HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/2008 AGENDA BACKUP1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State of California is currently experiencing a water shortage, which will become
more extreme if rainfall is limited this wet weather season. This water shortage has
resulted in a renewed interest in recycled water by the public. In addition, the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) Board of Directors in a recent strategic
planning discussion unanimously agreed that pursuing a significant recycled water
program was a strategic goal for CCCSD. The Board requested that staff conduct a
Board Workshop to inform them about current and potential recycled water
opportunities as well as the historical, institutional, regulatory, and legal background of
the CCCSD recycled water program.
Because the recycled water topic is complex, staff has developed this briefing document
for the Boards use. After review of the information contained herein, staff has made the
findings summarized below.
• The CCCSD wastewater treatment facility was originally designed to deliver
recycled water to two nearby refineries. However, a relaxation of effluent
discharge requirements resulted in the facility not being used for this purpose,
except during two short drought periods. Receiving water discharge
requirements still do not create an economic incentive to provide the additional
treatment needed for recycling wastewater.
• Wastewater recycling projects can provide a water supply benefit.
• Expansion of recycled water landscape irrigation systems into developed areas is
very costly when compared with other water supply options available to the water
purveyors, such as rationing and purchasing water from agricultural users during
drought years.
• Development of a recycled water project to supply Central County refineries may
be cost competitive with other water supply options and should be pursued
through the provisions of the existing General Agreement with Contra Costa
Water District (CCWD). A project of this magnitude would benefit from grants or
outside financial partners to mitigate the financial impact to CCCSD ratepayers.
• A Business Plan for supplying recycled water to the Central County refineries, in
accordance with the CCWD General Agreement, should be developed and
submitted to CCWD for discussion. If CCWD is interested in partnering with us,
the likelihood of implementing a project will be significantly increased. If CCWD
declines to participate, staff and the Board will need to consider our next steps,
including the potential of pursuing a refinery recycled water project
independently.
• Development of a recycled water project to supply the Concord Naval Weapons
Station should be pursued with the City of Concord with the goal of making it
developer funded to minimize impacts to CCCSD ratepayers.
We look forward to further discussing our recycled water program options with the
Board at the October 29, 2008 Workshop.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 1 — Page 1 of 1
October 29, 2008
2. INTRODUCTION
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's ( CCCSD) original secondary treatment plant,
constructed in the 1970's, has as one of its key design features the ability to serve
recycled water to local refineries. While recycled water has been used successfully in
our treatment plant, since the construction of our Filter Plant, over the years, various
institutional and financial barriers have led to the slow development of our Recycled
Water Program. However, in the early 1990's, a successful landscape irrigation
program was initiated and has continued to be expanded to the present. Even with this
successful landscape program, CCCSD staff and the Board have long been
disappointed at their inability to establish a major industrial recycling program. This
disappointment is particularly acute given the proximity of two large refineries to our
wastewater treatment facility and the existence of infrastructure to feed those refineries.
On October 31, 2007, CCCSD Board of Directors held a strategic planning session to
review the long -term strategic direction of the District and develop key areas of
emphasis for the future. One result of this meeting was the unanimous agreement
among the Board that, in the face of increasing water shortages, the Board wanted to
pursue a significant Recycled Water Program. Shortly after this strategic planning
session, the Board Recycled Water Committee was reinvigorated and staff began a
series of new initiatives to explore recycled water project alternatives. As the severity of
the State water situation worsened, the Board as a whole has expressed an interest in
having a Board Recycled Water Workshop to explore the progress to date and consider
the future direction of the Recycled Water Program. Given the complexity of the
institutional, legal, environmental and financial issues surrounding the Recycled Water
Program, staff prepared this briefing document as background information to prepare
the Board for the presentation and discussion to be held at the Recycled Water
Workshop on October 29, 2008.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 2 — Page 1 of 1
October 29, 2008
3. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
General
Our CCCSD service area overlaps with the service areas of four separate water
purveyors. These are Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), East Bay Municipal Water
District (EBMUD), the City of Martinez and Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD). The boundaries of these four entities and their relationship to the existing
CCCSD recycled water infrastructure are shown in Figure 3.1 below.
Figure 3.1. Map of Water District Boundaries within CCCSD's Service Area
WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
s�
5u's""
ccwa.
LWOW.
- Cosa 5 ', Me Cefe ce" wdn mm
ee..A.w Uft N*W r— c-w.aa
&,&%VSW� C I . NOW
AN
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 3 - Page 1 of 5
October 29, 2008
These purveyors have invested money in the infrastructure needed to serve water to
CCCSD's service area. It is essential that CCCSD Board of Directors understand the
demand and supply situation for the purveyors in our service area. The State
Department of Water Resources requires each water supplier, providing water to more
than 3,000 customers, to complete an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and to
update it every five years. The demand and supply information from the most current
UWMP for CCWD, which incorporates the City of Martinez, and the most current UWMP
for EBMUD is presented below. Please note that DSRSD is not discussed herein, as
they do not impact our recycled water plans.
Contra Costa Water District Supply and Demand
CCWD's latest UWMP, dated December 2005, incorporates the recommendations of
CCWD's Future Water Supply Study (FWSS), which was completed in 1996 and
updated in 2002. The following information is excerpted from their UWMP. CCWD
obtains its water supply exclusively from the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and serves
treated and raw water to approximately 510,000 people in central and eastern Contra
Costa County. The population served is expected to grow to about 650,000 by the year
2030, based on current approved General Plans. All of CCWD's intakes are subject to
variations in water quality caused by salinity intrusion, Delta hydrodynamics and
discharges into the Delta and its tributary streams from both point and non -point
sources. Since 1992, CCWD has spent over $850 million on capital improvements to
improve water quality, including $450 million on the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project.
Existing and potential sources of water supply evaluated in CCWD's FWSS included
continued use of Central Valley Project (CVP) water, groundwater, recycled water,
desalination and water transfers. Their preferred supply alternative includes CVP water,
implementation of an expanded conservation program and water transfers to bridge the
gap between projected demand and supplies. CCWD's long -term CVP contract was
renewed in May 2005 and has a term of 40 years. The contract with the US Bureau of
Reclamation provides for a maximum delivery of 195,000 acre -feet per year (AFY), with
reductions during water shortages. Recycled water forms a part of the long -term supply
at 12,000 AFY beginning in 2010, with no growth projected to the year 2030. This
12,000 AFY represents about 1,600 AFY from CCCSD's Pleasant Hill Zone 1 project,
8,600 AFY from Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD) Energy Center projects, and
1,650 AFY from future landscape projects in the DDSD service area. The FWSS relies
on planned purchases of up to 21,500 AFY of water in 3 -year drought situations by the
year 2030 as well as short-term demand management through water conservation
measures of 33,200 AFY. The planned purchases would be on the open market and
could include both long -term and short -term water transfers. It is important to note that:
1. Water conservation measures would likely consist of mandatory rationing, which
has a financial impact to customers in the way of dead lawns and landscaping.
2. While CCWD plans to rely on water purchases on the open market, there is no
guarantee that those purchases will be available or as inexpensive, as they have
historically been, should there be a more serious longer -term drought or should
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 3 — Page 2 of 5
October 29, 2008
there be limitations applied to Delta water withdrawals, in response to the impact
seen on the endangered species in the Delta.
Table 3.1 shows the planned water supply for the CCWD raw and treated water service
area for the year 2030 under both normal and 3 -year drought scenarios.
Table 3.1 CCWD Planned Water Supply for 2030
CCWD
Water Supply Type
Year 2030
Normal Supply (AFY)
Year 2030 3 -year
Drought Supply (AFY)
CVP
195,000
126,800
Industrial Diversions
10,000
0
Mallard Slough
3,100
0
Antioch Diversions
6,700
0
Groundwater
3,000
3,000
ECCID Purchases
8,200
12,200
Recycled Water
12,000
12,000
Total Firm Supply
238,000
154,000
Conservation Savings
13,600
13,600
Planned Purchases
0
21,500
Total Planned Supply
251,600
189,000
Demand Management*
0
33,200
Total Normal Demand
222,300
222,300
*Demand Management means mandatory rationing.
Continued development of recycled water supplies would offer an alternative to
increased conservation, demand management or planned water supply purchases on
the open market. However, CCWD publications indicate that the cost of recycled water
is too high to compete with the other water supply alternatives available. Also, they
state that because additional water is only needed in drought years, CCWD has
maintained that it is difficult to justify investing in capital facilities to produce recycled
water, which would be needed only on an occasional basis. Therefore, the alternatives
with little or no capital investment needs are those that are most favored for CCWD's
water supply drought response. It is important to note, however, that:
1. While demand management (i.e. rationing) does not have a capital cost to
CCWD, there is a potentially significant financial impact to all their customers,
when rationing is implemented, in the form of dead lawns and landscaping.
2. While CCWD plans to rely on water purchases on the open market, there is no
guarantee that those purchases will be as available or as inexpensive, as they
have historically been, should there be a more serious longer -term drought or
should there be limitations applied to Delta water withdrawals, in response to the
impact seen on the endangered species in the Delta.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 3 — Page 3 of 5
October 29, 2008
The above analysis does not include supplying water for the development of the
Concord Naval Weapons Station. Current planning documents from the City of
Concord indicate this demand at approximately 5,100 to 8,800 AFY, depending on the
development scenario. CCWD appears to have adequate water supply for year 2030
demands in normal years, even with the addition of the Concord Naval Weapons
Station. However, in drought years, this addition would increase the shortfall indicated
in Table 3.1.
City of Martinez Supply and Demand
The City of Martinez obtains raw water from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)
and then treats and distributes it to its customers. As such, the supply and demand
information for the City of Martinez is contained within the numbers presented for
CCWD in Table 3.1.
East Bay Municipal Utility District Supply and Demand
EBMUD's latest UWMP is dated November 2005. The following information is
excerpted from their UWMP. Based on historical averages, about 90% of the water
delivered to EBMUD's customers originates from the Mokelumne River watershed and
10% originates as runoff from the protected watershed lands in the East Bay Area.
EBMUD serves approximately 1.3 million people in Alameda and western Contra Costa
County. The population served is expected to grow to about 1.6 million by the year
2030. The Mokelumne River watershed is relatively narrow and steep and is located
northeast of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta on the western slope of the Sierra
Nevada. Annual precipitation and stream flow are extremely variable from month to
month and from year to year. EBMUD is pursuing a number of projects to improve
water supply reliability during drought conditions, including the Freeport Regional Water
Project, which will allow diversion and delivery of Sacramento River water to EBMUD
customers during dry years.
As noted in Table 3.2, on the following page, for the year 2030, in the future, EBMUD
will still depend primarily on the Mokelumne watershed for its supply in normal years. It
will continue to be augmented by its conservation and recycled water programs. In
drought years, EBMUD will soon be able to draw from the Freeport Regional Water
Project, which is currently under construction. This project culminates many years of
negotiations and results in the ability for EBMUD to access additional water in dry years.
