) A requirement that the permittee establish and enforce rules or regulations for reclaimed
water users, governing the design and construction of reclaimed water use facilities and
the use of reclaimed water, in accordance with the uniform statewide reclamation criteria
established pursuant to Section 13521.
4) A requirement that the permittee submit a quarterly report summarizing reclaimed water
use, including the total amount of reclaimed water supplied, the total number of
reclaimed water use sites, and the locations of those sites, including the names of the
hydrologic areas underlying the reclaimed water use sites.
5) A requirement that the permittee conduct periodic inspections of the facilities of the
reclaimed water users to monitor compliance by the users with the uniform statewide
reclamation criteria established pursuant to Section 13521 and the requirements of the
master reclamation permit.
6) Any other requirements determined to be appropriate by the RWQCB.
9.0
CONCEPTUAL SATELLITE RECLAMATION PLANT DESIGN
A conceptual design of the SRP is provided in this section, including design assumptions,
process description, preliminary layout, and preliminary opinion of cost.
Planning and Design Assumptions
9.1
The planning and design assumptions for the recycled water system are summarized in Table 15.
6/26/2009
30
Table 15: Recycled Water System Planning and Design Assumptions
Design Parameter
Criteria
Recycled Water Delivery
50-120 psi
and System Pressure
Recycled water delivery will be consistent with
Peak Delivery
current irrigation schedule.
Membrane bioreactor and ultraviolet light
Treatment Facilities
disinfection.
On-site storage will be provided in order to meet
Storage
recycled water delivery schedule.
A flushing velocity of 2.5 feet per second should be
Sewer Flushing Velocity
achieved once per day in the sewer collection system
where the wastewater is being pulled from.
Time period = 20 years
Cost Basis
Interest Rate = 6%
Consumer Price Index = 211
Planning Period = 4-6 months
Planning/Design Period
Design Period = 8-12 months
9.2
SRP Treatment Processes
An SRP at either SGC or PGP/Aptos JHS would employ membrane bioreactors as the primary
treatment process to produce recycled water that meets Title 22 requirements. A conceptual
process flow diagram for the SRP at both locations is provided in Figure 9. The SRP would be
designed to ensure most of the structure is below ground or in a small building.
Screening
Grit removal
Anoxic
Aerobic Zones
Membrane
Filtration
UV
Disinfection
Return
Activated
Sludge
Grade
NaOCl
Addition
Se
r
we
Treated
Irrigation
Water
Waste
Activated
Sludge
Submersible
Pump
Wetwell
6/26/2009
31
Figure 9: Conceptual Process Flow Schematic for the SRP
A submersible pump station that intersects the sewer line would be constructed. The floor
elevation of the wet well would be below the sewer so that the operating level of the pumps
would be between the floor of the wet well and the bottom of the sewer pipe. The pump speed
would be controlled through variable speed drives on the basis of water elevation measured by
level controllers. Return activated sludge (RAS) that has been concentrated in the membrane
zone of the activated sludge system would be recycled by gravity to this wetwell for return to the
anoxic/aerobic zone of the plant. This option would reduce the need for additional RAS pumps
and provide additional anoxic retention time for additional denitrification.
Raw wastewater and RAS would be screened by fine screens and then grit could be removed
using a cyclone or vortex type degritter. Plastics and other screened inert material would be
collected in a skip and disposed of weekly or more frequently, if necessary, to a landfill. The raw
wastewater and RAS would enter the anoxic zone of the activated sludge system with recycled
water from the aerobic zone. The nitrates would be removed in this zone by biological
denitrification to nitrogen (N2) gas. The mixed liquor would then be aerated in the aerobic zone,
and ammonia would be oxidized to nitrate. Biodegradable BOD5 would be slowly removed, and
particulate organic TKN would be hydrolyzed and nitrified. Alkalinity addition (with chemicals
such as soda ash, Na2CO3) may be necessary to maintain adequate conditions for the biological
treatment process.
The aerobic mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) would then flow to the membrane zone,
where submerged membrane filters would filter water from the MLSS. This filtration process
would cause the concentration of solids in this zone to increase. Depending on influent
wastewater characteristics, it may be possible to concentrate solids up to 15,000 mg/L, but for
the purposes of this study, the maximum solids concentration was limited to 12,000 mg/L.
At the peak flow period of each day, RAS would be stopped, and the sludge would be diverted to
the sewer line downstream of the pump station. The peak diurnal flows in excess of the plant
capacity would either be equalized at the SRP or remain in the sewer to transport the waste
activated sludge (WAS) for further stabilization and disposal at the Santa Cruz WWTP. In
addition, a flushing period will be provided on a daily basis to minimize settlements in the sewer
collection system. Prior to detailed design, an evaluation of the pipeline capacity downstream of
the SRP is required to assure that an adequate scour velocity is achieved to convey the waste to
the WWTP and minimize odors.
After membrane filtration, the filtered wastewater would be disinfected through UV irradiation
to ensure that the requirements for Title 22 recycled water are met. A small sodium hypochlorite
dosing system would also be provided to chlorinate the UV disinfected wastewater occasionally
to limit biological formation in the recycled water conveyance system. The disinfected
wastewater would be stored in a 600,000 gallon storage tank and blended with additional
groundwater to meet the daily irrigation demands at the golf course. Submersible pumps would
be installed in the storage tank to boost the treated water to the irrigation water distribution
system. The design criteria, preliminary layout of the proposed SRP, and preliminary opinion of
cost for each SRP is provided below.
The SRP would be fully automated to minimize staffing requirements. Operations personnel
would only be required to make daily checks and provide emergency callout response. The
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system would be remotely accessible
6/26/2009
32
through a direct dial-up line or via a static internet protocol address. The membrane filtration
system would provide a barrier to solids, and therefore, effluent quality would be reliable.
Should there be a disruption in system operations, the wastewater would continue to flow to the
Santa Cruz WWTP, and any overflows would also be directed to the sewer. Therefore, the risk
of environmental contamination would be relatively low.
SRP Certification Requirements
9.3
The two SRPs evaluated in this Study are classified as a Class III water recycling facility. A
Class III water recycling facility is defined as a wastewater treatment facility that provides
tertiary level treatment and has a rated capacity of less than 1.0 mgd. Thus, a Class III
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator is needed to operate the facility. Since the SRP is
designed to be an unmanned facility and the District currently does not have a licensed
wastewater treatment operator, it may be beneficial to the District to contract out operations of
the SRP to a third party. Estimated cost for third party operations has been included in the
annual O&M cost presented later in this section. Additional details on operation certification
and operating requirements for the SRP can be found in California Code of Regulations, Title 23,
Division 3, Chapter 26.
Seascape Golf Course SRP
9.4
The design criteria and major equipment as well as instrumentation list for the SGC SRP is
summarized in Table 16 and Table 17,respectively. The SRP would be fully automated. The
SGC SRP would have a treatment capacity of approximately 400,000 gpd, and a storage tank
would be provided to accommodate the night time irrigation schedule at the golf course. As
indicated in Table 16, approximately 744 pounds per day of sludge will be wasted from the SRP
on a daily basis at a rate of 150 gpm over an hour and discharged back into the sewer system.
The solids concentration in this waste stream is approximately 10,000 mg/L. Discharge of the
sludge (WAS) will occur during peak flow periods to ensure adequate wastewater flow is
available to convey the sludge and minimize settlement.
Table 16: Major Equipment List for SGC SRP
# of
Units
Size
3
302 gpm ea.
Firm capacity for the Peak Hourly Flow
(PHF) (0.869 mgd)
1
125,000 gal
Based on equalizing influent flow
2
326 gpm ea.
Firm capacity of maximum month flow
1
1
0.869 mgd
0.869 mgd
Fine Screen
2
0.90 mgd ea.
2-mm fine screens
Activated Sludge Trains
2
115,800 gal
14-day SRT at minimum temp
2
2
26,750 gal
89,050 gal
Target 10mg/L NOx-N
Design MLSS = < 10,000 mg/L
Unit Process
Influent Pumps
Design Criteria
Influent Equalization
Volume
Equalization Return
Pumps
Coarse Screen
Grit Removal
Anoxic Zone
Aerobic Zone
6/26/2009
33
3/8-inch screening
Vortex grit removal unit
Membrane Zone
Cassettes/Modules
# of
Units
2
4/144
Z-Mod-L units
48,960 ft2
ZW500d, 4 cassettes
17.5 gfd flux, with 15% out of service
Internal Recycle Pump
2
1,300 gpm ea.
4 x basin influent flow
2
150 gpm
Unit Process
Waste Activated Sludge
Pumps
Total WAS
Total WAS Flow
Aeration Blowers
UV Disinfection System
UV Transmissivity
Design Dosage
Number of trains
Reactors per train
Redundancy
Effluent Storage Tank
Size
Design Criteria
Wasting at 150 gpm for 59 min/day
744 lbs/d
8,900 gpd
3
650 scfm
65%
80 mJ/cm2
2
2
1
Dedicated blowers for aeration and
membrane scour with 1 blower standby for
either system
Conservative after membrane filters
Parallel operation
Series
100%
250,000 gal
Table 17: Instrumentation List for SGC SRP
Unit Process
# of Units
Design Criteria
Influent Flowmeter
1
900 gpm maximum
Aeration basin pH meter
2
Alkalinity control
Dissolved oxygen probe
2
Blower control
Suspended Solids Meters
2
MLSS control
Solids Recycle Flowmeter
1
700 gpm maximum
WAS Flowmeter
1
250 gpm maximum
Irrigation Storage tank level
1
Influent Equalization Tank Level
1
Aeration Basin Level
1
A preliminary site layout of the SGC SRP is provided in Figure 10. The process basins and
treated water reservoir would be buried and covered, while the membrane tanks, UV disinfection
system, air compressor, and chemical feed systems will be housed in a building to minimize
visual impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. An equalization basin is provided to maximize
the amount of wastewater captured for treatment in order to minimize the supplemental potable
water supply that may be needed to meet the irrigation demands. The overall footprint of the
above grade facilities is approximately 4,000 ft2. A preliminary opinion of cost for the SGC SRP
is provided in Table 18. The location of the SRP on the golf course and proposed on-site
retrofits are provided in Figure 11. The SGC SRP is sized for a treatment capacity of 400,000
gpd in order to meet the average summer recycled water demand of 328,000 gpd. The cost
summarized in the first column in Table ES-3 assumes 24/7 operation of the SRP at plant
6/26/2009
34
capacity. However, as discussed previously, the SGC SRP may only be operated as needed
during the winter months and the second cost column in Table ES-3 summarizes the cost based
on estimated recycled water produced or actual groundwater conserved. A breakdown of the
capital cost and O&M cost is provided in the Appendix. In addition, the capital cost has
increased significantly since the 2005 Study due to escalation in raw material costs and increased
site work required at the golf course site.
Table 18: Preliminary Opinion of Cost for SGC SRP
Cost Based on
SGC SRP
Parameter
Actual Annual
Cost
Average Production
400,000
121,000
134
$9,644,000
$9,644,000
Retrofit Cost
$686,000
$686,000
1
Capital Recovery
$841,000
$841,000
$272,000
$1,113,000
$140,0004
$981,000
$7.62
$2,500
$2.78
$22.21
$7,300
$8.11
Note: All Costs are in 2008 Dollars
1
2
3
4
O&M Cost adjusted based on actual production.