Finally, EBMUD will impose rationing in dry years and still anticipates a shortfall. This
shortfall is expected to be met by developing new water supply sources, consisting
primarily of groundwater aquifer storage options and desalination.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 3 — Page 4 of 5
October 29, 2008
Table 3.2. EBMUD Planned Water Supply for 2030
EBMUD
Water Supply Type
Year 2030
Normal Supply (AFY)
Year 2030 3 -year
Drought Supply (AFY)
Mokelumne and Local Runoff
260,000
147,000
Recycled Water
16,000
16,000
Conservation
39,000
39,000
Freeport Regional Water Project
0
55,000
Rationing
0
48,000
Total Planned Supply
315,000
305,000
Shortfall
0
10,000
Total Normal Demand
315,000
315,000
Currently, an expanded recycled water program, beyond 16,000 AFY, is not included in
their long -range plan. This 16,000 AFY in the year 2030 represents an almost doubling
of their current year recycled water program over the next 20 plus years. Due to its high
cost, recycled water, even with this doubling, forms a relatively small proportion of the
total EBMUD water supply picture.
Observations
Based on their UWMP's, both CCWD and EBMUD have adequate water supplies in
non - drought years. During a short -term drought (less than 3 years), CCWD still has
adequate water supplies and EBMUD, once the Freeport project is constructed, will also
have adequate supplies. It is only in severe or longer -term drought scenarios that both
water districts start to experience water shortages. When these situations occur, both
districts will rely on demand management/rationing. CCWD will also rely on purchasing
water from other users; they anticipate that water will be available on the spot market for
less than the cost of a typical recycled water project. However, as scarcities become
more acute, the cost of water on the spot market is expected to increase. As well,
regulations and judicial decisions, related to the impact on the endangered species in
the Delta, may make purchased water on the spot market less available. EBMUD is
planning to develop additional water supplies, such as groundwater aquifer storage, that
are less expensive than recycled water, to further augment its supplies.
In an ideal world, what both Districts need is a reliable water supply that they can draw
on only in drought years. A very desirable project would be a plan to serve the
refineries located near the CCCSD treatment plant, using existing infrastructure, only in
drought years. During these years, the value of this water would be increased such that
a project might be financially attractive. Staff is continuing to explore the water quality
and quantity needs of the refineries to determine if such a project could be developed.
Its financial feasibility depends on being able to provide water with no significant amount
of additional treatment over that currently provided for our secondary effluent.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 3 — Page 5 of 5
October 29, 2008
4. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Preface
This section has been prepared by the office of CCCSD 's legal counsel. The purpose
of this section is to provide an overview of several legal issues, which may have impacts
on CCCSD's manner and ability to move forward with certain recycled water projects.
As with most complicated legal issues, lawyers representing different interests assert
different interpretations of legal principles. Accordingly, the following is not intended to
state firm answers to specific pending issues, but rather is intended to provide some
context for several matters discussed elsewhere in this briefing document. Initially, it
should be understood that CCCSD presently has a binding Agreement with CCWD
setting forth procedures for initiating recycled water projects within CCWD's boundaries,
whereas there is no such agreement with EBMUD. Due to differing enabling statutes
and the existing CCCSD -CCWD Agreement, certain legal principles may apply to a
given project differently based on whether it is within the CCWD or EBMUD service
area.
General Agreement with CCWD
The General Agreement for Recycled Water between CCWD and CCCSD ( "General
Agreement ") governs the terms and conditions under which recycled water may be
purveyed to customers within CCWD's service area and requires CCCSD and CCWD to
coordinate planning and implementation of recycled water projects jointly. The General
Agreement has been in effect since November 2, 1994 and will be renewed
automatically on November 1, 2009 for an additional five years pursuant to the terms of
the agreement unless the General Agreement is otherwise terminated by CCWD and
CCCSD.
If CCCSD decides to move forward with a project to provide recycled water within the
CCCSD service area, CCCSD must notify CCWD of the proposed project and provide
CCWD with a business plan for the project. Upon receipt of the business plan, CCWD
would have to decide whether to participate in the project and promptly notify CCCSD of
its decision. If CCWD declines to participate in the project, CCCSD would submit to
CCWD a request for purveyorship. CCWD and CCCSD would then be required to
negotiate a project specific agreement in good faith. The project specific agreement
would authorize CCCSD to purvey recycled water and would set forth the rights and
responsibilities of each district with respect to the project. Upon execution of a project
specific agreement, CCWD would be required to adopt a resolution permitting the
recycled water project in accordance with Water Code Sections 31053 and 31054.
(These statutory provisions are discussed in more detail below.)
The General Agreement authorizes CCWD to seek compensation for that portion of
CCWD's bonded indebtedness costs and certain other fixed costs that CCWD could
otherwise recover in the absence of the recycled water project. However, CCCSD may
dispute CCWD's proposed costs including whether particular recycled water project
costs are available under Section 1501 et seq. of the Public Utilities Code ( "Service
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 4 — Page 1 of 5
October 29, 2008
Duplication ") or relevant laws. Under the General Agreement, CCWD and CCCSD
must evaluate both potentially avoided costs and CCWD's costs related to its bonded
indebtedness. Exhibit F of the General Agreement "provides examples of the factors to
be considered" when determining avoided costs and revenue sharing for a recycled
water project.
Either party may terminate the General Agreement by sending a written notice to the
other party within one year, but not less than six months, prior to the end of any five -
year period. However, the General Agreement will not terminate until the parties agree
in writing about the impacts of terminating the agreement. In the event the parties are
unable to agree about the impacts of terminating the agreement before the end of the
then - current five -year period, either party may request dispute resolution. Once dispute
resolution has been initiated, the termination of the General Agreement does not
prevent the disputed items from being resolved under the General Agreement and the
proposed project should be able to move forward.
Water Rights
Questions have arisen as to what rights CCCSD has with regard to use of its effluent
and how these rights interact with other water rights. Some have suggested that
CCCSD may not have the right to use its effluent to provide expanded recycled water
services (such as to the refineries) because removal of CCCSD's effluent from Suisun
Bay would increase salt water intrusion in the Delta, thereby violating water quality
regulations or impairing CCWD's water rights. It has also been suggested that CCWD's
water rights are superior to CCCSD's if a dispute were to arise. These issues present
questions as to whether CCCSD has the right to use its effluent to provide recycled
water services, and if so, whether Delta water users may have rights superior to those
of CCCSD impacting on its ability to recycle its effluent.
CCCSD'S Rights
CCCSD has the right to use its effluent to provide recycled water services to the
refineries. The Water Code explicitly grants the owner of a wastewater treatment plant
the exclusive right to its effluent against anyone who has supplied the water discharged
into the wastewater collection and treatment system.' Moreover, the Water Code
authorizes the owner of a wastewater treatment plant to use its effluent to provide
recycled water services provided that the owner first obtains approval from the State
Water Resources Control Board ( "State Board" ).2
On June 25, 1993 CCCSD filed a petition with the State Board requesting permission to
utilize its effluent for irrigation and industrial purposes in the service areas of CCWD and
EBMUD. On May 27, 1994, the State Board adopted an order authorizing CCCSD to
use up to 26,120 acre -feet per annum of its effluent for irrigation and industrial
Wat. Code § 1210.
2 Wat. Code § 1211.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 4 — Page 2 of 5
October 29, 2008
purposes. The order provides CCCSD with the requisite authority to use its effluent for
recycled water in amounts adequate to serve the refineries and all other projects
currently under consideration.
CCWD's Rights
Rights to divert surface water in California are generally classified as appropriative or
riparian. Appropriative rights are acquired by obtaining a license or permit from the
State Board, diverting water away from its source and applying it to a beneficial use
(such as agriculture or domestic supply).3 Riparian water rights, on the other hand, are
obtained by virtue of owning land adjacent to the source of water.4 The rights of a
riparian water user are prior and superior to the rights of an appropriator, while the
determination of priority between competing appropriators is governed by the rule of
"first in time, first in right."
In a general sense, CCWD does not hold appropriative or riparian rights to Central
Valley Project ( "CVP ") water. Rather, CCWD obtains up to 195,000 acre feet of CVP
water per year pursuant to a Long -Term Renewal Contract ( "Bureau Contract ") with the
Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has seventeen water rights permits issued by the
State Board that it relies upon to supply CCWD and others with CVP water. Thus, it is
the Bureau, not CCWD, that holds appropriative rights to CVP water. Moreover, the
Bureau contract does not warrant the quality (salinity levels) of the water to be delivered
to CCWD. Accordingly, CCWD merely has a contractual right to receive CVP water of
an unspecified quality in amounts subject to water flow conditions and regulation.
Because CCWD only holds contractual rights to CVP water and CCWD and CCCSD do
not have competing rights to divert water from the same flow, it is unclear how the "first
in time, first in right" rule of priority would apply. It is also not clear that CCWD's
contractual rights under its Bureau Contract would be impaired by an increase in salinity
when the contract does not warrant the quality of the water
Delta Salinity Arguments
CCWD has publicly taken the position that CCCSD should not supply recycled water to
the refineries as the current "fresh water" flow of CCCSD's effluent to Suisun Bay is the
highest and best use for its effluent. Some comments have been made suggesting
CCCSD could not reduce its effluent flow due to upstream salinity impacts. A
preliminary report prepared by RMA for Delta Diablo and CCCSD in 2002 concerning
the impact of water recycling on salinity concentrations on the San Francisco Bay
suggests CCWD's argument that removal of our effluent from Suisun Bay would
increase salt intrusion in the Delta is speculative at best. Without going into the details
of either the RMA report or memoranda from other consultants, it appears that any
impact on the quality of water at CCWD's intakes would likely not in fact be measurable.
To state the obvious, the provision of recycled water to the refineries by CCCSD could
only have this theoretically negative impact on the salinity levels for CCWD's intake, if
3 Irwin v. Phillips (1855) 5 Cal. 140.
4 Lux v. Haggin (1886) 69 Cal. 255.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 4 — Page 3 of 5
October 29, 2008
CCWD continued to withdraw the same amount of water as previously provided to the
refineries by CCWD. The decision as to whether to withdraw the water or leave it in the
Delta would be that of CCWD and not CCCSD. It follows that the CCWD decisions
would be the precipitating action that would lead to this theorized salinity increase and
not the actions of CCCSD. Notably, if CCWD were to reduce its draw of Delta water
due to the reduced industrial demand created by CCCSD's provision of recycled water,
the analysis not surprisingly projects a decrease (improvement) in Delta salinity.
Permission
There are certain provisions in the Water Code that require a publicly owned utility such
as CCCSD to obtain approval from the board of directors of the county water district or
a certain percentage of the voters in the county water district before providing water
service to an area that is subject to certain liens. The issue presented is whether these
Water Code provisions would apply to a project developed by CCCSD to provide
recycled water services to the refineries.
Water Code Sections 31053 and 31054 prohibit a publicly owned utility such as CCCSD
from providing water service to any land within a county water district which is subject to
the lien of a general obligation bonded indebtedness unless the board of directors of the
county water district adopts a resolution permitting the service, or the voters in any
portion of the county water district proposed to be served by the new service approve by
2/3 vote the provision of the new service. If a court determined that recycled water is a
different kind of water service, these statutes then would not apply, but current case law
is not dispositive or particularly helpful on this issue.
The Los Vaqueros reservoir project was constructed with general obligation bond funds
authorized by CCWD constituents. CCCSD will therefore under current law obtain
approval from CCWD or some area of voters in accordance with Water Code Section
31053. If the General Agreement with CCWD is no longer in effect at the time CCCSD
decides to move forward with the project to provide recycled water services to the
refineries, CCWD could refuse to adopt a resolution permitting CCCSD to provide
recycled water services. If the General Agreement is in effect, CCWD is obligated to
adopt a resolution permitting CCCSD to provide recycled water services to the extent
CCCSD follows the procedures set forth therein.
Separately, CCCSD need not obtain similar approval from EBMUD before undertaking
new projects within its service area, because Water Code Sections 31053 and 31054
only apply to county water districts. If an EBMUD project is proposed, some separate
analysis of procedural issues for that service area would be appropriate.
Duplication of Services
Public Utilities Code Section 1501, et seq., commonly known as the "Service
Duplication Act ", relates to the provision of water service by a public agency into the
service area of a water service provider when providing the same type of water service.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 4 — Page 4 of 5
October 29, 2008
The issue presented is whether the Service Duplication provisions would apply to
CCCSD's provision of recycled water to the refineries, and if so, how much would
CCCSD be required to pay CCWD.
The Service Duplication provisions require a public agency to provide just compensation
to a water service provider if the public agency provides or extends water service into
the service area of a water service provider and the provider is injured as a result of the
public agency's provision or extension of water services. A water service provider is
injured within the meaning of the Service Duplication provisions if the property
employed by the water service provider to provide the water service is made
inoperative, reduced in value or rendered useless to the water service provider for the
purpose of providing water service to the service area.
Presently, there is no statutory clarification or appellate law that unequivocally applies
these provisions to recycled water services. The initial Service Duplication provisions
do not make any reference to reclaimed or recycled water, and clearly, the historic
application of the statute did not address recycled water service. The minimal existing
appellate law on service duplication does not address the types of water services
covered by the Service Duplication provisions as each of those cases deal with
competing potable water purveyors. Due to the existence of a number of provisions
both in the California Constitution and the Water Code that strongly commend the use
of recycled water and declare certain uses of potable water to be a waste, the extent of
the applicability of this statute to provisions of recycled water under current law is
subject to some question.
In the event the Service Duplication provisions are deemed to apply to recycled water,
CCWD would then be entitled to some compensation. However, based on existing legal
authorities and the unique factual circumstances present, the method for determining
compensation and the resulting amount is complicated and potentially subject to
dispute. The result of this determination could significantly affect the financial viability of
any proposed project.
Legal Summary
The thoughts stated above are merely intended to identify certain issues which will
potentially interface with proposed recycled water projects. Specific statements made
herein are not intended to be final positions of CCCSD, nor may they be regarded as
admissions of legal positions of its Counsel. These and other legal issues will have to
be carefully addressed and further developed if CCCSD seeks to move forward on
major projects within the CCWD service area where agreement cannot be easily
reached under the current terms of the General Agreement.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 4 — Page 5 of 5
October 29, 2008
5. ENVIRONMENTAL /REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
General
The conversion of CCCSD wastewater effluent into high quality recycled water for use
in industrial applications or landscape irrigation results in the removal of this water from
the Suisun Bay. Is the removal of this water from the Delta a net environmental benefit
and what regulations apply? In addition to the references in the California Constitution
and the Water Code referencing how using potable water supplies for non - potable uses
is a waste, the removal of CCCSD treated effluent from the Delta will remove a waste
load of certain constituents that are currently regulated. Conversely, removal of the
water from the Delta will also remove a source of fresh water that helps to reduce the
salt -water intrusion at the mouth of the Delta. The removal of the water is governed by
water rights law, as discussed under the legal section. Once the water is directed to
recycling, its treatment and distribution is governed by State of California regulations
including: Regional Water Quality Control Board Orders, the Department of Health
Services Title 22 of the Administrative Code and a Recycled Water Policy currently in
development by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Waste Load Reduction through Recyclinq
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) regulations require that
permits include effluent limitations for all pollutants that are or may be discharged at
levels that have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of a
water quality standard. In this regard, CCCSD has effluent limits for conventional
pollutants including carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids,
pH and oil and grease. The District also has effluent limits for copper, lead, mercury,
cyanide, acrylonitrile and dioxin. Since the majority of these limits are concentration
based, diversions of effluent for recycling do not improve the District's ability to meet
these requirements of our NPDES permit. The District does have mass discharge limits
for mercury and dioxin, which we are also able to meet. Regardless, any reduction in
the mass of pollutants being discharged to Suisun Bay and the Delta should be seen as
a benefit. However, it is important to note that if CCCSD implemented a recycled water
project that served our local refineries, it is possible that we would be transferring a
portion of our pollutant loading to the refineries, who may then need to have their own
NPDES discharge permits modified to accommodate that additional pollutant loading.
That issue would require further study.
In summary, the benefits of a waste load reduction through recycling, while understood
to be positive for the Bay, are difficult to quantify because the District is able to meet our
NPDES effluent limitations without any additional treatment costs that could be used to
potentially offset the cost of a recycled water project.
Delta Salinity Impacts of Recycling
CCWD's water supply intake is upstream of CCCSD's discharge in the Delta. Because
of tidal influence, our effluent can theoretically have a slight impact on the water quality
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 5 — Page 1 of 6
October 29, 2008
at the Chipps Island water quality monitoring station, if CCWD continues to withdraw the
same amount of water from the Delta. In particular, our effluent has a lower salinity
concentration than the Delta in the vicinity of our outfall, during periods of low Delta
flow; therefore, we contribute to the fresh water input through the Delta. Removing our
effluent can result in a very slight salinity increase at Chipps Island. The current CCWD
intake, located upstream of Chipps Island, would see an even slighter salinity impact
(see following figure). CCWD staff has stated that, because of this salinity reduction
benefit, the most beneficial use of CCCSD's effluent may be to leave it in the Delta.
In order to better understand CCWD's position on this matter, CCCSD staff contracted
for Delta modeling work in October 2002 with RMA consultants. These results showed
that, if it is assumed that there is no reduction in CCWD withdrawals from the Delta due
to a CCCSD recycled water project, then the salinity of the Sacramento River near
Chipps Island is increased by 0.055 parts per thousand or 0.57 %. If it is assumed that
CCWD reduces its withdrawals from the Delta due to the CCCSD recycled water project
by a 1 to 1 ratio, then the salinity of the Sacramento River near Chipps Island is actually
decreased by 0.032 parts per thousand or 0.38 %. CCWD has stated their model
indicates that the withdrawal of CCCSD effluent for recycling would result in a need to
release more fresh water upstream to mitigate the salinity increases. Based on this
statement, they claim that any water recycled by CCCSD would result in only a 40%
new water supply benefit, as 60% of the water removed from the Delta at our outfall
would need to be released upstream to prevent a salinity increase at the Chipps Island
monitoring station. Based on the modeling conducted by RMA, we could not
demonstrate this significant impact.
The RMA modeling work suggested that a supplement of Delta outflow of 30% of the
recycled water would maintain the salinity levels at Antioch, and less is needed to
maintain salinity levels the further east you go. Another interesting finding of the RMA
modeling is that the impact of reducing Delta Diablo Sanitation District's (DDSD) treated
effluent outflow is much more significant that reducing our outflow. In fact, RMA found
that a supplemental outflow of over 74% would be required to meet the same salinity
concentration at Chipps Island. To our knowledge, CCWD has never formally raised
this issue for DDSD's recycled water projects.
In any case, we have consulted experts in the field who maintain that these changes in
salinity are almost immeasurable and too low to be used to change the operation of the
Delta. If a project diverting large amounts of CCCSD effluent from the Bay is to move
forward, this issue will need to be resolved.
Recycling Statutes, Regulations and Policies
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the nine Regional Water Quality
Control Boards and the California Department of Public health share jurisdiction over
the use of recycled water. Use of recycled water in California is regulated by Title 22 of
California Code of Regulations, the Government Code, the Health & Safety Code
(Division 104) and the Water Code (Division 7). Title 22 specifies the minimum level of
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 5 — Page 2 of 6
October 29, 2008
Area of Detail
Sacramento River
Sacramento
Vallejo Cosummes River
North Bay Aqueduct
Yolo Bypass
Mokelumne River
Martinez Chipps Island
Contra Costa Canal
Legend
1101� Inflows
aExports
Tidal Flows
4 Agricultural
Diversions and
Return Flows
(250+ locations)
Calaveras River
• Stockton
P4
Banks Pumping
Plant (SWP)
Tracy Pumping
Plant (CVP)
San Joaquin
River
Figure: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 5 — Page 3 of 6
October 29, 2008
treatment, reliability levels, and other requirements for recycled water use for landscape
irrigation, food crop irrigation, industrial processes, cooling water and other purposes.
The Water Code and the Government Code include statutes that make findings, sets
goals, and establishes policies and planning procedures to increase the use of recycled
water as a water supply alternative throughout the state.
The Water Recycling Act of 1991 added statutes to the Water Code, specifically
Sections 13575 through 13583. Major findings of this chapter of the Water Code are
that recycled water has been proven to be safe from a public health standpoint and
water recycling is a cost - effective and reliable method to meet the State's water supply
needs. This chapter of the Water Code also set goals to recycle 700,000 acre -feet of
water per year by 2000 and 1,000,000 acre -feet of water by 2010. To meet these goals,
these statutes require retail water suppliers to identify potential uses for recycled water
within their service areas, potential customers for recycled water service, and potential
sources of recycled water.
In the 2005 California Water Plan Update, the Department of Water Resources
estimated the annual recycled water use at 500,000 acre -feet per year. This level is
well below the goals set by the 1991 Water Recycling Act. The State is 15 to 20 years
behind achieving the recycled water goal of 1,000,000 acre -feet per year by 2010.
The Water Code was amended in 2001 and directed the Department of Water
Resources to convene the 2002 Recycled Water Task Force. The Task Force's Report
was completed in January 2004. It contained recommendations to increase the use of
recycled water in industrial and commercial applications, changes in the Uniform
Plumbing Code to allow dual use of potable and recycled water in industrial and
commercial buildings, changes in framework of statutes, regulations, and permit
procedures to increase the use of recycled water in commercial laundries and toilet
flushing, for funding methods for water recycling programs or projects, and for ways to
augment surface or groundwater supplies through indirect potable reuse of recycled
water. The Task Force's Report also identified impediments to increasing the use of
recycled water for industrial, agricultural, environmental, and irrigation applications.
In 2000, the Water Recycling In Landscaping Act (SB 2095) was passed and signed
into state law. This law was incorporated into Sections 65601 through 65607 of the
California Government Code. This section of the Government Code declares that the
use of potable domestic water for landscaped areas is a waste or an unreasonable use
of water within the meaning of Article X of the California Constitution if recycled water is
available that meets the conditions described in Section 13550 of the Water Code. Any
local public or private entity that produces recycled water and determines that within 10
years it will provide recycled water within the boundaries of a local agency, shall notify
the local agency of that fact. The recycled water producer shall identify the area(s) that
is eligible to receive and the necessary infrastructure that the retail water producer or
retail water supplier will provide to support delivery of recycled water. Within 180 days
of this notification, the local agency shall adopt and enforce a recycled water ordinance
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 5 — Page 4 of 6
October 29, 2008
that makes certain findings and requires the use of recycled water for non - potable uses
if certain conditions are met. The Department of Water Resources has prepared a
model recycled water ordinance that complies with these sections of the Government
Code.