6/26/2009
35
Figure 10: Preliminary Layout of the SGC SRP
36
Figure 11: Proposed Location of SRP at Seascape Golf Course
6/26/2009
37
9.5
Polo Grounds Park/Aptos Junior High School SRP
The design criteria and major equipment, as well as the instrumentation list for the PGP/Aptos
JHS SRP, are summarized in Table 19 and Table 20, respectively. The SRP would be fully
automated. The PGP/Aptos JHS SRP is considerably smaller than the SGC SRP, with a
treatment capacity of approximately 48,000 gpd. A storage tank will be provided to meet the
irrigation schedule at the PGP and Aptos JHS. Approximately 97 pounds per day of sludge will
be wasted from the SRP on a daily basis at a rate of 100 gpm over 12 minutes and discharged
back into the sewer collection system. The solids concentration in this waste stream is
approximately 10,000 mg/L.
Table 19: Major Equipment List for PGP/Aptos JHS SRP
Unit Process
# of Units
Size
Design Criteria
2
100 gpm each Firm capacity for the PHF (0.869 mgd)
Influent Pumps
Influent Equalization
Volume
1
20,000 gallons Based on equalizing influent flow
Equalization Return
2
326 gpm each firm capacity of maximum month flow
Pumps
1
0.11 mgd
3/8-inch screening
Coarse Screen
1
0.11 mgd
Vortex grit removal unit
Grit Removal
2
0.11 mgd
2-mm fine screens
Fine Screen
1
41,000 gallons 14-day aerobic SRT at minimum temp
Activated Sludge Trains
Anoxic Zone
1
16,500 gallons Target 10mg/L NOx-N
Aerobic Zone
Membrane Zone
Cassettes/Modules
Internal Recycle Pump
WAS Pumps
1
1
2/16
2
24,500 gallons
Z-Mod-L units
5,440 ft2
180 gpm each
1
100 gpm
Total WAS
Total WAS Flow
Aeration Blowers
Design MLSS = < 10,000 mg/L
ZW500d, 4 cassettes
17.5 gfd flux, with 15% out of service
4 x basin influent flow
Wasting at 100 gpm for 12 min/day
97 lbs/d
1,160 gpd
3
100 scfm
Dedicated blowers for aeration and
membrane scour with one standby
UV Disinfection System
UV Transmissivity
Design Dosage
Number of trains
Reactors per train
Redundancy
Effluent Storage Tank
6/26/2009
65%
80 mJ/cm2
2
2
1
Conservative after membrane filters
Parallel operation
Series
100%
20,000 gallon
38
Table 20: Instrumentation List for PGP/Aptos JHS SRP
# of
Unit Process
Design Criteria
Units
Influent Flowmeter
1
150 gpm maximum
Aeration basin pH meter
2
Alkalinity control
Dissolved oxygen probe
2
Blower control
Suspended Solids Meters
2
MLSS control
Solids Recycle Flowmeter
1
200 gpm maximum
WAS Flowmeter
1
150 gpm maximum
Irrigation Storage tank level
1
Influent Equalization Tank Level
1
Aeration Basin Level
1
A preliminary opinion of cost and layout for the PGP/Aptos JHS SRP is provided in Table 21
and Figure 12, respectively. Similar to the SGC SRP, the PGP/Aptos JHS SRP would only have
the membrane building located above grade, while the process basins and treated water reservoir
is located below grade and covered. The cost summarized in the first column in Table 21
assumes 24/7 operation of the SRP at plant capacity. However, the SRP may only be operated as
needed during the winter months and the second cost column in Table 21 summarizes the cost of
recycled water produced based on actual annual average production of recycled water or actual
groundwater conserved. A breakdown of the capital cost and O&M cost is provided in the
Appendix.
Table 21: Preliminary Opinion of Cost for PGP/Aptos JHS SRP
Cost Based on Actual
Parameter
Value
Annual Average
Production
50,000
33,000
37
$3,916,000
$3,916,000
Total On-Site Retrofit Cost
$59,000
$59,000
1
Capital Recovery
$347,000
$347,000
$152,000
$499,000
$129,000
$499,000
$27.34
$9,000
$9.98
$41.43
$13,500
$15.12
Note: All Costs are in 2008 Dollars
1
2
3
4
O&M cost adjusted based on actual production
6/26/2009
39
Figure 12: Preliminary Layout for PGP/Aptos JHS SRP
40
9.6
Discussion on SRP Opinion of Cost
The preliminary opinion of cost prepared for the SGC SRP and PGP/Aptos JHS SRP in this
study (summarized in Table 18 and Table 21, respectively) was higher than the previous opinion
of cost prepared in the 2005 Study. Several factors have contributed to this cost increase,
including:
•
Inflation and instability of the economy over the past four years
•
Revised treatment requirements based on latest flow and wastewater quality (i.e. addition
of raw wastewater flow equalization)
• Additional site work that is required (i.e. clearing of eucalyptus trees at the SGC site)
The market trend in general construction cost, consumer price index (CPI), and key raw material
costs plotted in Figure 13 indicates the instability of construction prices since 2004. Although
general construction and CPI increased only about 10 percent, it also includes other construction
activities such as commercial buildings, housing, etc. However, key raw materials such as steel,
concrete, and pipe cost that have a more direct impact on municipal projects in the water and
wastewater industry have seen a cost increase of 30 to 50 percent over the past 4 years. Thus,
market factors alone would have contributed to a cost increase of 25 to 30 percent from the
previous opinion of cost prepared for the SRPs.
60%
Steel
Percent Increase from 2004
50%
40%
Concrete
30%
Pipe
20%
CPI
10%
0%
2004
General
Construction
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Figure 13: Construction Cost Increases Since 2004
(Each data point represents the average value for that entire year)
6/26/2009
41
2009
10.0 JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY AND COOPERATION WITH
OTHER AGENCIES
The SRPs evaluated in this Study to provide recycled water within the District’s service will be
owned and operated by the District. However, the District may elect to contract out operation,
maintenance, and compliance monitoring of the facility to a third party. The District will also be
responsible for modifications required to pump wastewater from the existing sewer collection
system to the SRP for treatment. The sewer system is currently owned and operated by the Santa
Cruz County Sanitation District.
Prior to detailed design and implementation of the SRP facility, interagency agreements would
be required between the District and the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District, the City of Santa
Cruz (who owns and operates the Regional WWTP), and the end user. Letters of interest and
acknowledgement of this Study from agencies/entities that would be involved with the District’s
recycled water project is provided in the Appendix. In addition, in response to the Letter of
Interest provided by Hatch & Parent on behalf of American Golf Corporation who own and
operates the Seascape Golf Course, the District has prepared a memo (attached in the Appendix
with the Letter of Interest) addressing the American Golf Corporation’s provisions.
11.0 POTENTIAL PROJECT PITFALLS
Potential project pitfalls for implementation of the SRP facility are summarized in Table 22.
Table 22: Potential Project Pitfalls
Potential Pitfall
Impact/Description
• Supplemental potable water is required to meet recycled
water demands.
Insufficient wastewater supply • Santa Cruz County Sanitation District requires a flushing
available to meet recycled
velocity of 2.5 ft/s to be achieved once per day.
water demands
Withdrawing wastewater out in the upper end of their
collection system may pose settlement problems in their
sewers.
• SGC is currently not a District customer and owns their
own groundwater well.
• The SGC SRP would only be beneficial to the District if
Agreement with Recycled
SGC agrees to only pump groundwater when
Water User
supplemental supply is needed.
• The location of the SRP will need to be agreed upon by
the District and the recycled water user.
• Without grants and outside funding, the cost per AF of
recycled water produced is not economical for the District.
•
The Cost per AF of recycled water produced is in the
Cost of SRP Facility
same ballpark as the cost of water produced by a seawater
desalination facility, or higher depending on the treatment
capacity of the SRP.
6/26/2009
42
12.0 CONSTRUCTION FINANCING PLAN
This section summarizes the results of the financing alternatives reviewed in developing a
construction financing plan for the SRP Project. All elements used in the financing plan such as
economic assumptions, revenues, expenditures, debt and capital improvement projects are
included below or in summarized in the Appendix.
12.1 Financing Alternatives
In assessing the feasibility of constructing a SRP at the SGC location, Black & Veatch performed
a financial analysis to determine the funding impact of this project on the District. Special
considerations were made to establish rates and issuance of debt that were sufficient to meet
operation and maintenance expenses, debt service, capital improvement requirements and
operating reserves. Understanding these fundamentals, Black & Veatch used the District’s
existing Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) as the baseline financial information (as provided by
the District) and developed Alternatives A and B in support of this Study.
•
District’s Existing CIP;
•
Alternative A: Normal CIP with only SRP at Seascape Golf Course, and;
•
Alternative B: Normal CIP with both seawater desalination and SRP.
The financial analysis covers the period between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2018. For the purpose
of this report, only a three-year period covering July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011 is demonstrated in
the body of the report in order to correspond with the District’s budget. Detailed tables
representing the entire 10-year study period is provided in the Appendix. In addition, unless
otherwise noted, references in this report to a specific year are for the District’s fiscal year
ending June 30.
12.2 Funding Sources
This section presents a discussion of the various means by which the seawater desalination and
SRP projects might be funded. The different funding sources will have a significant impact on
the financial feasibility analysis. The main sources of funding include grants, State loans,
revenue bonds and rates and charges.
12.2.1 Grant Funds
Grant funds from the State of California come in the form of free money. Grants are given to
utilities for specific projects. In California, the grant program under Chapter 8 provides for both
planning and implementation grants. Planning grants are limited to $500,000, with a requirement
that the local agency provide at least 25 percent in matching funds. 1 Implementation grants are
capped at $50 million, with a 10 percent matching requirement. The matching requirement in
both cases must come from sources other than state funds. These matching funds can include
State Revolving Fund proceeds.
1
With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the State of California has
temporarily lifted the matching percentage requirement for projects funded with ARRA monies.
6/26/2009
43
By receiving funds under the grant program, the amount of funds needed to be raised by the
District through rate and other charges decreases. Grants are only for the capital expenditures
and do not cover O&M expenses associated with operating those facilities, therefore rate
increases would still be necessary to cover O&M costs. However, these revenue increases would
be lower than those required without the receipt of any grants. The grant programs typically
expect that replacement funding be put in place so that the facilities are self sustaining. Similar to
O&M costs, replacement funding would also have to come from user charges.
12.2.2 Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Another low cost funding source for the capital program is the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF). Utilizing both Federal and State funds, the SRF provides funding for projects at
subsidized interest rates, with interest rates set at 50 percent of the rate for the most recent issue
of State General Obligation (GO) Bonds. Based on recent sales of California GO bonds, it
appears that the interest rate for SRF loans is likely to be 5.00 percent 2. Table 23 summarizes the
terms and conditions that apply to the SRF.
Table 23: SFR Eligibility and Terms
Eligible
Applicants:
POTWs – local public agencies
NPS - local public agencies, non-profit organizations, and private parties
Eligible Project
Types:
Publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities, local sewers, sewer
interceptors, and water reclamation facilities, as well as, nonpoint source
pollution control projects
Funding
Available:
$200-$300 Million Annually
Fund Source:
Federal and State Funds and 2005 Revenue Bond Sale
Loans:
Loans (20 year term with an interest rate equal to one-half the most recent
State General Obligation Bond Rate, typically 2.5% to 3.5%)
Applications:
Continuous Application Process, Currently accepting applications
As noted in the table, repayment of SRF loans is over a 20 year period. The first payment on the
loan is due one year following completion of construction, with interest accruing during the
construction period.
Similar to the grant programs, the SRF funding applies only to capital expenditures. Unlike a
grant, the SRF must be repaid. The District will have the responsibility for interest and principal
payments over the 20 year repayment period. The debt service payments will need to be funded
through rates (for upgrade projects) and installation and capacity fees (expansion projects).
2
The State of California’s current budget crisis has resulted in a downgrade of the State’s rating by the rating
agencies.
6/26/2009
44
12.2.3 Issuance of Debt
Another form of funding is through debt issuance. Municipal debt is generally in one of two
forms: GO bonds or Revenue bonds. As a non-City entity, the District would only be able to
issue revenue bonds. Interest on municipal bonds of both forms is exempt from both Federal and
State taxes. The bonds therefore carry a lower interest rate than other types of bonds in the
market place. Municipal bonds are typically issued for 20 to 30 year terms.
The interest rate on municipal bonds depends on the credit worthiness of the issuer, which is
reflected in the ratings established by ratings agencies, such as Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, or
Fitch’s. Currently, the District maintains a Standard & Poor’s rating of AA which would result in
interest rates in the 5.00 percent to 5.5 percent range.
12.2.4 Funding from District Revenues –Rates, Charges, Reserves
Finally, funding may be accomplished through existing or planned revenues generated by the
District without relying on outside funding sources. This is often referred to as pay-as-you-go
funding. Pay-as-you-go funding requires the District to raise the money for its projects
beforehand rather than through borrowing. While this may be a laudable goal and avoid interest
costs associated with borrowing, it can be extremely difficult when a large amount of money is
required, particularly over a short time period.
The primary way to accumulate the funds is through rate increases, which must be substantial
when high cost projects are required. There are also issues about intergenerational equity, since
current rate payers are entirely paying for facilities that will serve not just them but also future
generations. For the projects, pay-as-you-go funding is not a viable option since the amount of
funds needed and the short time frame mandated would lead to rate increases that would very
likely be deemed unacceptable to system customers and voters.
12.3 Financial Assumptions
The discussion herein forms the basis for the financial feasibility analysis. Black & Veatch relied
on projected growth, the number of accounts, usage, debt service payments, fees and charges and
O&M and capital expenses provided by the District as shown in Table 24. The CIP was adjusted
to conform to the proposed fiscal year (FY) 09/10 budget.
6/26/2009
45
Table 24: Financial Assumptions
Budget
2008/09
Projected Growth (5/8" meter equivs)
Change in Water Demand
Service Installation Charge (5/8")
Water Capacity Charge (5/8")
Cost Escalation
Desal Water Supply (AF)
SCG SRP O&M
SCG SRP O&M Escalator
SCG SRP Capital
SCG SRP Capital Escalator
30
$3,344
$9,900
$0
0%
$0
0%
Projected
2009/10
2010/11
20
0%
$3,400
$10,400
6%
$0
4%
$1,500,000
3%
20
0%
$3,500
$10,800
6%
$0
4%
$4,830,000
3%
12.3.1 Other Revenue Sources
Other revenue sources consist of revenue that is generated by the District outside of water
charges and sales. These revenue sources are more volatile in nature and thus are kept constant.
Other revenue sources consist of service installation fees, capacity fees and interest income.
Installation fees and capacity fees are only generated from new development. The District
anticipates increases of 3 to 5 percent per year for these charges. In addition, the District
anticipates interest income from working capital reserves at a rate of 3 percent per year.
12.3.2 O&M Costs
O&M costs consist of the on-going expenditures necessary to operate and maintain the system.
For projection purposes, all O&M costs have been escalated at 6 percent for two years and 5
percent per year thereafter. With regards to the desalination plant and SRP, the O&M costs have
been escalating at 4 percent per year. Details on the capital estimates are discussed further within
the alternatives.
12.4 Funding Alternatives
In the analysis, it was assumed that the District will use a combination of cash-financing and
revenue bonds. While SFR funding is a low-cost option, revenue bonds were incorporated and
assumed to have tenure of 25 years with a 5.75 percent interest rate. In the event that the District
pursues SFR funding, the interest rate will decrease. For cash-funding, the District will primarily
use cash on hands (reserves), installation and capacity charges, and rate revenue.
12.4.1 District’s Existing CIP
In Alternative A, the District anticipates the construction of a 2.5 mgd seawater desalination
plant in addition to its planned capital projects. It is anticipated that the seawater desalination
plant will create a significant increase to O&M expenditure as a result increased energy and
chemical costs. To partially offset the increase, the District will experience savings from well
pumping costs. The total cost for the desalination plant is estimated at $54 million (estimated
6/26/2009
46
using data provided by the District in the District’s adopted CIP) and it is expected to be
operational by the second half of FY 14/15.
Based on this alternative; the District will need to raise rates for the next ten years in addition to
issuing debt. The rate increases and debt issuance is summarized in Table 25. Detail revenue and
expenditures are shown in Table 26.
Table 25: Rate Adjustments and Debt Issuance – District’s Existing CIP
Fiscal Year
Revenue
Adjustments
Debt Proceeds
2008/09
0.0%
$0
2009/10
9.0%
$10,000,000
2010/11
9.0%
$11,000,000
2011/12
9.0%
$8,500,000
2012/13
12.0%
$13,250,000
2013/14
12.0%
$19,000,000
2014/15
12.0%
$20,000,000
2015/16
10.5%
$2,225,000
2016/17
2.5%
$750,000
2017/18
2.5%
$0
Table 26: Cash Flow Analysis
Budget
2008/09
January
0.0%
0.0%
Rate Adjustments
Cumulative Impact
Beginning Fund Balance
REVENUES
Water Service Charge (incl fire)
Water Sales
Capacity & Service Install Charges
Interest Income
Other Revenues
Subtotal Revenues
Debt Proceeds (Desalination)
Debt Proceeds (SCG SRP)
Total Debt Proceeds
6/26/2009
Projected
2009/10
2010/11
47
January
9.0%
9.0%
January
9.0%
18.8%
4,666,000
560,000
990,000
2,876,000
8,275,000
397,000
117,000
61,000
11,726,000
3,009,000
8,246,000
276,000
17,000
50,000
11,598,000
3,284,000
8,897,000
286,000
30,000
50,000
12,547,000
0
0
0
10,000,000
0
10,000,000
11,000,000
0
11,000,000
Table 26: Cash Flow Analysis (Cont’d)
Budget
2008/09
EXPENSES
Operating
Salaries and benefits
Power
Services and supplies
Conservation/information program
Other
Desal & Transmission O&M
Est. reduction in well pumping costs
Seascape Golf Course SRP O&M
Subtotal
Debt Service
2004 Refunding Bonds
Est. Future Debt Service
Subtotal
Capital Improvements
Desalination Project Costs
District CIP Projects
Subtotal
Total Expenses
Revenues Less Expenses
Projected
2009/10
2010/11
4,211,000
620,000
871,000
283,000
673,000
0
0
0
6,658,000
4,464,000
657,000
923,000
300,000
713,000
0
0
0
7,057,000
4,732,000
696,000
978,000
318,000
756,000
0
0
0
7,480,000
744,000
0
744,000
748,000
413,000
1,161,000
747,000
1,278,000
2,025,000
1,415,000
7,015,000
0
8,430,000
2,266,000
10,684,000
0
12,950,000
1,740,000
11,901,000
0
13,641,000
15,832,000
21,168,000
23,146,000
430,000
401,000
(4,106,000)
Ending Fund Balance
560,000
990,000
1,391,000
Fund Reserve Targets
Minimum Operating Rsrv: 25% O&M (Goal)
Rate Stabilization: 25% of debt (Goal)
Emergency Capital Reserves (Goal)
Total
500,000
150,000
0
650,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
6.81
3.91
2.50
Debt Service Coverage
12.5 Alternative A - Normal CIP with only SRP at Seascape Golf Course
In Alternative A, the District anticipates the construction of a 0.4 mgd SRP in addition to its
planned capital projects. It is anticipated that the SRP will increase O&M expenditures based on
increased energy costs. The total cost for the SRP is roughly $10 million and it is expected to be
operational by the second half of FY 12/13.
Based on this alternative, the District will need to raise rates for the next ten years in addition to
issuing debt. The rate increases and debt issuance are summarized in Table 27. Detail revenue
and expenditures are shown in Table 28.
6/26/2009
48
Table 27: Rate Adjustments and Debt Issuance - Alternative A
Fiscal Year
Revenue
Adjustments
Debt Proceeds
2008/09
0.0%
$0
2009/10
9.0%
$9,200,000
2010/11
9.0%
$14,500,000
2011/12
5.0%
$6,300,000
2012/13
5.0%
$5,250,000
2013/14
5.0%
$3,600,000
2014/15
5.0%
$3,200,000
2015/16
3.0%
$1,500,000
2016/17
2.5%
$1,500,000
2017/18
2.5%
$0
Table 28: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative A
Budget
2008/09
January
0.0%
0.0%
Rate Adjustments
Cumulative Impact
REVENUES
Water Sales
Interest Income
Other Revenues
Subtotal Revenues
Total Debt Proceeds
6/26/2009
Projected
2009/10
2010/11
49
January
9.0%
9.0%
January
9.0%
18.8%
4,666,000
1,975,000
2,355,000
2,876,000
8,275,000
397,000
117,000
61,000
11,726,000
3,009,000
8,246,000
276,000
59,000
50,000
11,640,000
3,284,000
8,897,000
286,000
71,000
50,000
12,588,000
0
0
0
0
9,200,000
9,200,000
0
14,500,000
14,500,000
Table 28: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative A (Cont’d)
Budget
2008/09
EXPENSES
Operating
Power
Other
Subtotal
Debt Service
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total Expenses
4,211,000
620,000
871,000
283,000
673,000
0
0
0
6,658,000
4,464,000
657,000
923,000
300,000
713,000
0
0
0
7,057,000
4,732,000
696,000
978,000
318,000
756,000
0
0
0
7,480,000
744,000
0
744,000
748,000
380,000
1,128,000
747,000
1,356,000
2,103,000
0
7,015,000
0
7,015,000
0
10,684,000
1,591,000
12,275,000
0
11,901,000
5,278,000
17,179,000
14,417,000
20,460,000
26,762,000
380,000
326,000
1,975,000
2,355,000
2,681,000
500,000
150,000
0
650,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
6.81
4.06
2.43
(2,691,000)
Ending Fund Balance
Total
Projected
2009/10
2010/11
12.6 Alternative B - Normal CIP with Both Seawater Desalination and SRP
In Alternative B, the District anticipates the construction of both the 2.5 mgd seawater
desalination plant and SRP in addition to its planned capital projects. Similar to the previous
alternatives, energy, third party operations, etc. associated with the SRP will increase O&M
expenditures. The total cost for both projects is roughly $64 million. Realistically, one project
will supersede the other and therefore both projects will not be constructed simultaneously.
Based on this alternative; the District will need to raise rates for the next ten years in addition to
issuing debt. The rate increases and debt issuance is summarized in Table 29. Detail revenue and
expenditures are shown in Table 30.