The water recycling ordinance requirements in the Government Code are to date the
strongest methods that have been approved by the State to require the use of recycled
water. The ordinance has been used by Marin Municipal Water District and Sonoma
County Water Agency in Northern California and many water agencies in Southern
California. The District may be able to use these statutes with nearby cities such as
Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Martinez and nearby unincorporated areas of the County to
require customers to use recycled water for landscape irrigation. The District and /or the
Contra Costa Water District will have to provide the infrastructure to treat and convey
recycled to areas being served.
Over the past 30 years, California agencies have adopted various policies to encourage
the use of recycled water, where appropriate, as a way to conserve and extend surface
water and groundwater supplies.
Most recently, the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) has been preparing
a new Statewide Water Recycling Policy over the past year. The SWRCB will circulate
a final draft of the policy for comments and conduct CEQA compliance steps over the
next two to three months. This policy is scheduled for approval by SWRCB in early
2009.
Highlighting the collapse of the Bay -Delta ecosystem, anticipated climate change
impacts on rainfall and snowfall, and droughts, the proposed recycled water policy calls
for California to move toward sustainable management of surface groundwater together
with water conservation, water reuse and use of stormwater. The following proposed
numeric goal is included in the most recent draft of the Statewide Water Recycling
Policy:
1. Increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least one million acre -
feet by 2020 and by at least two million acre -feet by 2030.
The proposed policy would establish consistent statewide direction and guidance for
increasing the use of recycled water, managing salt and nutrients, addressing
constituents of emerging concern, streamlining permits for landscape irrigation projects
and establishing criteria for recharging groundwater basins with recycled water. The
proposed policy also includes a finding that the use of recycled water, which ideally
substitutes for use of potable water, is "presumed to have a beneficial impact." Should
this finding remain in the final version of the policy, it could be beneficial in challenging
CCWD's claim about the negative impact of removing our treated effluent from the
Suisun Bay.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 5 — Page 5 of 6
October 29, 2008
The 2005 California Water Plan, prepared by the Department of Water Resources,
includes recycled water as an important new, reliable water supply. Substituting
recycled water for irrigation would make more potable water supply available. The
Water Plan, which is updated every five years, estimates that there is a potential of 0.9
to 1.4 million acre -feet annually of additional water supply from recycled water by the
year 2030.
Regulatory Value of Recycled Water
While there are not clear financial benefits to CCCSD recycling water, as yet, there is an
intangible regulatory value of recycling water, in that our regulators look favorably upon
agencies that recycle wastewater and this could be beneficial in terms of our future
NPDES discharge permit negotiations. As well, as part of our receipt of the original
grant funding for construction of our Recycled Water Filter Plant, was under obligation
to operate our Filter Plant until the year 2000.
Observations
The removal of CCCSD effluent from the Bay provides a benefit of reducing the waste
load to the Bay. However, because CCCSD can meet all of its effluent requirements,
there is no financial incentive or value to CCCSD ratepayers in investing in recycled
water facilities solely for the purpose of meeting waste load reduction targets. The
removal of CCCSD effluent also can theoretically impact the CCWD intake by
increasing salinity.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 5 — Page 6 of 6
October 29, 2008
6. FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK
General
There are many financial models in operation to fund recycled water projects. Due to
the high cost of treatment and the dual distribution systems required for these projects,
the costs per acre foot are often significantly higher than other available sources of
water supply. In particular, landscape irrigation programs, such as ours, are expensive
sources of water due to their seasonal use and the large capital investment to treat and
deliver the water. However, in the interests of keeping a balanced portfolio, many water
supply agencies invest substantially in their recycled water systems. Most often, those
with the most significant investment have local conditions, which make the recycled
water projects more competitive financially with other alternatives. Some examples of
such programs and their financial drivers are highlighted in the next section.
In our case, there are no financial drivers or incentives for developing recycled water
projects. Therefore, these projects must be looked at on their own from a cost/benefit
standpoint. In order to provide a way of analyzing the cost/benefit of these projects,
staff has suggested a guideline of a 15 -year payback for all new projects. It is
instructive to review the investment to date in the recycled water program and the actual
payback available given the current customer load.
Investment to Date and Current Revenue for Landscape Irrigation Program
Total capital expenditures in the recycled water program to date are estimated at
approximately $11 million. These costs are itemized in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1 Capital Expenditures for CCCSD's Recycled Water Program
Recycled Water Program Component
Capital Cost*
Recycled Water Distribution Main
$4,200,000
Customer Connections and Retrofits
$2,300,000
Treatment Plant Upgrades
$4,500,000
Total Capital Expenditures
$11,000,000
*Excludes grant money for original Filter Plant construction.
The revenue from the program is generated by charging customers at a rate 80% of
what they would pay for potable or raw water from CCWD. Revenue is greatly
dependent on whether it is a dry or wet year, but has ranged from $250,000 to $300,000
in recent years.
Annual operation and maintenance costs include repairing breaks, valves and meters,
reading meters, flushing lines, monitoring chlorine residual and operation of the Filter
Plant and disinfection system. These costs are estimated at about $200,000 per year.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 6 — Page 1 of 2
October 29, 2008
Simple Pay Back Period and Cost of Recycled Water Produced for Landscape Irrigation
After paying for operation and maintenance costs, there is approximately $50,000 to
$100,000 per year to put towards paying off the capital investment. Using these figures,
the payback would be a minimum of 110 years.
We sell approximately 600 acre -feet per year of recycled water. Using the above cost
figures, the actual cost per acre -foot of water delivered; using our current facilities with
costs amortized over 20 years is approximately $1,500 per acre -foot. This is relatively
expensive when compared to other water supply sources.
Observations
There are many ways to evaluate the continued investment in the expansion of the
landscape irrigation program. Over the last several years, we have been evaluating the
pay back of the cost of extending the distribution system to new users. We have set as
a guideline a goal of a 15 -year payback, where the revenue from the extension must
pay for the cost of the extension within a 15 -year period. After the 15 years have
elapsed, funds would then be available to start paying back the sunk cost of $11 million.
If distribution extension projects with longer paybacks are constructed, it simply means
that more time will elapse before funds can be directed from those users to paying back
the original sunk cost. For the recycled water treatment facilities, we have evaluated
the current production capacity and set as a guideline that we do not want to exceed the
current capacity and trigger a costly recycled water treatment plant expansion project,
unless the project triggering the expansion has the ability to pay for the expanded
treatment facilities within a reasonable period of time.
With these financial guidelines in place, the expansion of the landscape irrigation
program will be limited. We believe the Board concurs with staff that we should seek
other types of recycled water customers other than landscape users. Large industrial
customers, such as refineries and power plants, use water year round in large quantities
and have a much better probability of supporting a recycled water project with a
reasonable pay back and generating recycled water at a cost per acre foot more
competitive with other water supply options.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 6 — Page 2 of 2
October 29, 2008
7. FINANCIAL DRIVERS FOR OTHER RECYCLED WATER PROGRAMS IN
CALIFORNIA
As indicated in the previous section, agencies with the most significant investment in
recycled water programs throughout the state have local conditions that make their
recycled water projects more competitive financially with the other water supply
alternatives. Others have developed recycled water programs in response to treated
wastewater effluent discharge prohibitions and use recycled water as a method of
disposal. Some examples where local and regional issues have driven the
development of recycled water supplies and made them financially attractive are given
in this section.
Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD)
DDSD developed their Recycled Water Program as a result of the sighting of new
power plants in their service area. The California Energy Commission, the agency that
approves new power plant facilities, has a policy that new power plants need to use
recycled water. To that end, Calpine Corporation paid for the construction of DDSD's
recycled water plant and their 7 -mile distribution pipeline and dedicated the facilities to
DDSD. As well, Calpine paid CCWD for their back -up supply charge. So, aside from
O &M costs, DDSD's Recycled Water Program was paid for by others.
DSRSD /EBMUD Recycled Water Authority ( DERWA)
DERWA was formed as a joint recycled water partnership, between Dublin San Ramon
Services District ( DSRSD) and EBMUD, to implement the San Ramon Valley Recycled
Water Project (SRVRWP). The driver for DSRSD to develop this project was the need
for new water supply to serve new development in the San Ramon Valley. The driver
for EBMUD to develop this project was that they had set recycled water goals as a way
to diversify their water supply portfolio and such a partnership was a cost - effective way
to work to meet those water recycling goals, especially considering the significant
distance between EBMUD's wastewater treatment plant and the SRVRWP. In addition,
there were a number of grants and a low interest loan used to fund the $86.5 million
cost for construction of the backbone infrastructure, which was an additional financial
incentive for the two agencies. As well, the SRVRWP was constructed to produce
recycled water for landscape irrigation, so their new recycled water treatment facilities
did not require the costly treatment step of ammonia removal.
Redwood City
The City of Redwood City is one of 29 wholesale customers who rely on the Hetch
Hetchy Regional Water System for their drinking water supply. Redwood City
developed a Recycled Water Program, because they had reached their water supply
allotment from Hetch Hetchy. In 2003, their water supply plan contained a deficit of
—525 AFY and caused Redwood City to place a moratorium on new construction. In
August 2003, the City of Redwood City approved a resolution to begin implementation
of their Recycled Water Program, with the goal of freeing up potable water supplies.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 7 — Page 1 of 2
October 29, 2008
Their recycled water is provided for irrigation and toilet/urinal flushing — all uses that do
not require the costly ammonia removal step as part of the recycled water treatment
process. Currently, Redwood City is consuming approximately 1,000 AFY over their
contractual supply assurance of 12,243 AFY, so it continues to be necessary, from a
water supply standpoint, for them to expand their Recycled Water Program.
Santa Rosa
The City of Santa Rosa initiated their Recycled Water Program as a way to reduce their
treated effluent discharge to the Russian River and as a way to diversify their water
supply portfolio. In 2003, the City of Santa Rosa began operation of their first recycled
water project, called "The Geysers Recharge Project." This project is a partnership with
power producer Calpine, in which 40 miles of distribution pipeline were constructed from
Santa Rosa's Reclamation Facility to "The Geysers" steam field in Sonoma County.
Their recycled water is injected into these steam fields (called fumaroles), where it is
converted to steam and the steam is then used to produce electricity for Calpine. The
City of Santa Rosa has used this 40 -mile distribution system as a backbone for
developing additional recycled water projects.
San Jose /Santa Clara
The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara were pressed to develop the South Bay Water
Recycling Program due to a limit imposed, by the Regional Board, on the amount of
treated wastewater they were permitted to discharge into South San Francisco Bay.
The San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant discharges treated wastewater
into the South Bay wetlands, where it acts as a fresh water input. The Regional Board
was concerned that the discharge of too much fresh water into South San Francisco
Bay would change the delicate balance of fresh water and salt water and would disrupt
the existing habitat, which included two endangered species. South Bay Water
Recycling currently recycles about 10% of the treated wastewater effluent from the San
Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant.