6/26/2009
50
Table 29: Rate Adjustments and Debt Issuance - Alternative B
Fiscal Year
Revenue
Adjustments
Debt Proceeds
2008/09
0.0%
$0
2009/10
9.0%
$12,500,000
2010/11
9.0%
$17,000,000
2011/12
9.0%
$11,000,000
2012/13
15%
$16,500,000
2013/14
15%
$19,500,000
2014/15
15%
$20,500,000
2015/16
10%
$2,000,000
2016/17
2.5%
$1,250,000
2017/18
2.5%
$0
Table 30: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative B
Budget
2008/09
January
0.0%
0.0%
Rate Adjustments
Cumulative Impact
REVENUES
Water Sales
Interest Income
Other Revenues
Subtotal Revenues
Total Debt Proceeds
6/26/2009
Projected
2009/10
2010/11
51
January
9.0%
9.0%
January
9.0%
18.8%
4,666,000
560,000
1,798,000
2,876,000
8,275,000
397,000
117,000
61,000
11,726,000
3,009,000
8,246,000
276,000
17,000
50,000
11,598,000
3,284,000
8,897,000
286,000
54,000
50,000
12,571,000
0
0
12,500,000
12,500,000
17,000,000
17,000,000
Table 30: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative B (Cont’d)
Budget
2008/09
EXPENSES
Operating
Power
Other
Subtotal
Debt Service
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total Expenses
Projected
2009/10
2010/11
4,211,000
620,000
871,000
283,000
673,000
0
0
0
6,658,000
4,464,000
657,000
923,000
300,000
713,000
0
0
0
7,057,000
4,732,000
696,000
978,000
318,000
756,000
0
0
0
7,480,000
744,000
0
744,000
748,000
514,000
1,262,000
747,000
1,725,000
2,472,000
1,415,000
7,015,000
0
8,430,000
2,266,000
10,684,000
1,591,000
14,541,000
1,740,000
11,901,000
5,278,000
18,919,000
15,832,000
22,860,000
28,871,000
(4,106,000)
1,238,000
700,000
Ending Fund Balance
560,000
1,798,000
2,498,000
Minimum Operating Rsrv: 25% O&M
Rate Stabilization: 25% of debt
Emergency Capital Reserves
Total
500,000
150,000
0
650,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
6.81
3.60
2.06
12.7 Impact on Customers
Based on the alternative described herein, the rates will need to adjust in order to finance the
proposed projects. Table 31, Table 32, and Table 33 represent the typical bill for a customer at
the District under all three alternatives.
6/26/2009
52
Table 31: Typical Bill – District’s Existing CIP
Budget
2008/09
PROJECTED RATE INCREASES
Effective Date
Rate Increase
Compounded Increase
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Projected
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
January
0%
100%
January
9%
109%
January
9%
119%
January
9%
130%
January
12%
145%
January
12%
162%
January
12%
182%
January
11%
201%
January
3%
206%
January
3%
211%
PROJECTED BI-MONTHLY BILLS
Single Family Residential
5/8" Meter
Bi-Monthly Use (hcf)
Low
8
Monthly Equivalent
52.68
26.34
57.42
28.71
62.59
31.30
68.22
34.11
76.41
38.21
85.58
42.79
95.85
47.93
105.91
52.96
108.56
54.28
111.27
55.64
Median (est.)
Monthly Equivalent
15
88.87
44.44
96.87
48.44
105.59
52.80
115.09
57.55
128.90
64.45
144.37
72.19
161.69
80.85
178.67
89.34
183.14
91.57
187.71
93.86
Average
Monthly Equivalent
18
104.38
52.19
113.77
56.89
124.01
62.01
135.18
67.59
151.40
75.70
169.56
84.78
189.91
94.96
209.85
104.93
215.10
107.55
220.48
110.24
2x Median
Monthly Equivalent
30
166.42
83.21
181.40
90.70
197.72
98.86
215.52
107.76
241.38
120.69
270.35
135.18
302.79
151.40
334.58
167.29
342.95
171.48
351.52
175.76
High
Monthly Equivalent
50
345.62
172.81
376.73
188.37
410.63
205.32
447.59
223.80
501.30
250.65
561.45
280.73
628.83
314.42
694.86
347.43
712.23
356.12
730.03
365.02
6/26/2009
53
Table 32: Typical Bill - Alternative A
Budget
2008/09
Effective Date
Rate Increase
Compounded Increase
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Projected
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
January
0%
100%
January
9%
109%
January
9%
119%
January
5%
125%
January
5%
131%
January
5%
138%
January
5%
144%
January
3%
149%
January
3%
152%
January
3%
156%
5/8" Meter
Low
8
Monthly Equivalent
52.68
26.34
57.42
28.71
62.59
31.30
65.72
32.86
69.00
34.50
72.45
36.23
76.08
38.04
78.36
39.18
80.32
40.16
82.33
41.17
Median (est.)
Monthly Equivalent
15
88.87
44.44
96.87
48.44
105.59
52.80
110.87
55.44
116.41
58.21
122.23
61.12
128.34
64.17
132.19
66.10
135.50
67.75
138.88
69.44
Average
Monthly Equivalent
18
104.38
52.19
113.77
56.89
124.01
62.01
130.21
65.11
136.73
68.37
143.56
71.78
150.74
75.37
155.26
77.63
159.14
79.57
163.12
81.56
2x Median
Monthly Equivalent
30
166.42
83.21
181.40
90.70
197.72
98.86
207.61
103.81
217.99
109.00
228.89
114.45
240.33
120.17
247.54
123.77
253.73
126.87
260.08
130.04
High
Monthly Equivalent
50
345.62
172.81
376.73
188.37
410.63
205.32
431.16
215.58
452.72
226.36
475.36
237.68
499.12
249.56
514.10
257.05
526.95
263.48
540.12
270.06
6/26/2009
54
Table 33: Typical Bill - Alternative B
Budget
2008/09
Effective Date
Rate Increase
Compounded Increase
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Projected
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
January
0%
100%
January
9%
109%
January
9%
119%
January
9%
130%
January
15%
149%
January
15%
171%
January
15%
197%
January
10%
217%
January
3%
222%
January
3%
228%
5/8" Meter
Low
8
Monthly Equivalent
52.68
26.34
57.42
28.71
62.59
31.30
68.22
34.11
78.46
39.23
90.22
45.11
103.76
51.88
114.13
57.07
116.99
58.50
119.91
59.96
Median (est.)
Monthly Equivalent
15
88.87
44.44
96.87
48.44
105.59
52.80
115.09
57.55
132.35
66.18
152.21
76.11
175.04
87.52
192.54
96.27
197.35
98.68
202.29
101.15
Average
Monthly Equivalent
18
104.38
52.19
113.77
56.89
124.01
62.01
135.18
67.59
155.45
77.73
178.77
89.39
205.58
102.79
226.14
113.07
231.80
115.90
237.59
118.80
2x Median
Monthly Equivalent
30
166.42
83.21
181.40
90.70
197.72
98.86
215.52
107.76
247.85
123.93
285.02
142.51
327.78
163.89
360.55
180.28
369.57
184.79
378.81
189.41
High
Monthly Equivalent
50
345.62
172.81
376.73
188.37
410.63
205.32
447.59
223.80
514.73
257.37
591.94
295.97
680.73
340.37
748.80
374.40
767.52
383.76
786.71
393.36
6/26/2009
55
13.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
A total of 25 recycled water users/sites were identified and evaluated for this Study to offset
potable water demand and reduce groundwater pumping. Based on the recycled water market
assessment and recycled water supply/demand analysis, the SGC and PGP/Aptos JHS locations
were selected for further evaluation. The feasibility of constructing the SRPs at these two
locations is highlighted below.
SGC SRP
o SGC is the highest volume user of recycled water identified, so a significant
amount of the groundwater supply (approximately 136 AFY) would be conserved
if irrigation needs could be met by the SRP.
o The SGC is located near the wastewater supply, so extensive pipeline construction
would not be required.
o May need potable water supplement to meet peak irrigation demands.
o SGC is currently not a District customer and would require user
assurances/agreements to be in place prior to design and construction of the SRP.
The District would likely provide SGC with recycled water in return for rights to
SGC current groundwater wells.
o Further negotiations is needed with SGC to secure a location for the SRP and
terms to use recycled water from the District in lieu of groundwater for irrigation.
PGP/Aptos JHS SRP
o The PGP/Aptos JHS SRP would conserve approximately 37 AFY of groundwater.
o Raw wastewater would need to be pumped at least 2,000 feet from the nearest
sewer line to the SRP location at PGP.
o This location is not feasible since it is unable to meet the mandatory flushing
velocity requirement.
The PGP/Aptos JHS SRP location does not have adequate wastewater available to achieve the
minimum flushing velocity required by the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District. However, if
nearby neighborhoods on septic systems connect into the sewer near the PGP SRP location in the
future; this location would be technically feasible.
The SGC SRP is technically feasible. However, from a cost comparison standpoint in providing
new water supply to the District, a regional seawater desalination facility provides a cheaper
source of water on a dollar per AF basis (approximately $ 1,500 to $2,000/AF provided by the
District) compared to recycled water ($7,300/AF). The cost of water for desalinated seawater is
lower in this case because it is used as continuous potable water supply whereas recycled water
is only used as needed for irrigation. Increased recycled water utilization would lower the SGC
SRP unit cost to be comparable with seawater desalination. Additional federal/state grants
and/or other outside funding sources (i.e. State Revolving Loans) are needed for recycled water
projects to move forward.
6/26/2009
56
APPENDIX
6/26/2009
57
Board Meeting Agenda and Minutes
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
REGULAR MEETING –7:00 P.M.
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009
District Office
5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel, California
AGENDA
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 19, 2009
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
4.
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION –May 19, 2009
a.
5.
Conference with District Labor Negotiator to Give Direction Regarding
Memorandum of Understanding with Management Employees
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
6.1
New Water Service Connection for Dean Rossi, 635 Beach Drive, Aptos,
APN 043-161-55
6.2
Satellite Reclamation Plant (SRP) Facilities Study Grant – Final
Report
6.3
Discussion with HydroMetrics, LLC Re: Studies/Models to Provide
Quantifiable Information Re: the District’s Groundwater Resources
6.4
Adopt 2009-10 Budget
6.5
Approval of Public Outreach Consultant Services with Data Instincts
6.6
Approval of Rate Consultant Services with Bartle Wells Associates
6.7
First Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement with Central Water
District for Groundwater Management of the Soquel-Aptos Area
6.8
Larkin Valley Tank Recoat, Approve Change Order No. 1, Grant Final
Acceptance and File Notice of Completion
6.9
Seacliff Area Main Replacements Project, Phase II, Approve Change
Order No. 3
6.10 This item was deleted.
6.11 Vista Del Mar Booster Station Site Work, Adopt Plans & Specs and
Call for Bids
6.12 Approve Purchase Over $5,000 for Production Well Level Transducers
Agenda – Board of Directors
June 2, 2009
Page 2 of 2
6.13 Rosedale Well Treatment Plant Recoat and Media Replacement
Project, Bid Award
6.14 Approve Purchase Over $5,000 for Cisco Telecommunications System
6.15 Desalination Task Force and Energy Issues
a) Review and Comment on Draft Request for Proposals – CEQA/NEPA
Support Services for the Desalination Program
7.
INFORMATION ITEMS
None
8.
STATUS REPORTS
8.1
Conservation & Customer Service Field (CCSF)
8.2
Income and Investment Report for April
8.3
District Counsel
8.4
General Manager
8.5
Work Plan & Special Assignments
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE
10.
REPORT OF PAYMENT OF THE BILLS
April Warrants and Mar./Apr. Credit Card Analysis
11.
CLOSED SESSION
11.1
12.
Memorandum of Understanding with Management Employees Unit
ADJOURNMENT
All information furnished to the Board of Directors with this agenda is provided under Board Meeting - Agenda, Packets and
Minutes on the District’s website www.soquelcreekwater.org. Any additional information provided to the Board prior to the
meeting will be made available to the public at the same at the District office.