Irvine Ranch Water District ORWD)
IRWD developed their Recycled Water Program as a way to diversify their water supply
portfolio. 65% of IRWD's water supply is provided by groundwater wells, while the
remaining 35% is purchased from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). MWD provides a
financial incentive of $117/AF for all of their agency customers to develop recycled
water projects. As well, IRWD and all other water agencies south of the Tehachapi
Mountains have to pay substantial energy surcharges (— $500 /AF) for all water that is
purchased from Northern California and pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains. That
provided a further financial incentive to develop a Recycled Water Program.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 7 — Page 2 of 2
October 29, 2008
8. POTENTIAL REW FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Several funding options exist for recycled water projects; however, most of them require
that you have a project that is designed and ready to go to construction with all
environmental reviews completed to qualify for receiving funding. Below is a description
of the various funding opportunities available.
Federal Grant Funding
Title XVI
In 1992, Congress created the Title XVI program establishing water recycling as an
ongoing part of the US Bureau of Reclamation's (USBR) mission. This program
provides one federal dollar for every $3 local dollars invested in water recycling projects.
However, this program does not receive annual funding as part of the US Budget
process. Rather, project proponents have to seek funding of Title XVI via earmarks
established by authorization and appropriation bills that must successfully pass through
both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. In 2007, our State Senator
Diane Feinstein sent a letter to all agencies requesting federal recycled water grants to
indicate that she would only support projects of regional significance, essentially
recommending a regional approach for the best chance of receiving funding. Since
securing our own US Senators' support for recycled water grant funding is critical to
receiving an earmark in the Federal budget, this was the impetus for the Coalition
approach.
CCCSD's Board of Directors approved joining and submitting our A -line Recycled Water
Project — Phase I to the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition (Coalition) at the
September 18, 2008, Board Meeting. This Coalition has the express purpose of
lobbying for Title XVI funds for Bay Area recycled water projects. The cost to join the
Coalition is determined by dividing the cost of a shared federal advocate (lobbyist) by
the number of projects submitted to the Coalition and is estimated at $10,000 —
$20,000. There are additional costs of approximately $200,000 to prepare the feasibility
and environmental reports required for receiving federal funds.
State Grant Funding
State water resources grants in California are coordinated through Integrated Regional
Water Management Plans (IRWMP). The Bay Area IRWMP is a multi - stakeholder,
nine - county effort to coordinate a strategic approach to regional water resources
management. Through the IRWMP, state grants are allocated to four functional areas:
Water Supply and Water Quality, Flood Protection and Stormwater Management,
Wastewater and Recycled Water, and Watershed Management and Habitat Protection
and Restoration. Priority is given, in the IRWMP, to projects that are designed and
ready for construction.
There have been two propositions in recent years that have or will provide funding for
the Bay Area IRWMP, as follows:
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 8 — Page 1 of 3
October 29, 2008
Proposition 50, Chapter 8
Proposition 50 was passed by California voters in November 2002, authorizing $3.4
billion general obligation bonds to fund a variety of specified water and wetlands
projects. It set aside $380 million for IRWMP - related grants that would be released in
two phases, and is jointly administered by the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) and the State Water Resources Control Board.
Staff included our Zone 1 Recycled Water Project in the IRWMP that was updated for
the Proposition 50 grant cycle; however, our project did not receive funding, because, at
the time that IRWMP was developed, there were no portions of our Zone 1 project that
were approved for design or ready to go to construction. There is no additional funding
provided in Chapter 50 for recycled water projects.
Proposition 84, Chapter 2
The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Costal
Protection Act, passed by California voters in November 2006. Administered by DWR,
Proposition 84 includes $138 million in funding for the IRWMP Grant Program. We are
still awaiting the release of Proposition 84 guidelines, which will specify the
requirements for receiving grant funding. Staff will be submitting both phases of our A-
line Recycled Water Project to the IRWMP, in the hopes of receiving state grant funding
for Phase I of the A -line project. It is important to note that in the acquisition of
Proposition 84 funding, CCCSD will be in competition not only with other recycled water
and wastewater projects, but also with projects from the other three functional areas —
Water Supply and Water Quality, Flood Protection and Stormwater Management, and
Watershed Management and Habitat Protection and Restoration, with priority given to
integrated projects.
On a very positive note for Proposition 84, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into
legislation SB x2 2 (Perata /Machado /Steinberg) into law on September 30, 2008, which
provides approximately $820 million in bond funds for a number of key programs to
improve California's water systems, including the funding commitments in
Proposition 84.
Local Funding Sources
Water Purveyors
Our water purveyors, including Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility
District and City of Martinez, also serve as a possible source of funding for our recycled
water projects. They have the option of contributing to a recycled water project, within
their service area, to provide additional water supply.
Another water purveyor funding option is an offset. That is, a water trade between
CCWD and another partner water agency in our region that would potentially allow us to
serve an equal amount of recycled water to our local refineries without being subjected
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 8 — Page 2 of 3
October 29, 2008
to CCWD duplication of service charges. Such an arrangement would reduce the
overall cost and make a refinery project more feasible.
Other
Another example of possible local funding is customers who would benefit from a
recycled water connection and could contribute to the project to make it cost - effective.
A recent example of this approach is our request of Chevron in Concord to contribute
$1 M to our A -line Recycled Water Project to bring it back in line with our current 15 -year
payback guideline.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Low - Interest Loans
Another option to consider for the funding of recycled projects is a low- interest loan
offered through the State's Clean Water Revolving Fund. CCCSD received a State
Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) loan, back in 1996, to construct a portion of our recycled
water backbone pipeline. The interest rate for these SRF loans is set at half the most
recent general obligation bond rate, which, historically, has resulted in interest rates of
2.5 -3.5 %. However, in more recent years, as a way to provide additional incentive for
using this program, the SRF has started offering loans with an interest rate as low as
1 %. And, for agencies that are able to contribute the matching 0.575% (of your total
eligible project cost) to cover the administrative services cost related to receiving this
funding, the SRF offers a loan at 0% interest for a loan period of 20 years.
The one downside to using this loan program is the administrative reporting
requirements are very burdensome to the borrower. According to a survey completed
by the State Water Resources Control Board, it is because of these reporting
requirements that this loan program has not been well utilized by agencies and why
additional incentives have been needed and applied.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 8 — Page 3 of 3
October 29, 2008
9. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM
Introduction
CCCSD was one of the first agencies in California to initiate a large -scale project to
recycle wastewater. In the mid 1970's, the District's Filter Plant was constructed as an
innovative process to reclaim secondary effluent for use at the two local refineries.
CCWD constructed (and currently owns) the distribution pipelines and storage tanks
north of the Filter Plant to distribute recycled water to the refineries. CCWD was to
purchase the recycled water from the District wholesale and then purvey (retail) the
water to the refineries.
The industrial reuse project never went forward and the Filter Plant essentially sat idle
for about 10 years, supplying only a limited amount of recycled water ( -1 mgd) for
process water at the treatment plant and for a few small customers adjacent to the
plant. There were two occasions, in 1988 and 1991, during droughts when the District
was asked by CCWD to supply a limited amount of recycled water to the refineries
(about 2 to 4 mgd). Other than those brief periods, the refineries have not used
recycled water.
Development of CCCSD's Recycled Water Program
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, a series of landscape irrigation projects were
scoped as a way to utilize the District's available recycled water supply. In addition,
several studies were completed to reevaluate potential industrial reuse projects at the
refineries and also to look at supplying other local industries including the Rhodia
chemical plant (next to the Benicia Bridge) and the Foster - Wheeler cogeneration facility
in Martinez. These potential landscape and industrial recycled water projects are
summarized in Table 9.1 below, and represent a total demand of about 36 mgd, which
is almost the entire amount of secondary effluent currently treated and discharged by
our Treatment Plant during dry weather (approximately 37 -40 mgd).
Table 9.1 Potential Landscape and Industrial Water Demand in CCCSD Territory
Recycled Water Project
Estimated Demand
(mgd /day)
Water Agency
Zone 1 (Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Concord near 1 -680 Freeway)
3
CCWD
Lamorinda (Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga)
3
EBMUD
Martinez (south of Highway 4)
1
City of Martinez
North Concord
3
CCWD
Walnut Creek /South Concord (near future A -Line sewer
alignment)
4
CCWD
Industrial Projects
21
CCWD
CCCSD treatment plant uses (existing)
1
CCWD
TOTAL DEMAND
36 mgd*
*Represents an average annual demand of approximately 31,000 acre -feet per year accounting for seasonal use
by landscape irrigators.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 9 — Page 1 of 2
October 29, 2008
The Lamorinda Project, mentioned in Table 9.1, was scoped as a project as a result of
the District's forward thinking in the mid- 1990s. At that time, the District acquired a 15-
mile portion (the portion in our service area) of an abandoned Shell Oil Company
pipeline that was originally used to convey jet fuel in the 1960s, with the vision of
conveying recycled water through it to the Lamorinda area. The development of the
Lamorinda Recycled Water Project is discussed more thoroughly in the next section.
Only the Zone 1 project has been developed and is currently delivering recycled water,
as discussed in the next section.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 9 — Page 2 of 2
October 29, 2008
10. STATUS OF DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM
The discussion in this section primarily focuses on the status of existing and potential
landscape irrigation projects within our service area. A discussion of large -scale
industrial recycled water projects is included in the next section.
CCWD Water Service Territory
Of the four water purveyors in the District's service area (CCWD, EBMUD, the City of
Martinez and DSRSD), the closest potential recycled water users are located in the
CCWD service area. In 1994, the District negotiated a General Agreement with CCWD
that established the framework for developing recycled water projects in the CCWD
service area. The General Agreement was later updated in 2004 to include additional
economic criteria for evaluating recycled water projects.
In 1995, the Zone 1 Project Agreement was negotiated with CCWD that allowed the
District to purvey recycled water to landscape irrigation customers in areas of Pleasant
Hill, Concord and Martinez near the 1 -680 Freeway. Figure 10.1 shows the general area
covered by the Zone 1 agreement.
Figure 10.1. General Area Covered by CCCSD -CCWD Zone 1 Agreement
a
fm
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 10 — Page 1 of 8
October 29, 2008
In 1997, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued General Water
Reuse Order 96 -011 approving the Zone 1 project. The District is currently permitted to
supply up to 3.8 mgd to customers in the Zone 1 area (including internal uses at the
District's Treatment Plant). Additional treatment and distribution facilities would need to
be constructed and approved by the RWQCB, if the District wishes to provide recycled
water beyond the 3.8 mgd permitted capacity or to provide service to any new areas
outside of Zone 1, including industrial uses.
In 2004, the District negotiated an agreement with CCWD to provide on -call
maintenance and repair services for the District's recycled water pipelines. This
arrangement has worked out well, and the District has been able to utilize CCWD's
expertise in water distribution systems to assist with maintenance of our system.
Existing Recycled Water System (Zone 1)
The District currently owns and operates over 11 miles of recycled water pipelines in the
Zone 1 Project area and provides recycled water service to 30 customer connections,
primarily for landscape irrigation. Customers include two golf courses, six schools
(including Diablo Valley College), three parks, landscape medians and common areas
at town homes. Other customers include a topsoil company, a concrete batch plant, a
truck - washing facility and the County Animal Shelter, where recycled water is used for
both landscape irrigation and cleaning dog kennels. The existing pipelines and
customers within Zone 1 are shown in Figure 10.2 on the following page.
Recycled water sales have been gradually increasing each year as the District has
continued to connect new cost - effective landscape irrigation customers. In 2007, over
208 million gallons of recycled water (600 AF /year) was distributed to offsite locations
and an additional approximately 400 million gallons (1,200 AF /year) was used internally
by the District at the treatment plant for process water and landscape irrigation. Peak
day demands during the high use periods in the summer months are approximately 1.5
mgd for external customers and approximately 1 mgd internally at the District's facilities
for a total of about 2.5 mgd. Therefore, there is an additional 0.8 mgd of demand in the
Zone 1 Project area that could still be connected to our recycled water system, as
allowed under our existing RWQCB permit and our Zone 1 agreement with CCWD.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 10 — Page 2 of 8
October 29, 2008
A -Line Recycled Water Project
The largest cluster of remaining customers to be connected in the Zone 1 Project is
near the Home Depot area in Concord in the vicinity of Diamond and Meridian Park
Boulevards. Staff has identified up to 40 landscape irrigation customers in this area,
including businesses and landscape medians for a total demand of 83 million gallons
per year (255 acre -feet per year). The area is shown in Figure 10.3 below. The District
originally planned to construct Phase 1 of this project, which consists of the backbone
pipeline and the first 20 customers, as part of District's A -line sewer interceptor project
last summer. However, the recycled water portion was put on hold when additional
unanticipated requirements for backflow prevention devices from CCWD increased the
project cost by $1 M and increased the payback period from 19 years to 29 years. Staff
is currently pursuing grant funding for this project through the Federal Title XVI program
and through State Proposition 84. Staff has also approached Chevron, the largest
potential customer in the area, about providing financial assistance.
Figure 10.3. Map of A -line REW Project Area
PIPELINE LEGEND
EX I STING
PLANNED EXTENSI
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 10 — Page 4 of 8
October 29, 2008
Truck Fill Hydrant Program
In response to the current drought situation in the EBMUD service area and EBMUD's
recall of potable hydrant truck fill meters, the District has implemented a Truck Fill
Hydrant Program to make recycled water available to companies, agencies and
contractors for dust control, compaction, irrigation and other non potable uses. The
District currently has one recycled water hydrant located on Marsh Drive near the
Buchanan Fields Airport and is in the process of sighting additional hydrants in the City
of Pleasant Hill, which is closer to the EBMUD service area — the source of new
recycled water demand in our service area.
Concord Naval Weapons Station
The development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station property provides an excellent
opportunity to expand our recycled water use. While the details of the base reuse plan
have not yet been finalized, it is expected that a mixture of commercial, residential and
light industrial facilities will be built along with parks and open space. This mixture of
uses would create opportunities to use recycled water not only for landscape irrigation
but also for non - potable uses such as toilet flushing and cooling towers on commercial
buildings.
Recycled water projects become much more cost effective when the piping and
distribution facilities can be planned and installed with other infrastructure required as
part of a new community, and therefore, the Naval Weapons Station site would be ideal
for developing a large scale recycled water program with a variety of uses.
Construction of the recycled water transmission mains from the District's treatment plant
could be coordinated with the construction of the new sewer force mains to further
reduce costs. Figure 10.4, on the following page, shows the location of the Concord
Naval Weapons Station property in relation to the District's Treatment Plant and existing
pump stations in Concord and shows one possible alignment of new recycled water and
sewer service lines to the Naval Weapons Station site.
City of Concord staff has already expressed a strong interest in including a requirement
for recycled water use for the development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. As
a final development plan has not been put forth, the recycled water demands for the
Naval Weapons Station property are currently unknown. Staff believes it would be
prudent to take the appropriate steps to maximize the use of recycled water for this
development. Such steps could include a study to compare construction of a satellite
treatment facility on or near the Naval Weapons Station property with expanding our
existing Filter Plant and constructing several miles of pipelines to transport recycled
water from our Martinez plant. The City of Concord has indicated that development
could begin within five years, so it is important to take steps now to help ensure that
recycled water use is maximized.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 10 — Page 5 of 8
October 29, 2008
Figure 10.4. Location of the Concord Naval Weapons Station Property
EBMUD Water Service Territory
EBMUD has been more interested in recycled water projects than CCWD. EBMUD has
already developed a number of large projects outside of CCCSD's service area,
including the Chevron Refinery project in Richmond, the East Bayshore Project in
Oakland and the San Ramon Valley Project (using recycled water from DSRSD).
EBMUD has also expressed an interest in developing recycled water projects with
CCCSD, if the cost of recycled water is comparable to other water supply options
available to EBMUD.
For any recycled water projects in the EBMUD service area, EBMUD has indicated they
will be the purveyor and will be responsible for the customer contacts. CCCSD would
wholesale recycled water to EBMUD for distribution to customers. A draft agreement
for wholesaling recycled water to EBMUD was developed for use on the proposed
Lamorinda project.
Lamorinda Project
In 1996, the District purchased a portion of an abandoned 10 -inch Shell Oil pipeline that
was previously used to convey jet fuel from the Shell Refinery in Martinez to the
Oakland airport. The District acquired (for $1) a 15 -mile portion of the pipeline that runs
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 10 — Page 6 of 8
October 29, 2008
from Highway 4 (near the intersection with Alhambra Valley Road) out to county line in
the Lamorinda area. The Shell Pipeline was to be rehabilitated and used to transport
recycled water to Lamorinda. At that time, CCCSD entered into a partnership with
EBMUD to explore development of this project and EBMUD was to ultimately take the
lead.
The costs to recondition the pipeline to convey recycled water and build the necessary
pumping stations and storage tanks were estimated to be about $25M. The project
received very strong opposition from residents in the Lamorinda area, who were
concerned about the safety of recycled water and the potential for recycled water to
induce new growth, since it freed up water supplies. Because of that opposition,
EBMUD dropped out as a project partner. To make matters worse, two of the
anticipated major users, the golf courses at the proposed Palos Colorados and Gateway
(Wilder) developments, were never approved or built, further reducing the water
demand in this area that would have justified constructing the project. This significantly
reduced the demand and revenues that could be generated from the Lamorinda project
to payback capital expenditures. Therefore, the Lamorinda project was abandoned as
being too expensive for CCCSD to develop alone.
Recent improvements in membrane treatment technology have made the use of remote
satellite treatment plants more cost effective than transporting recycled water in
pipelines over long distances. As a result, recycled water for the Lamorinda area will
likely be provided from satellite plants.
Moraga Country Club
CCCSD is participating in a feasibility study with EBMUD and the Moraga Country Club
to evaluate construction of a satellite treatment plant in Moraga to provide recycled
water to the Country Club's 18 -hole golf course. The satellite plant would scalp raw
wastewater from a sewer main or CCCSD's Moraga Pump Station and treat it to tertiary
standards, likely using a membrane biological reactor (MBR) treatment process. The
demand for recycled water at the golf course is estimated to be 0.2 — 0.3 mgd and
would offset potable water use. The study will also evaluate expansion scenarios to
provide recycled water for landscape irrigation of the 521 homes in the Country Club
and nearby parks and schools. The feasibility study is scheduled for completion in
January 2009.
Other Potential EBMUD Projects
EBMUD is currently updating its Water Supply Management Plan and has identified
several other possible recycled water projects in the District's service area that it might
want to consider in the future depending on water supply conditions:
Rossmoor (0.5 mgd) — satellite treatment plant
Diablo Country Club (0.2 mgd) — satellite treatment plant
Reliez Valley Recycled Water Project (0.2 mgd, nine -hole golf course and
cemetery) — new pipeline connecting to our Zone 1 distribution system
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 10 — Page 7 of 8
October 29, 2008
The City of Walnut Creek has also expressed an interest in getting recycled water for
new developments planned near the downtown area where recycled water could also
be used for toilet flushing and cooling towers on commercial buildings. However, the
cost to extend the District's recycled water system mainline into Walnut Creek and
construct required pumping and storage facilities is estimated to be at least $20M (not
including service laterals and customer connections). Because of the high cost of
recycled water, EBMUD is not willing to move forward with serving downtown Walnut
Creek at this time.
There is one possible viable EBMUD project near our existing pipelines — Pleasant Hill
Elementary. This project could be cost - effective if we can make use of an existing
abandoned water line down Oak Park Blvd in Pleasant Hill. Staff is working with
EBMUD to evaluate the feasibility of this project, which would allow additional
connections for landscape irrigation of businesses on Oak Park Blvd.
City of Martinez Water Service Territory
The District identified up to 1 mgd of landscape irrigation demand in the City of Martinez
water service area south of Highway 4. Potential customers include the Pine Meadows
9 -Hole Golf Course, John Swett Elementary and several parks. These customers could
be served by using the section of the Shell Pipeline that runs from Taylor Boulevard in
Pleasant Hill north on Alhambra Boulevard into Martinez. However, in order to connect
the Shell Pipeline, two miles of new pipeline would have to be installed from our existing
recycled water system near Contra Costa Boulevard. Because of the long distance
involved to connect to the Shell Pipeline and the dispersed customer locations, the
Martinez connections are much more costly than the Pleasant Hill Zone 1 customers,
and, therefore, have not been pursued.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 10 — Page 8 of 8
October 29, 2008
11. POTENTIAL LARGE -SCALE INDUSTRIAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS
General
In the discussion of the financial framework for our existing landscape irrigation recycled
water program, it was demonstrated this type of program has a high cost per acre foot of
water delivered due to the seasonal use. All facilities are designed and built to deliver
water at a peak rate sometime in July or August. During much of the rest of the year, the
facilities are underutilized and revenues are not being generated. Therefore, the Board,
in their strategic planning session in 2007, suggested that staff focus on large -scale
recycled water projects with year -round use. The following is an examination of potential
large- scale, continuous -use recycled water projects that District staff has been pursuing
since the Board identified this strategic objective.
East County Power Plants
CCCSD is currently a partner in the East County Recycled Water Industrial Study with
Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD), Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD), Contra Costa
Water District (CCWD), the cities of Pittsburg and Antioch, Mirant and PG &E, at a cost of
$15,000 per partner. With a matching planning grant of $75,000, from the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), this partnership was created to conduct a study to
determine the future water demands of new or expanded power plants in East Contra
Costa County and to create a plan for how those water demands could be met with the
local, available recycled water supplies. RMC Water & Environment (RMC) has been
contracted to conduct this $150,000 study, with help and input from the partner agencies.
The California Energy Commission (CEC), which approves all new power plant
construction, looks favorably at new power plant applications that include the use of
recycled water to meet their cooling needs and looks very unfavorably on the use of any
other water source that will subtract from State drinking water resources.