Please observe the following procedures for addressing the Board on agendized items. All those wishing to speak on an item
should raise a hand and be recognized by the Board President during the portion of the proceedings set aside for public
comment. Each speaker will be limited to a single presentation of up to three minutes per agenda item (time limits may be
increased or decreased at the Board President's discretion). After all speakers have addressed the Board, the Board will
deliberate and take action. Additional public comment will not be allowed during the Board's deliberation unless the
President specifically calls on someone in the audience. Organized groups wishing to make a presentation are asked to contact
the Board Clerk prior to the Board Meeting.
SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
June 2, 2009
1.
Roll Call
President LaHue called the Regular Session to order at 7:02 p.m.
Board Members Present:
Dr. Thomas LaHue, President
Bruce Daniels, Vice President
Dan Kriege
Dr. Bruce Jaffe
Dr. Don Hoernschemeyer
Staff Members Present:
Laura Brown, General Manager
Bob Bosso, District Counsel
Jeff Gailey, Engineering Manager/Chief Engineer
Ron Duncan, Conservation & Customer Service Field (CCSF) Manager
Michelle Boisen, Financial/Business Services Manager
Taj Dufour, Operations & Maintenance Manager
Mike Wilson, Associate Engineer
Leslie Strom, Supervising Accountant
Denise Alexander, Executive Assistant/Board Clerk
Others Present:
1 member of the public
Sunny Wang with Black & Veatch
Derrik Williams with HydroMetrics LLC
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 19, 2009
Page 2: Oral Communications – correct spelling of Gadoy to Godoy. Director
Jaffe provided an update of his meeting with County Supervisor Ellen Pirie
who was interested in gaining a better understanding of the District’s WDO
Program …
MOTION: Director Daniels; Second: Director Hoernschemeyer: To approve the
May 19, 2009 minutes as modified. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2009
Page 2 of 9
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Steve Kennedy, a Soquel resident, felt that the Board had made a mistake by
not following the City of Santa Cruz’s implementation of mandatory water
rationing this year. He also noted that San Lorenzo Valley Water District has a
Stage 2 restriction, with no watering allowed between 9:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. He
said his neighbors continue to use water as usual. He questioned how can the
Board ask its customers only to conserve during these low water years. Does
the Board plan on waiting until there’s a serious emergency?
The Board members acknowledged Mr. Kennedy’s comments and issues. The
guidelines for declaring a groundwater emergency outlined in the District’s
Urban Water Management Plan were explained. Ms. Brown gave Mr. Kennedy
the May 2009 production report, which showed a significant reduction in water
use over last year.
President LaHue commented he received an email from a customer who
appreciated his response and the fact that the Board is aware of the situation
concerning the Poor Clares project.
4.
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION – May 19, 2009
4.1
Memorandum of Understanding with Management Employees
President LaHue stated that the Board gave guidance to the labor
negotiator regarding the MOU with management employees.
5.
PUBLIC HEARING
None
6.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
6.1
New Water Service Connection Application for Dean Rossi, 635 Beach
Drive, Aptos, APN 043-161-55
MOTION: Director Daniels; Second: Director Hoernschemeyer: To
authorize the District’s standard water service connection to be installed
for Dean Rossi at 635 Beach Drive in Aptos, APN 043-161-55. The
motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2009
Page 3 of 9
6.2
Satellite Reclamation Plant (SRP) Facilities Study Grant – Final Report
Engineering Manager Jeff Gailey introduced the District’s Associate
Engineer Mike Wilson and Sunny Wang with Black & Veatch. Mr. Wang
and staff responded to questions from the Board.
Director Daniels stated he would like to see the calculation comparisons
for the acre-foot cost of a regional seawater desalination facility versus
the water recycling facility to arrive at the amounts shown on page vii of
the Executive Summary. Ms. Brown stated that staff will find out how
those numbers were calculated. She also explained that the figures on
page 6 in Table 3, on Average District Water Demand (in acre-feet per
year) of the report, were developed for the Well Master Plan EIR because
an updated projection was needed.
Discussion ensued whether to proceed with developing a construction
financing plan for a Satellite Reclamation Plant or to declare the project
as financially infeasible at this time.
MOTION: Director Daniels; Second: President LaHue: To direct staff to
proceed with pursuing a Satellite Reclamation Plant to serve the
Seascape Golf Course with Direction to develop a Construction Financing
Plan for submittal to the State Water Board. The motion passed by a
unanimous vote.
The Board thanked Mr. Wang for the report.
6.3
Discussion with HydroMetrics, LLC Re: Studies/Models to Provide
Quantifiable Information Re: the District’s Groundwater Resources
Derrik Williams with HydroMetrics LLC stated he was present to gain a
better understanding of the Board’s concerns and objectives before
developing a proposal to address the questions that were asked by the
Board at the May 5, 2009 meeting.
The list developed by the Board for HydroMetrics to address, stated in
the staff report, and Mr. Williams’ written response were discussed.
Defining conditions that would constitute a groundwater emergency, new
criteria for the District’s Urban Water Management Plan Groundwater
Emergency Section, and achieving collaboration basin-wide were noted.
Mr. Williams proposed that recharge calculations could be developed
with the purpose of quantifying recharge deficiencies and that water
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2009
Page 4 of 9
levels must also be taken into account in developing criteria for a
groundwater emergency.
Director Daniels stated that using the cross-sectional modeling for
improving the analysis of the sustainable yield of the Soquel-Aptos basin
should be the priority.
The Board clarified that the sustainable yield analysis being done by
HydroMetrics should be completed prior to developing a scope of work
based on this discussion.
MOTION: President LaHue; Second: Director Kriege: To focus on the
most straightforward methods to develop a criteria for declaring a
groundwater emergency, including recharge and water levels. The
motion passed by a unanimous vote.
6.4
Adopt 2009-10 Budget
Financial and Business Services Manager Michelle Boisen and
Supervising Accountant Leslie Strom responded to questions from the
Board.
MOTION: Director Jaffe; Second: Director Hoernschemeyer: To adopt as
the Final Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget and direct staff to produce final
copies for distribution as required. The motion passed by a 4-1 vote with
Director Daniels dissenting because he does not support a rate increase. .
The Board thanked staff for a job well done.
6.5
Approval of Public Outreach Consultant Services with Data Instincts
General Manager Laura Brown responded to questions from the Board.
Director Jaffe stated he would like to see a more detailed Scope of Work.
MOTION: Director Jaffe; Second: President LaHue: To return with a
more detailed Scope of Work for Data Instincts Services in excess of
$5,000. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Item 6.14 was heard at this time to accommodate the District’s
Supervising Accountant Leslie Strom.
6.6
Approval of Rate Consultant Services with Bartle Wells Associates
Ms. Boisen provided an overview of the staff report.
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2009
Page 5 of 9
Director Daniels stated that the scope of services from Bartle Wells to
provide rate recommendations should also include the Water Capacity
Charges. The Board concurred. A suggestion was made that Tom Pavletic
with Municipal Financial Services may be the best consultant to perform
that task, due to having performed a comprehensive water capacity
charge study to prepare an updated charge model for the District in
2008. Staff will initiate an update of the Water Capacity Charges.
MOTION: Director Kriege; Second: Director Daniels: To accept the Rate
Consultant Services proposal from Bartle Wells Associates at a cost not
to exceed $20,000 and to have Municipal Financial Services provide a
proposal to develop a rate recommendation for the Water Capacity
Charges. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
6.7
First Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Central Water
District for Groundwater Management of the Soquel-Aptos Area
Discussion ensued. The Board gave guidance for modifying the Draft
First Amendment to the JPA as follows:
the committee member representing private wells shall be non-voting
on fiscal matters
to specify that the chairmanship would alternate between committee
members from SqCWD and Central Water District every other year.
MOTION: Director Jaffe; Second: Director Kriege: To recommend that
the First Amendment to the JPA be modified to state that the fifth
committee member representing private wells would be non-voting on
fiscal matters and the selection of a chair would alternate between
committee members from SqCWD and Central Water District every
other year. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
6.8
Larkin Valley Tank Recoat, Approve Change Order No. 1, Grant Final
Acceptance and File Notice of Completion
MOTION: Director Kriege; Second: Director Hoernschemeyer: To adopt
Resolution No. 09-16 approving Change Order No. 1 for a contract
deduction of -$10,284 and accept the Larkin Valley Tank Recoat Project
as complete and File the Notice of Completion. The motion passed by a
unanimous vote.
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2009
Page 6 of 9
6.9
Seacliff Area Main Replacements Project, Phase II, Approve Change
Order No. 3
MOTION: Director Daniels; Second: Director Jaffe: To adopt
Resolution No. 09-17 approving Change Order No. 3 for a contract
addition of $11,901.05 for the Seacliff Area Main Replacement Project,
Phase II, CWO 08-042. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
6.10 This item was deleted.
6.11 Vista Del Mar Booster Station Site Work, Adopt Plans & Specs and Call
for Bids
MOTION: Director Jaffe; Second: Director Kriege: To approve
Resolution No. 09-18 for plans and specifications and Resolution No.
09-19 setting prevailing wages and calling for bids for the Vista Del Mar
Booster Station Site Work Project, CWO 09-110. The motion passed by a
unanimous vote.
6.12 Approve Purchase Over $5,000 for Production Well Level Transducers
MOTION: Director Daniels; Second: Director Kriege: To approve the
purchase of 14 water level transducers for a total price not to exceed
$17,769.42, excluding tax and shipping, from Dugan Technologies of
Walnut Creek, Ca and authorize $2,261.80 to be appropriated from
Operating Contingency Reserves. The motion passed by a unanimous
vote.
6.13 Rosedale Well Treatment Plant Recoat and Media Replacement Project,
Bid Award
Operations & Maintenance Manager Taj Dufour responded to questions
and input from the Board.
MOTION: Director Hoernschemeyer; Second: Director Jaffe: To accept
the lowest qualified bidder and adopt Resolution No. 09-20 for award of
contract to ERS Industrial Services, Inc. of Fremont for the Rosedale
Well Treatment Plant Recoat and Media Replacement Project and to
authorize funds in the amount of $50,405.06 to be allocated from
Operating Contingency Reserves to complete the Rosedale Well
Treatment Plant Recoat and Media Replacement Project, CWO 09-149.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2009
Page 7 of 9
Item 8.1 was heard at this time to accommodate Mr. Duncan.
6.14
Approve Purchase Over $5,000 for Cisco Telecommunications System
Staff responded to questions from the Board.
MOTION: Director Jaffe; Second: Director Daniels: To approve the
purchase of the Cisco UB520 Telecommunications System for an
implementation cost not to exceed $29,864 in fiscal year 2008-09
(including the purchase of headphones/speakers) from The Maynard
Group. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
6.15 Desalination Task Force and Energy Issues
a) Review and Comment on Draft Request for Proposals – CEQA/NEPA
Support Services for the Desalination Program
The Board did not have any revisions to the Draft Request for Proposals.
7.
INFORMATION ITEMS
None
8.
STATUS REPORTS
8.1
Conservation & Customer Service Field (CCSF) – CCSF Manager Ron
Duncan provided an overview of the staff report. The plumber’s
installation of toilets for customers who have been waiting for over a
year is moving along nicely and a compliment was received from a
customer. Approximately 40% of the toilets seen in the Water Use
Efficiency Survey Program were identified as 1.6 gpf. The installation of
the AMRs is starting up again now that the contractor is available to
resume that project. Staff contacted the representative from Seascape
Green’s Homeowners Association, Mark Godoy, who was pleased with
the advice he received to lower their irrigation usage. An article in the
Register Pajaronian regarding St. John the Baptist Episcopal Church’s
installation of a 30,000 gallon cistern entitled “Green-minded
congregation,” was mentioned.
Ms. Brown noted that the District had received several exceptional
letters of support for the Bureau of Reclamation grant including from
the head of the legislative division of ACWA and Congressman Farr.
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2009
Page 8 of 9
8.2
Income and Investment Report for April – Ms. Boisen provided an
update that the FDIC insurance (up to $250,000) that was due to expire
on December 31, was extended to 2013. The Money Market Guarantee
Program expected to expire April 30, was extended to September 2009.
Staff is progressing with the selection process for the District’s general
banking services.
Director Daniels referred to the Water Consumption Report noting the
extremely high amount of water being used by the top Tier 3 water
users. A brief discussion ensued.
8.3
District Counsel – Bob Bosso briefly commented on the ACWA
conference he attended last week. A few courses and very interesting
cases noted by the Legal Affairs Committee were worthwhile. He gave a
talk on water law last Wednesday to the Santa Cruz Board of Realtors
as part of their education program.
8.4
General Manager – Ms. Brown stated she had nothing to report.
8.5
Work Plan & Special Assignments – President LaHue stated that the
additional information provided in the work plan is very helpful and
thanked staff.
Mr. Gailey responded to a question regarding the status of the Bulk
Water Stations.
On page 7, 3 (B) Arsenic, Director Hoernschemeyer recommended
stating “less than the detectable level of X” rather than “non-detect.”
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE
None
10.
REPORT OF PAYMENT OF THE BILLS
April Warrants and Mar./Apr. Credit Card Analysis
MOTION: Director Kriege: Second: Director Hoernschemeyer: To accept the
April Warrants and Mar./Apr. Credit Card Analysis as paid. The motion passed
by a unanimous vote.
At 9:42 p.m., President LaHue recessed the Open Session to convene the
Closed Session.
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2009
Page 9 of 9
11.
CLOSED SESSION
9.1
Memorandum of Understanding with Management Employees Unit
President LaHue reconvened to Open Session at 10:05 p.m.
President LaHue stated that the Board gave direction to the labor
negotiator regarding the MOU with management employees.
12.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, President LaHue adjourned
the meeting at 10:06 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on June
16, 2009.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
_____________________________
Denise Alexander, Board Clerk
_________________________
Thomas LaHue, President
Opinion of Cost Information
Soquel Creek Water District - Satellite Water Reclamation Plant
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Satellite Reclamation Plant
Description
Site 1 - SGC
Site 2 - PGP
Yard Piping
Sitework
Screens (include flow metering)
Grit Removal
Diversion Structure
EQ Basin
Anoxic/Aerobic Basin
MBR System
Treated Water Storage Reservoir
Electrical
I&C
Construction Contract GCs
$72,000
$930,000
$514,000
$258,000
$363,000
$140,000
$278,000
$1,575,000
$300,000
$665,000
$222,000
$425,000
$176,000
$290,000
$306,000
$123,000
$157,000
$100,000
$82,000
$646,000
$86,000
$295,000
$98,000
$151,000
Total Probable Construction Cost
Estimating Contingency (30%)
Subtotal
$5,742,000
$1,723,000
$7,465,000
$2,510,000
$753,000
$3,263,000
Total Construction Cost 1
EALF & Change Orders (20%)
$7,465,000
$1,493,000
$3,263,000
$653,000
Total SRP Capital Cost
$8,958,000
$3,916,000
Preliminary Opinion of Cost SCWD SRP w Bldg.xls Summary
6/25/2009
Preliminary O&M Cost for SGC SRP
Cost Category
Specific Item
Operations
Labor
Plant Manager
Operations Superintendent
Receptionist/Secretary
Operators
Maintenance Staff
Solids Handling
Laboratory and Sampling
Instrument Technician
Number of
Staff
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Total Additional Plant Staff
Maintenance
Item
(parts and supplies for equipment in service)
Influent Pumps
EQ Pumps and Mixers
Coarse Screens
Vortex Grit Removal
Fine Screens
Mixers
Solids Recycle Pumps
UV System
Treated storage Pumps
Membranes
Labor
hours/year
0
0
0
2080
0
0
0
0
1
Equipment
Cost
$20,000
$35,000
$112,000
$100,000
$120,000
$20,000
$25,000
$100,000
$20,000
$1,000
rate/hour (incl Total Annual
fringe)
Cost
$40
$0
$40
$0
$40
$0
$40
$83,200
$40
$0
$40
$0
$40
$0
$40
$0
2080
$40
Annual cost as
percent of
equipment
Total Annual
cost
Cost
#
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
144
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
20%
5%
13%
Total Equipment Parts and Supplies
Power
Item
Influent Pumps
EQ Pumps and Mixers
Coarse Screens
Vortex Grit Removal
Fine Screens
Mixers
UV System
Blowers (Process and membrane scour)
Total Power Costs
$83,200
$2,000
$3,500
$5,600
$5,000
$6,000
$2,000
$2,500
$20,000
$1,000
$18,000
$65,600
Total hp in
continuous
operation kW
5
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
4
4
6.3
100
123
hrs/day
3.73
1.49
0.37
0.37
0.37
2.98
2.98
1.80
4.72
74.57
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
93
kWhrs/annum
hrs/annum
cost/kW-hr
Cost/annum
8760
32,662
$0.12
$3,919.40
8760
13,065
$0.12
$1,567.76
8760
3,266
$0.12
$391.94
8760
3,266
$0.12
$391.94
8760
3,266
$0.12
$391.94
8760
26,129
$0.12
$3,135.52
8760
26,129
$0.12
$3,135.52
8760
15,768
$0.12
$1,892.16
8760
41,371
$0.12
$4,964.57
8760
653,233
$0.12
$78,387.98
$98,179
818,156
5.9 kW-hr/1000 gal
Subtotal O&M COST (w/oSupplement)
Contingency
$246,979
10%
TOTAL O&M COST (w/oSupplement)
$272,000
O&M SGC
Preliminary O&M Cost for PGP SRP
Cost Category
Specific Item
Operations
Labor
Plant Manager
Operations Superintendent
Receptionist/Secretary
Operators
Maintenance Staff
Solids Handling
Laboratory and Sampling
Instrument Technician
Total Additional Plant Staff
Maintenance
Item
(parts and supplies for equipment in service)
Influent Pumps
EQ Pumps and Mixers
Coarse Screens
Vortex Grit Removal
Fine Screens
Mixers
UV System
Membranes
Number of Staff
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Labor
hours/year
0
0
0
2080
0
0
0
0
1
Equipment Cost
rate/hour (incl Total Annual
fringe)
Cost
$40
$0
$40
$0
$40
$0
$40
$83,200
$40
$0
$40
$0
$40
$0
$40
$0
2080
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
16
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
20%
5%
13%
Total Equipment Parts and Supplies
Power
Item
Influent Pumps
EQ Pumps and Mixers
Coarse Screens
Vortex Grit Removal
Fine Screens
Mixers
UV System
Blowers (Process and membrane scour)
Total Power Costs
$83,200
Annual cost as
percent of
Total Annual
equipment cost
Cost
#
$15,000
$20,000
$56,000
$80,000
$60,000
$10,000
$12,000
$50,000
$10,000
$1,000
$40
$1,500
$2,000
$2,800
$4,000
$3,000
$1,000
$1,200
$10,000
$500
$2,000
$28,000
Total hp in
continuous
operation kW
3
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
2
3.0
20
33
Subtotal O&M COST (w/o Supplement)
Contingency
hrs/day
2.24
0.75
0.37
0.37
0.37
1.49
1.49
0.50
2.24
14.91
24
24
24
24
24
25
26
27
28
24
25
1.6 kW-hr/1000 gal
kWhrs/annum
hrs/annum
cost/kW-hr
Cost/annum
8760
19,597
$0.12
$2,351.64
8760
6,532
$0.12
$783.88
8760
3,266
$0.12
$391.94
8760
3,266
$0.12
$391.94
8760
3,266
$0.12
$391.94
9125
13,609
$0.12
$1,633.08
9490
14,153
$0.12
$1,698.41
9855
4,928
$0.12
$591.30
10220
22,863
$0.12
$2,743.58
8760
130,647
$0.12
$15,677.60
$26,655
222,128
$137,855
10%
TOTAL O&M COST (w/oSupplement)
$152,000
O&M PGP
Letters of Acknowledgement / Interest
City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz County Sanitation District
American Golf Corporation (Seascape Golf Course) &Technical
Memorandum Addressing Key Provisions
BLACK & VEATCH
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:
June 15, 2009
TO:
Mike Wilson – Soquel Creek Water District
FROM:
Sunny Wang - Black & Veatch
RE:
Responses to Provisions Listed in Seascape Golf Course’s Letter of Interest
for the SRP Project.
The Soquel Creek Water District (District) has embarked on a planning study to evaluate
the feasibility of providing recycled water to select customers through a Satellite
Reclamation Plant (SRP) within the District’s service area. A potential customer for
receiving recycled water with an SRP is the Seascape Golf Course, a subsidiary of parent
company American Golf. Full irrigation during the summer period equates to roughly
328,000 gallons per day (gpd), so a considerable amount of groundwater supply would be
conserved by constructing a SRP to provide recycled water for turf irrigation at the golf
course (approximately 134 acre-feet of water per year could be conserved). The
Seascape Golf Course supports the District’s intent to provide recycled water for turf
irrigation in an effort to conserve groundwater resources as indicated in their Letter of
Interest (Hatch & Parent, Feb. 16, 2007). In response to the Summary of Key Provisions
for Recycled Water Use Agreement outlined in Seascape Golf Course’s Letter of Interest,
the District has addressed these provisions in the Study as summarized below.
Key Provisions:
1. Responsibility for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the recycled
water facilities.
The District will be responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance
of the proposed SRP facility to provide recycled water to Seascape Golf Course.
2. Strategy for operations to overcome any water quality or other operational
challenges so that there is no material interference with Course operations or
quality.
Irrigation at Seascape Golf Course currently takes place primarily during the
night time hours. In order to meet the irrigation demand and night time irrigation
schedule at the golf course, a 250,000 gallon capacity storage tank is provided
with the SRP to ensure adequate irrigation supply is available. In the event of
water quality or operational challenges at the SRP, use of the Seascape Golf
Course’s groundwater well will remain available as an alternate water supply to
prevent any interference with golf course operations.
3. Location and operation of the various recycled water facilities, including any
package treatment plant, and any other necessary infrastructure.
BLACK & VEATCH
The SRP will need to be located at the Seascape Golf Course. A location was
identified by golf course staff with the understanding that final land use approval
would be required by parent company American Golf. The proposed location of
the SRP is provided in the attached figure.
The SRP will utilize membrane bioreactors (MBR) to produce Title 22 recycled
water for irrigation. The overall footprint of the SRP is approximately 4,000 ft2.
In addition to the SRP, on-site retrofits are necessary to tie-in the recycled water
from the SRP into the existing irrigation system and to provide a supplemental
potable water supply to the SRP. Please refer to the attached figure for necessary
infrastructure upgrades.
4. Costs incurred by Seascape arising from the use of recycled water (including
capital infrastructure, operation, and maintenance) shall be comparable to, or less
than, the Course’s current cost of using potable water.
As currently perceived, the final operational agreement would provide that any
costs above Seascape Golf Course’s current cost of using well water for irrigation
would be paid for by the District.
5. Any potential material adverse effects on Course operations or its quality will be
eliminated or mitigated.
A construction mitigation plan will be developed during the design phase of the
project. In addition, the golf course’s existing groundwater well will be available
for outages at the SRP.