So far in the study, it has been determined that if a smaller power plant (new or
expanded) is constructed, the local recycled water supplies from DDSD or ISD can meet
the demand. However, if a large new or expanded power plant is constructed in East
County, it has been determined that recycled water (or potentially even just secondary
treated effluent) from CCCSD will be required to meet that demand. There are two
options being considered to meet that demand:
1) Using an abandoned pipeline that runs generally between CCCSD and East County
(in the location of the new /expanded power plant) to send CCCSD recycled water or
secondary effluent to East County
2) Exercising a water exchange option with CCWD, where CCCSD would provide an
equal amount of either recycled water or secondary effluent to the local Martinez
refineries (Shell and Tesoro) and CCWD would provide the same amount of canal
water as the primary or back -up supply for a new /expanded power plant in East
County.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 11 — Page 1 of 5
October 29, 2008
Since the distribution facilities for Option 2 are already in place, making it a potentially
very cost effective alternative, staff entered into a separate $20,000 contract with RMC,
which cost has been shared 50% with CCWD, to study this exchange concept and
compare it with the other alternatives presented in the East County Study.
Table 11.1, below, lists the preliminary costs for the alternatives explored in the East
County Study, along with the exchange concept added by CCCSD and CCWD.
Table 11.1. East County REW Study Preliminary Cost Alternatives
Alt
Supply Source
2015 ADwF Capital Cost
Base Load
Intermediate
Plant
Load
Delivery to Antioch Only
MGD
$ M
Cost per AF
Al
DDSD RWF
5.5
$65.4
$1,770
$2,660
A2
ISD RWF
3.6
$35.7
$1,370
$2.060
DDSD RWF
4.5
A3
ISD RWF
3.5
$1,390
$2,090
Total
8.0
$80.6
A4
Satellite at Bridgehead
2.4
$44.7
$2,720
$4,080
A5a
CCWD CC Canal
2.4
$18.0
$1,370
$2,060
A5b
CCWD CC Canal
8.0
$23.4
$810
$1,220
Delivery to Pittsburg Only
P1
DDSD RWF
5.5
$53.6
$1,510
$2,260
P2
CCCSD RWF
8.0
$89.4
$1,440
$2,170
P3
Satellite at Pittsburg
3.7
$53.9
$2,250
$3,370
Na
CCWD CC Canal
3.7
$13.5
$930
$1,400
P4b
CCWD CC Canal
8.0
$17.6
$740
$1,100
Exchange Concept
x1' Frettt �Ii.Servit "
°6.U.,
_ $1;1AEJ
1 �stxorri 4�e
70
AX1
RW to Shell & Canal to Antioch
8.0
$51.1
$1,150
$1,730
AX2
RW to Tesoro & Canal to Antioch
8.0
$45.8
$1,040
$1,560
PX1
RW to Shell & Canal to Pitt
8.0
$45.3
$1,080
$1,620
PX2
RW to Tesoro & Canal to Pitt
8.0
$40.0
$960
$1,450
While the canal water option (CCWD CC Canal) is the least cost, the power companies
will likely not pursue this option, because of the CEC's preference for the use of recycled
water to meet the cooling needs of new or expanded power plants. The next lowest cost
option is the CCCSD /CCWD exchange options, listed as AX1 & 2 and PX1 & 2 in
Table 11.1.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 11 - Page 2 of 5
October 29, 2008
The final results of this study are now scheduled to be presented to the project partners
and the SWRCB in early March 2009. It is important to note that the potential for this use
of CCCSD's recycled water relies heavily on the State's power demands and the decision
for power producers to choose East County for a new or expanded power plant.
Over the course of the East County study, staff has learned that DDSD's recycled water is
included as the water source for two new intermediate /peak- shaving power plants
proposed to the California Energy Commission (CEC), by Mirant Corporation, in Pittsburg
and Antioch. These power plants are both in the application phase; however, it was our
understanding in joining this study that such plants were to be considered as part of the
East County study. If these applications are approved by the CEC, it will change the
alternatives in the East County Study.
Central County Power Plants
As an extension to the East County Study, and as another potential project that would
provide year -round demand for our recycled water, staff has contracted with RMC to
explore the feasibility of sighting a new power plant on District property in the vicinity of
our treatment plant. CCCSD can certainly meet the water demand of a new power plant;
however, the other requirements for sighting such a facility, availability of sufficient land
space, proximity to an adequate supply of natural gas and proximity to the State's electric
transmission grid, have to be studied to determine the feasibility of such a project.
Results for this project are expected at the same time as the East County Study —
March 2009.
Regional Biosolids /Power Plant
There is a regional partnership currently pursuing development of a regional biosolids
treatment and disposal project. Their studies have narrowed down the options to some
type of thermal conversion facility, most likely a fluidized bed incinerator. However,
processes that generate a feed stock for burning to generate power have also been
investigated. The partnership continues to be interested in our treatment plant site,
because we are in a location convenient to many of the regional wastewater treatment
plants, being located at the intersection of the 4 and 680 freeways.
When the biosolids partnership has approached CCCSD staff about sighting such a
facility here, we have declined to date, due to concerns about the traffic, odor, air
permitting, increased carbon footprint and other impacts of trucking large quantities of
biosolids from other plants to our facility and sighting an additional incinerator or other
thermal process here. However, it has been suggested that there could be some
advantage in sighting a facility at CCCSD, as it would be a potential user of recycled
water. Under this scenario, we could consider leasing property to the regional project and
requiring their partnership to perform the environmental documentation and address all
required mitigations. Staff learned this month that the use of recycled water would be
minimal at such a facility. So, that, coupled with the potential for drawing unwanted
attention from our neighbors would be significant, has led staff not to pursue this concept
at this time and, instead, focus on other large -scale recycled water projects.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 11 — Page 3 of 5
October 29, 2008
Central County Refineries
There are two refineries located in the Central County area that can be easily supplied
recycled water from CCCSD through a series of pipelines and storage tanks installed by
CCWD in the late 1970's. At that time, CCCSD installed a 42 -inch steel pipeline from the
filter plant clearwell to a junction structure by Pacheco Creek near the Martinez Gun Club.
From that point, CCWD extended the lines to two 3 million gallon tanks on a hill above the
junction structure and split off to, what were then, the Shell Refinery and the Tosco
Refinery. These refineries have changed names over the years, but for the purposes of
this report we will refer to them as Shell and Tosco. The plan, at that time, was for
CCCSD to wholesale our recycled water to CCWD, who would then purvey (retail) the
water to the refineries.
When this project was originally constructed, it was funded with state and federal grants
and it was planned to feed the refineries effluent from CCCSD which had received full
secondary treatment with nutrient removal followed by tertiary filtration at the Filter Plant.
CCCSD's treatment plant expansion, at that time, was originally designed to remove
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), in anticipation of discharge standards that would
require nutrient removal. After the plant expansion was constructed, CCCSD's new
discharge permit was issued and it did not require nutrient removal, so our treatment plant
was not operated to remove nutrients, hence creating a problem for the delivery of
recycled water to the refineries, since nutrient removal would also have removed
ammonia (which is corrosive to cooling towers — the intended use at the refineries).
To remedy the ammonia issue, CCWD installed a sodium -ion exchange facility that would
then be used to remove ammonia before the recycled water was pumped to the
refineries. The majority of these facilities were never fully utilized. The storage and
distribution system was used to feed the refineries during two separate occasions during
the 1988 and 1991 droughts, on a trial basis. During the first trial, the plant was operated
in full nitrification (nutrient removal) mode to remove ammonia and the filters were used to
reduce solids. During the second trial, the plant flow was split, with the flow intended for
the refineries receiving full nitrification (nutrient removal) and filtration and the other
treatment plant flow receiving the usual secondary treatment and discharge to the Suisun
Bay. At the present time, the storage and distribution facilities are being used only to
supply fire water for neighboring parcels.
There is still a potential to develop a recycled water supply project for the two refineries.
The District has conducted several studies over the last ten years to look at the
economics of such a project. Such a project is attractive because, the two refineries
combined use about 19 MGD on an average annual basis, which equates to 21,300 acre -
feet per year. Thus, the revenue potential is substantial when compared to a seasonal
irrigation user, such as a golf course. The capital investment could also be substantial.
There is a savings associated with using the distribution facilities that are already in place.
However, these facilities were installed by CCWD and they have indicated they will try to
charge us for the use of these facilities. In addition, the refineries will require some level
of additional treatment, depending on how they will use the recycled water. The portion of
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop
October 29, 2008
Section 11 — Page 4 of 5
the recycled water used for cooling towers, approximately half of the 19 MGD, will require
nitrification for ammonia removal and filtration to meet the most stringent Title 22
standards. CCCSD's existing facilities are not adequate to provide this level of treatment.
The remaining flows, which are used for boiler feed, may require a lesser level of
treatment, which could make a boiler feed -only project more economically attractive.
Staff will be meeting with refinery operations personnel to better define the quantity and
quality of water that the refineries require for their various needs. In summary,
development of a recycled water project to feed the refineries has significant potential but
also may have significant costs for treatment, distribution and storage. In addition, the
issue of CCWD's previous investment to serve the refineries must be addressed.
Observations
Of all the large scale projects currently being pursued, feeding recycled water to the
Central County refineries, a project that has been studied many times over the years, still
has the greatest potential. These are existing large users with distribution and storage
facilities already in place. While the institutional issues associated with covering some of
the previous CCWD investment in facilities needs to be addressed, if these significant
industrial users are converted to recycled water, the potential to add 21,300 acre feet to
the State's water supply at a relatively low cost warrants further investigation. Particularly
in the face of a potential serious drought situation, staff recommends that we refocus our
recycled water efforts on trying to overcome the institutional barriers to a large scale
recycled water project to feed the Central County refineries.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 11 — Page 5 of 5
October 29, 2008
12. MOST PROMISING LARGE -SCALE RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS
General
The two most promising projects for us to pursue at this time are 1) the Central County
refinery project where existing infrastructure is available and 2) the development of the
Concord Naval Weapons Station. The Central County refinery project has many
institutional and financial hurdles that will need to be addressed. The Concord Naval
Weapons Station is more promising because it is a clean slate where developer monies
may be available to offset the cost of the recycled water infrastructure.
Strategy for Pursuing Central County Refinery Project
While there are institutional and financial hurdles associated with this project, it still has
significant benefits when looked at from a statewide water supply perspective. Staff has
met with knowledgeable people in the water industry to develop a strategy for pursuing
this project and suggests the following approach:
1. Define Potential Project & Quantity and Quality of Water Needed
2. Develop Updated Cost and Schedule Information for Project Implementation
3. Develop Business Plan in Accordance with CCWD General Agreement and Meet
with CCW D
4. Pursue Outside Funding Sources by Promoting Project
The steps for the recommended approach and the current status of staff efforts are
explained in more detail as follows.
Define Potential Project & Quantity and Quality of Water Needed
Several studies have been conducted on supplying the two Central County refineries
with recycled water. In the course of these studies, information has been gathered on
the quality and quantity of water needed. This data is quite old and District staff has
hired a consultant who worked for the refineries for many years and has contacts there
to assist us with setting up meetings with key refinery staff to better define the water
quality and quantity needs. These meetings are expected to occur in the months of
October and November and will allow us to better define the needs of the refineries and
adjust the costs of needed treatment facilities accordingly. In advance of these
meetings, staff has authorized a consultant to begin developing treatment scenarios and
costs based on the current information available, which is as follows:
Refinery Name
Cooling Tower
Boiler Feed
Treatment Required
Demand
Demand
Shell /Equilon
4.6 mgd or
4.5 mgd or
Ammonia Removal and Filtration to
5,160 AFY
5,045 AFY
Meet Full Title 22
roscZlUltramar
5.0 mgd or
5.0 mgd or
Ammonia Removal and Filtration to
5,605 AFY
5,605 AFY
Meet Full Title 22
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 12 — Page 1 of 3
October 29, 2008
During the refinery meetings we plan to explore if they can use water with a lesser
degree of treatment. An example is that the boiler feed water may not require
nitrification or additional filtration to meet full Title 22. In this case, we could look at a
project to feed only the boilers, if that would significantly reduce the cost of treatment.