6. If future adverse impacts develop (either temporarily or long-term) as a result of
the use of recycled water, Seascape may revert, temporarily or permanently, as
appropriate, to groundwater production. If the District seeks to eliminate the
Course’s groundwater use, the District must supply potable water at the
equivalent cost of producing groundwater.
The planning study concluded that use of the golf course’s existing groundwater
well might be necessary during high demand periods and that the well should
remain. This supplemental water supply will be available to the Seascape Golf
Course and considered in the design of the SRP.
7. The District shall indemnify and hold American Golf harmless for any liability,
claims, costs, etc., resulting in any way from the development or use of recycled
water upon the golf course so long as such liability, claims, costs, etc., do not
result from American Golf’s own negligence.
The District will be responsible for the quality of the recycled water to meet all
regulatory requirements necessary for irrigation. Additional requirements and
BLACK & VEATCH
terms will be discussed as the project moves forward.
The Soquel Creek Water District’s Board of Directors has reviewed the Water Recycling
Facilities Planning Study and, by motion at the June 2, 2009 meeting, directed District
Staff and Black & Veatch to proceed with pursuing a Satellite Reclamation Plant to serve
the Seascape Golf Course with direction to develop a construction financing plan for
submittal to the State Water Board.
The next steps for the District to take are to meet with parent company American Golf to
secure property for the SRP and negotiate terms for use of recycled water from the
District in lieu of groundwater to substantially meet irrigation demand. This level of
negotiation has taken longer than the time frame allowed for this Study, as American
Golf would not be prepared to negotiate without thorough review of the final planning
study.
H
F-XC A N GE
H
F-XC A N GE
c u-tr a c k
N
y
bu
to
k
lic
.d o
LOCATION OF IRRIGATION WELL
AND IRRIGATION /TITLE 22
RETROFIT
LOCATION OF SATELLITE
RECLAMATION PLANT &
STORAGE
PROPOSED IRRIGATION
WELL WATER LINE
PROPOSED RECYCLED
WATER LINE
SOQUEL CREEK
WATER DISTRICT
WATER RECYCLING FACILITIES PLANNING STUDY
SEASCAPE GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION SYSTEM RETROFIT
o
.c
m
C
m
w
o
.d o
w
w
w
w
w
C
lic
k
to
bu
y
N
O
W
!
PD
O
W
!
PD
c u-tr a c k
.c
Supporting Data for Construction Financing Plan
Table A-1: Financial Assumptions
Soquel Creek Water District
Budget
2008/09
Projected Growth (5/8" meter equivs)
Change in Water Demand
Service Installation Charge (5/8")
Water Capacity Charge (5/8")
Cost Escalation
Desal Water Supply (AF)
SCG SRP O&M
SCG SRP O&M Escalator
SCG SRP Capital
SCG SRP Capital Escalator
2009/10
30
$3,344
$9,900
$0
0%
$0
0%
20
0%
$3,400
$10,400
6%
$0
4%
$1,500,000
3%
2010/11
20
0%
$3,500
$10,800
6%
$0
4%
$4,830,000
3%
2011/12
20
0%
$3,600
$11,300
5%
$0
4%
$2,000,000
3%
2012/13
Projected
2013/14
20
0%
$3,700
$11,800
5%
$140,000
4%
$2,000,000
3%
2014/15
20
0%
$3,800
$12,300
5%
$140,000
4%
20
0%
$3,900
$12,800
5%
600
$140,000
4%
$0
3%
3%
2015/16
20
0%
$4,000
$13,200
5%
1,150
$140,000
4%
$0
3%
2016/17
20
0%
$4,100
$13,600
5%
1,150
$140,000
4%
$0
3%
2017/18
20
0%
$4,200
$14,000
5%
1,150
$140,000
4%
$0
3%
Table A-2: Cash Flow Analysis – District’s Existing CIP
Soquel Creek Water District - District's Existing CIP
Budget
2008/09
Rate Adjustments
Cumulative Impact
REVENUES
Water Sales
Interest Income
Other Revenues
Subtotal Revenues
Total Debt Proceeds
2009/10
January
0.0%
0.0%
January
9.0%
9.0%
2010/11
January
9.0%
18.8%
2011/12
January
9.0%
29.5%
2012/13
January
12.0%
45.0%
Projected
2013/14
January
12.0%
62.4%
2014/15
January
12.0%
81.9%
2015/16
January
10.5%
101.0%
2016/17
January
2.5%
106.1%
2017/18
January
2.5%
111.2%
4,666,000
560,000
990,000
1,391,000
1,921,000
2,475,000
2,794,000
3,116,000
3,437,000
3,457,000
2,876,000
8,275,000
397,000
117,000
61,000
11,726,000
3,009,000
8,246,000
276,000
17,000
50,000
11,598,000
3,284,000
8,897,000
286,000
30,000
50,000
12,547,000
3,584,000
9,607,000
298,000
42,000
50,000
13,581,000
3,968,000
10,583,000
310,000
58,000
50,000
14,969,000
4,450,000
11,849,000
322,000
74,000
50,000
16,745,000
4,991,000
13,270,000
334,000
84,000
50,000
18,729,000
5,557,000
14,783,000
344,000
93,000
50,000
20,827,000
5,915,000
15,865,000
354,000
103,000
50,000
22,287,000
6,071,000
16,262,000
364,000
104,000
50,000
22,851,000
0
0
0
10,000,000
0
10,000,000
11,000,000
0
11,000,000
8,500,000
0
8,500,000
13,250,000
0
13,250,000
19,000,000
0
19,000,000
20,000,000
0
20,000,000
2,225,000
0
2,225,000
750,000
0
750,000
0
0
0
Table A-3: Cash Flow Analysis – District’s Existing CIP
Soquel Creek Water District - District's Existing CIP
Budget
2008/09
EXPENSES
Operating
Power
Other
Subtotal
Debt Service
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total Expenses
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Projected
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
4,211,000
620,000
871,000
283,000
673,000
0
0
0
6,658,000
4,464,000
657,000
923,000
300,000
713,000
0
0
0
7,057,000
4,732,000
696,000
978,000
318,000
756,000
0
0
0
7,480,000
4,969,000
731,000
1,027,000
334,000
794,000
0
0
0
7,855,000
5,217,000
768,000
1,078,000
351,000
834,000
0
0
0
8,248,000
5,478,000
806,000
1,132,000
369,000
876,000
0
0
0
8,661,000
5,752,000
846,000
1,189,000
387,000
920,000
992,000
(91,000)
0
9,995,000
6,040,000
888,000
1,248,000
406,000
966,000
1,991,000
(182,000)
0
11,357,000
6,342,000
932,000
1,310,000
426,000
1,014,000
2,069,000
(189,000)
0
11,904,000
6,659,000
979,000
1,376,000
447,000
1,065,000
2,153,000
(196,000)
0
12,483,000
744,000
0
744,000
748,000
413,000
1,161,000
747,000
1,278,000
2,025,000
746,000
2,083,000
2,829,000
749,000
2,979,000
3,728,000
745,000
4,301,000
5,046,000
745,000
5,898,000
6,643,000
748,000
6,814,000
7,562,000
745,000
6,947,000
7,692,000
745,000
6,983,000
7,728,000
1,415,000
7,015,000
0
8,430,000
2,266,000
10,684,000
0
12,950,000
1,740,000
11,901,000
0
13,641,000
4,475,000
6,392,000
0
10,867,000
10,737,000
4,952,000
0
15,689,000
16,270,000
5,449,000
0
21,719,000
16,753,000
5,016,000
0
21,769,000
492,000
3,320,000
0
3,812,000
0
3,421,000
0
3,421,000
0
1,565,000
0
1,565,000
15,832,000
21,168,000
23,146,000
21,551,000
27,665,000
35,426,000
38,407,000
22,731,000
23,017,000
21,776,000
430,000
401,000
530,000
554,000
319,000
322,000
321,000
20,000
1,075,000
(4,106,000)
Ending Fund Balance
560,000
990,000
1,391,000
1,921,000
2,475,000
2,794,000
3,116,000
3,437,000
3,457,000
4,532,000
Total
500,000
150,000
0
650,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
1,960,000
710,000
2,000,000
4,670,000
2,060,000
930,000
2,000,000
4,990,000
2,170,000
1,260,000
2,000,000
5,430,000
2,500,000
1,660,000
2,000,000
6,160,000
2,840,000
1,890,000
2,000,000
6,730,000
2,980,000
1,920,000
2,000,000
6,900,000
3,120,000
1,930,000
2,000,000
7,050,000
6.81
3.91
2.50
2.02
1.80
1.60
1.31
1.25
1.35
1.34
Table A-4: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative A
Soquel Creek Water District - Alternative A
Budget
2008/09
Rate Adjustments
Cumulative Impact
REVENUES
Water Sales
Interest Income
Other Revenues
Subtotal Revenues
Total Debt Proceeds
2009/10
January
0.0%
0.0%
January
9.0%
9.0%
2010/11
January
9.0%
18.8%
2011/12
January
5.0%
24.8%
2012/13
January
5.0%
31.0%
Projected
2013/14
January
5.0%
37.5%
2014/15
January
5.0%
44.4%
2015/16
January
3.0%
48.7%
2016/17
January
2.5%
52.5%
2017/18
January
2.5%
56.3%
4,666,000
1,975,000
2,355,000
2,681,000
2,935,000
3,221,000
3,516,000
3,860,000
4,184,000
4,253,000
2,876,000
8,275,000
397,000
117,000
61,000
11,726,000
3,009,000
8,246,000
276,000
59,000
50,000
11,640,000
3,284,000
8,897,000
286,000
71,000
50,000
12,588,000
3,516,000
9,467,000
298,000
80,000
50,000
13,411,000
3,696,000
9,940,000
310,000
88,000
50,000
14,084,000
3,886,000
10,439,000
322,000
97,000
50,000
14,794,000
4,085,000
10,964,000
334,000
105,000
50,000
15,538,000
4,253,000
11,427,000
344,000
116,000
50,000
16,190,000
4,375,000
11,745,000
354,000
126,000
50,000
16,650,000
4,490,000
12,037,000
364,000
128,000
50,000
17,069,000
0
0
0
0
9,200,000
9,200,000
0
14,500,000
14,500,000
0
6,300,000
6,300,000
0
5,250,000
5,250,000
0
3,600,000
3,600,000
0
3,200,000
3,200,000
0
1,500,000
1,500,000
0
1,500,000
1,500,000
0
0
0
Table A-5: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative A
Soquel Creek Water District - Alternative A
Budget
2008/09
EXPENSES
Operating
Power
Other
Subtotal
Debt Service
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total Expenses
Ending Fund Balance
Total
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Projected
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
4,211,000
620,000
871,000
283,000
673,000
0
0
0
6,658,000
4,464,000
657,000
923,000
300,000
713,000
0
0
0
7,057,000
4,732,000
696,000
978,000
318,000
756,000
0
0
0
7,480,000
4,969,000
731,000
1,027,000
334,000
794,000
0
0
0
7,855,000
5,217,000
768,000
1,078,000
351,000
834,000
0
0
85,000
8,333,000
5,478,000
806,000
1,132,000
369,000
876,000
0
0
177,000
8,838,000
5,752,000
846,000
1,189,000
387,000
920,000
0
0
184,000
9,278,000
6,040,000
888,000
1,248,000
406,000
966,000
0
0
192,000
9,740,000
6,342,000
932,000
1,310,000
426,000
1,014,000
0
0
199,000
10,223,000
6,659,000
979,000
1,376,000
447,000
1,065,000
0
0
207,000
10,733,000
744,000
0
744,000
748,000
380,000
1,128,000
747,000
1,356,000
2,103,000
746,000
2,213,000
2,959,000
749,000
2,695,000
3,444,000
745,000
3,067,000
3,812,000
745,000
3,355,000
4,100,000
748,000
3,558,000
4,306,000
745,000
3,692,000
4,437,000
745,000
3,759,000
4,504,000
0
7,015,000
0
7,015,000
0
10,684,000
1,591,000
12,275,000
0
11,901,000
5,278,000
17,179,000
0
6,392,000
2,251,000
8,643,000
0
4,952,000
2,319,000
7,271,000
0
5,449,000
0
5,449,000
0
5,016,000
0
5,016,000
0
3,320,000
0
3,320,000
0
3,421,000
0
3,421,000
0
1,565,000
0
1,565,000
14,417,000
20,460,000
26,762,000
19,457,000
19,048,000
18,099,000
18,394,000
17,366,000
18,081,000
16,802,000
380,000
326,000
254,000
286,000
295,000
344,000
324,000
69,000
267,000
1,975,000
2,355,000
2,681,000
2,935,000
3,221,000
3,516,000
3,860,000
4,184,000
4,253,000
4,520,000
500,000
150,000
0
650,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
1,960,000
740,000
2,000,000
4,700,000
2,080,000
860,000
2,000,000
4,940,000
2,210,000
950,000
2,000,000
5,160,000
2,320,000
1,030,000
2,000,000
5,350,000
2,440,000
1,080,000
2,000,000
5,520,000
2,560,000
1,110,000
2,000,000
5,670,000
2,680,000
1,130,000
2,000,000
5,810,000
6.81
4.06
2.43
1.88
1.67
1.56
1.53
1.50
1.45
1.41
(2,691,000)
Table A-6: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative B
Soquel Creek Water District - Alternative B
Budget
2008/09
Rate Adjustments
Cumulative Impact
REVENUES
Water Sales
Interest Income
Other Revenues
Subtotal Revenues
Total Debt Proceeds
2009/10
January
0.0%
0.0%
January
9.0%
9.0%
2010/11
January
9.0%
18.8%
2011/12
January
9.0%
29.5%
2012/13
January
15.0%
48.9%
Projected
2013/14
January
15.0%
71.3%
2014/15
January
15.0%
97.0%
2015/16
January
10.0%
116.7%
2016/17
January
2.5%
122.1%
2017/18
January
2.5%
127.6%
4,666,000
560,000
1,798,000
2,498,000
2,518,000
3,083,000
3,207,000
3,870,000
4,222,000
5,040,000
2,876,000
8,275,000
397,000
117,000
61,000
11,726,000
3,009,000
8,246,000
276,000
17,000
50,000
11,598,000
3,284,000
8,897,000
286,000
54,000
50,000
12,571,000
3,584,000
9,607,000
298,000
75,000
50,000
13,614,000
4,024,000
10,700,000
310,000
76,000
50,000
15,160,000
4,633,000
12,309,000
322,000
92,000
50,000
17,406,000
5,335,000
14,158,000
334,000
96,000
50,000
19,973,000
6,000,000
15,995,000
344,000
116,000
50,000
22,505,000
6,372,000
17,122,000
354,000
127,000
50,000
24,025,000
6,540,000
17,552,000
364,000
151,000
50,000
24,657,000
0
0
12,500,000
12,500,000
17,000,000
17,000,000
11,000,000
11,000,000
16,500,000
16,500,000
19,500,000
19,500,000
20,500,000
20,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
0
0
Table A-7: Cash Flow Analysis - Alternative B
Soquel Creek Water District - Alternative B
Budget
2008/09
EXPENSES
Operating
Power
Other
Subtotal
Debt Service
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total Expenses
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Projected
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
4,211,000
620,000
871,000
283,000
673,000
0
0
0
6,658,000
4,464,000
657,000
923,000
300,000
713,000
0
0
0
7,057,000
4,732,000
696,000
978,000
318,000
756,000
0
0
0
7,480,000
4,969,000
731,000
1,027,000
334,000
794,000
0
0
0
7,855,000
5,217,000
768,000
1,078,000
351,000
834,000
0
0
85,000
8,333,000
5,478,000
806,000
1,132,000
369,000
876,000
0
0
177,000
8,838,000
5,752,000
846,000
1,189,000
387,000
920,000
992,000
(91,000)
184,000
10,179,000
6,040,000
888,000
1,248,000
406,000
966,000
1,991,000
(182,000)
192,000
11,549,000
6,342,000
932,000
1,310,000
426,000
1,014,000
2,069,000
(189,000)
199,000
12,103,000
6,659,000
979,000
1,376,000
447,000
1,065,000
2,153,000
(196,000)
207,000
12,690,000
744,000
0
744,000
748,000
514,000
1,262,000
747,000
1,725,000
2,472,000
746,000
2,875,000
3,621,000
749,000
4,005,000
4,754,000
745,000
5,480,000
6,225,000
745,000
7,117,000
7,862,000
748,000
8,044,000
8,792,000
745,000
8,188,000
8,933,000
745,000
8,245,000
8,990,000
1,415,000
7,015,000
0
8,430,000
2,266,000
10,684,000
1,591,000
14,541,000
1,740,000
11,901,000
5,278,000
18,919,000
4,475,000
6,392,000
2,251,000
13,118,000
10,737,000
4,952,000
2,319,000
18,008,000
16,270,000
5,449,000
0
21,719,000
16,753,000
5,016,000
0
21,769,000
492,000
3,320,000
0
3,812,000
0
3,421,000
0
3,421,000
0
1,565,000
0
1,565,000
15,832,000
22,860,000
28,871,000
24,594,000
31,095,000
36,782,000
39,810,000
24,153,000
24,457,000
23,245,000
(4,106,000)
1,238,000
700,000
20,000
565,000
124,000
663,000
352,000
818,000
1,412,000
Ending Fund Balance
560,000
1,798,000
2,498,000
2,518,000
3,083,000
3,207,000
3,870,000
4,222,000
5,040,000
6,452,000
Minimum Operating Rsrv: 25% O&M
Rate Stabilization: 25% of debt
Emergency Capital Reserves
Total
500,000
150,000
0
650,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
650,000
300,000
0
950,000
1,960,000
910,000
2,000,000
4,870,000
2,080,000
1,190,000
2,000,000
5,270,000
2,210,000
1,560,000
2,000,000
5,770,000
2,540,000
1,970,000
2,000,000
6,510,000
2,890,000
2,200,000
2,000,000
7,090,000
3,030,000
2,230,000
2,000,000
7,260,000
3,170,000
2,250,000
2,000,000
7,420,000
6.81
3.60
2.06
1.59
1.44
1.38
1.25
1.25
1.33
1.33
Response to SWRCB Comments on Draft Report
Mr. Paul Johnston
Division of Financial Assistance
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 “I” Street, 16th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject:
Soquel Creek Water District – Water Recycling Facilities
Planning Study, CWO 05-103
Dear Mr. Johnston,
We have summarized below our response to the comments made on the Draft Water
Recycling Facilities Planning Study Report for your ease of reference.
State Water Resource Control Board Comment:
1. Provide all information that is currently incomplete and/or unavailable in the Draft
Report.
All information is provided in the Final Report.
2. Discuss interagency agreements anticipated between the District, the Santa Cruz
County Sanitation District, and the City of Santa Cruz for the facilities in relation to
the potential facilities ownership, operation and maintenance, and oversight
responsibilities.
Letters were drafted to notify and inform the two agencies about the project. A letter
of Acknowledgment of the District’s proposed SRP has been received from the City
of Santa Cruz and is provided in the Appendix. Coordination is primarily required
with Santa Cruz Sanitation District to ensure adequate flushing velocities are
maintained. Ownership, operation and maintenance, regulatory compliance, and
oversight of the SRP will be the District’s responsibility.
3. Discuss draft recycled water discharge requirements anticipated for the service area
and identify the potentially responsible party.
Section 8.0 of the Final Report summarizes the anticipated regulatory requirements
for discharge and use of recycled waters.
4. Discuss recycled water and non-recycled water alternatives (for example,
development of freshwater supplies) and compare unit costs and benefits to support
why the project alternative selected is the most cost-effective (please reference
Appendix B of the Water Recycling Funding Program Guidelines).
A discussion of available alternatives for recycled and non-recycled water is
provided in Section 5.0. Majority of the non-recycled water alternatives does not
1 of 3
have unit cost information available due to fatal flaws and was not pursued any
further at this time. A comparison between recycled water option and seawater
desalination is provided in the Summary (Section 13.0).
5. Thoroughly discuss the feasibility of the recommended water recycling alternative
for the District.
An Executive Summary and Summary section has been added that addresses the
feasibility of the Project.
6. A public meeting should be held to obtain comments on the proposed project and to
discuss project-related financial and environmental factors. Information on the
public participation actions taken is to be included in the Final Report.
Findings and recommendations of the Study was presented at the District’s public
Board Meeting, held on June 2, 2009. Please refer to meeting agenda and minutes
provided in the Appendix.
7. Table 6 contains a list of potential users, none of which are District customers. The
feasibility report will need to identify the source of water currently used at the sites
and address the mechanisms, measures and incentives the District intends to use to
encourage them to become recycled water customers.
The source of water for these users is groundwater from either the Purisma and
Aromas aquifers as indicated in Table 6 (2nd to last column). The District intend to
provide non-District customers with free recycled water in return for rights to the
private groundwater wells or for the user to only use groundwater to supplement
recycled water during peak demands (Please refer to Section 6.0). Details of these
measures and incentives would be worked out in the user assurances and agreement
document.
8. Existing potential user sites may require onsite conversions or retrofits to enable
recycled water to be used. The costs for the conversions and the responsible party
need to be identified in the Final Report.
On-site retrofits will be provided by the District and has been added to the costs
summarized in Section 9.0.
9. The Draft Report provides information on the satellite treatment plant to serve the
Seascape Golf Course in Table 15. The concerns listed in Table 6 indicate the site
may not feasible. Equipment list and cost will be dependent upon the site chosen and
should be reflected in the Final Report.
Equipment list (Table 16 and 17) and cost (Table 18) for the satellite treatment plant
to serve Seascape Golf course is based on the proposed location shown on Figure
2 of 3
11.
10. Identify approximate annual Operation & Maintenance costs for the selected project
alternative.
Approximate annual O&M cost is provided in Table 18 and 21. A detail breakdown
of the O&M cost is provided in the Appendix.
11. Include a construction financing plan for the selected project alternative.
A construction financing plan is provided in Section 12.0.
12. Identify the State and/or local water supply and environmental benefits resulting
from the District’s recycling of municipal wastewater.
Environmental benefits resulting from the District’s recycling of municipal
wastewater is discussed in Section 3.3.
13. Identify the recycled water user assurances (for example, a strong letter of intent) the
District intends to use to assure the proposed users will accept the recycled water
upon completion of the proposed project.
A Letter of Interest has been received by the District from American Golf
Corporation (owner of the Seascape Golf Course) and is attached in the Appendix.
In addition, the District’s response to American Golf Corporation’s key provisions is
also provided in the Appendix. The next steps for the District to take are to meet
with parent company American Golf to secure property for the SRP and negotiate
terms for use of recycled water from the District in lieu of groundwater to
substantially meet irrigation demand. This level of negotiation has taken longer than
the time frame allowed for this Study, as American Golf would not be prepared to
negotiate without thorough review of the final planning study.
3 of 3