These types of additional scenarios will be developed, if feasible, after the refinery
meetings.
Develop Updated Cost and Schedule Information for Project Implementation
We currently have a consultant under contract developing cost and schedule
information for constructing the necessary facilities to deliver water to the local
refineries. We have asked the consultant to develop costs based on 5 mgd treatment
modules. Preliminary information indicates that the capital cost to construct ammonia
removal, filtration and ancillary facilities for 5 mgd is approximately $26.5 million. The
operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $2,250,000 per year. If the capital
costs are amortized over 20 years at 4% interest, the total annual costs are
approximately $4,185,000. The amount of water being produced, 5 mgd, equates to
about 5,605 -acre ft per year. Therefore, the preliminary estimate of the cost to produce
and deliver the water is approximately $750 per acre -foot. There may be some
economies of scale if we were to develop a larger project, however the cost per acre -
foot would still be significant. There could also be some cost reductions if we were able
to deliver recycled water with a lesser degree of treatment. These costs are very
preliminary and will continue to be refined.
In addition to the capital and operation and maintenance costs, the project would need
to compensate CCWD for some of its previous investment to serve the refineries.
There may also be a cost associated with having a backup water supply available.
These costs were estimated by CCWD in 2001 at $300 to $417 per acre -foot,
depending on what facilities are included in the calculation. This brings the preliminary
estimate of the cost of water up to the $1200 per acre -foot range, based on the highest
level of treatment needed. In non - drought years, this is not an attractive cost.
However, in drought years it may start to become financially attractive. The problem for
the economics of such a project is that only about 3 out of 10 years are drought years.
The schedule for planning, design and construction of the needed facilities is estimated
at a minimum of 18 months. This also presents a problem in that, by the time a drought
is occurring, the water is need immediately. A project that cannot be operational for at
least 18 months may not be attractive.
Develop Business Plan and Meet with CCWD
Our General Agreement with CCWD requires that we approach CCWD with a Business
Plan for any project that we are interested in pursuing. If CCWD is not interested, we
can then consider pursuing the project on our own. Staff plans to complete a business
plan for the refinery project as information is developed from the refinery meetings and
treatment cost estimating tasks. It is anticipated that the Business Plan will be available
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 12 — Page 2 of 3
October 29, 2008
by late November and a meeting with CCWD will be initiated shortly thereafter. CCWD
will then be given some time to evaluate the plan and advise us if they wish to
participate in a joint project or if they would prefer us to proceed on our own.
Pursue Outside Fundina Sources by Promoting Proiect
Whether or not CCWD participates, it will be beneficial to pursue outside funding by
promoting the project. A promotional piece on the refinery project will be developed
suitable for marketing the project and meetings will be set up with key individuals who
could facilitate funding of the project. At this time it may be beneficial to hire either or
both a State and Federal lobbyist to assist with marketing the project to state and
federal legislators. Meetings with water -short District's north of the pumping limitation in
the Delta, such as EBMUD, would also be conducted. These meetings would explore
whether there is a water transfer scheme that could make a refinery project attractive to
outside partners. While all of these avenues would be more easily pursued in
partnership with CCWD, if CCWD formally declines to participate we believe CCCSD
would then have the right to pursue these opportunities on our own.
Recycled Water at Concord Naval Weapons Development
The City of Concord has maintained in all of their planning documents and in
conversations with District staff, that they are committed to having recycled water as
part of any development plan for the Concord Naval Weapons area. Under this
scenario, the developer would likely be required to absorb the cost of the recycled water
infrastructure. Thus, this is a very likely future recycled water customer. The Concord
Naval Weapons Station planning process has been moving slowly. We have
commented on the planning documents, but the utility discussion in those documents is
very limited. Recently there were reports that the field had been narrowed to two
potential development proposals. District staff will be setting up meetings with City of
Concord staff to ensure that we are engaging in the planning process at the appropriate
time, both in terms of defining recycled water infrastructure needs as well as defining
wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure needs.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 12 — Page 3 of 3
October 29, 2008
13. BENEFITS AND COSTS OF REW TO CCCSD RATEPAYERS
General
Before making a policy decision to significantly expand the recycled water program, it is
important to consider the benefits and costs to the CCCSD ratepayers. The Board's
policy decision will be to determine how much the sewer service charge should be
raised to pay for recycled water projects that provide a societal benefit through
increased water supply, but may not directly support CCCSD's core business to collect,
treat and dispose wastewater at the lowest reasonable cost. While an expanded
recycled water program is a method of wastewater disposal, it is at a significantly higher
cost than simply disposing secondary effluent to Suisun Bay. A more detailed
discussion of benefits and costs follows.
Benefits of REW to District Rateoavers
Mass Load Reduction — recycling wastewater such that it is not discharged to the
receiving water has the potential benefit to the ratepayers of saving costly end of pipe
treatment. This potential only applies however, to those constituents for which we have
a mass load limitation on our discharge. For those constituents where the discharge
limit is based on concentration, there is no benefit. Currently we only have two
parameters for which we have a mass limit, mercury and dioxin. Fortunately, we are
able to meet both limits. If, for example, we were not able to meet our mercury mass
discharge limit we would need to add treatment. Depending on how much mercury
needed to be removed, this treatment could include filtration of all effluent as a
minimum, or advanced treatment, such as reverse osmosis, as a worst -case scenario.
If this were the case, then the cost of treating the effluent and diverting it to recycling
could potentially be offset by the avoided cost of not needing additional treatment to
remove mercury. But, again, we currently can meet all of our mass limits and therefore
there is no financial reason, from a discharge perspective, to invest in recycling to
reduce our discharge.
Green Initiative — If there is no direct financial benefit from reduced or avoided end of
pipe treatment, then the only benefit is the societal benefit in increasing water supply
and using a valuable resource. While we can all agree, this is a deserving goal, it is
something that is difficult to place a dollar value on. That is where the policy decision
comes into play. The Board of Directors will need to weigh the societal benefits of
expanding the recycled water program with the cost to District ratepayers.
Costs of REW to District Ratepayers
Current Landscape Irrigation Program — The current landscape irrigation recycled water
program has been financed primarily from sewer service charge rates, with the
exception of a recycled water loan which was obtained in 1998 for approximately $3
million at 2.6% interest with a 20 year term. As discussed in the Financial section, the
revenue from the sales of recycled water has just recently increased to the point where
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 13 — Page 1 of 2
October 29, 2008
it exceeds the annual O &M costs. Thus, for the previous ten years of the program, all of
the capital costs have been paid either through the recycled water loan or directly
through sewer service charges.
Expanded Recycled Water Program - A current project that is still being considered is
the A -line recycled water project. The updated estimate of total project cost, including a
10% contingency, is approximately $3.4 million for backbone customers or $5.65 million
to connect all potential customers. This represents $23 to $38 dollars per customer for
our approximately 150,000 customers. This could be smoothed over several years, by
relying on the Sewer Construction Fund Balance, but it still represents a significant
impact on the sewer service charge. If we assume the costs are spread over five years,
the impact on the sewer service charge would be $5 to $8 per year to construct the A-
line recycled water project. This cost would be reduced if we are successful in getting a
contribution from Chevron or from the State or Federal governments.
Very preliminary estimates are that the cost of a refinery project could range from $25 -
$100 million, depending on the level of treatment and amount of flow. As we have
explored in earlier sections of this document, the revenue from the recycled water would
likely only cover the O &M costs and any costs imposed by CCWD to cover their prior
infrastructure investments. Therefore, to understand the magnitude of the potential
impact to the sewer service charge, a simplifying assumption would be that all capital
costs are funded from the sewer service charge. A project of this size would have to be
financed through a loan, either a State Revolving Loan or by CCCSD selling bonds.
Assuming this cost plus interest was spread over 20 years, the potential impact on the
rate payers would range from about $15 to $70 per year per connection for the next 20
years, depending on the size of the project constructed and the interest rate on the loan
or bonds.
Thus, depending on the magnitude of the expansion of the Recycled Water Program,
the impacts to the annual sewer service charge paid by each District ratepayer, could
be significant. The only way to mitigate the financial impacts to CCCSD ratepayers
would be to pursue a local partner or State and Federal grants.
Observations
The District Board of Directors has set as a strategic goal to expand the recycled water
program, preferably by developing a large scale, year round user. While this is a
laudatory goal that has great potential statewide water supply benefits, the local
institutional and financial situation has not in the past supported a contribution from local
water purveyors. Therefore, the entire cost of such a project could fall on the shoulders
of the CCCSD ratepayers, and the impact would be significant. Because the State -wide
drought picture has worsened since we last discussed this project with CCWD, staff
suggests we should again approach CCWD about a financial partnership to develop a
refinery recycled water project. If CCWD declines to participate, then staff suggests we
should develop some promotional literature and consider hiring a lobbyist to pursue
outside funding from the State or Federal governments or other willing partners in order
to make this project a reality.
CCCSD Board Recycled Water Workshop Section 13 — Page 2 of 2
October 29, 2008
sm���
RECYCLED WATER WORKSHOP
Board of Directors
October 29. 2008
Today's Presentation
• Overview of Recycled Water Framework
- Institutional
- Legal
- Environmental /Regulatory
- Financial /Funding Opportunities
• Historical Overview and Status of District
Recycled Water Program
• Discussion of Potential and Most Promising
Large -Scale Recycled Water Projects
• Benefits and Costs of Recycled Water to
CCCSD Ratepayers
1
Institutional Framework
Water Purveyors
• 4 water purveyors in our sewer service area:
1. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)
2. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
3. City of Martinez
4. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
• City of Martinez's water supply planning is
included in CCWD's Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP)
• DSRSD does not impact our potential
recycled water plans (DERWA)
Institutional Framework
Urban Water Management Planning
• The UWMPs for CCWD and EBMUD indicate
that they have adequate supply in wet years.
• It is only in severe /longer -term drought
scenarios that both agencies begin to
experience water shortages.
• Both agencies plan to rely on rationing
during water shortages.
• CCWD plans to purchase water from other
agencies during water shortages.
W
Legal Framework
1994 General Agreement with CCWD
• Requires joint planning and implementation of
recycled water projects
• Allows projects to move forward with project- specific
agreements
• Requires CCCSD to notify CCWD of a proposed
project and provide a business plan
• Authorizes CCWD to seek compensation for that
portion of CCWD's general bonded indebtedness
costs and other costs that CCWD could recover
• Last renewed in 2004; can be terminated in 2009
Legal Framework
Water Rights
• Per the Water Code, CCCSD has the
right to recycle its effluent upon
approval by the State Water Resources
Control Board.
• In May 1994, the State Board adopted
an order authorizing CCCSD to use up
to 26,120 AFY to produce recycled
water for irrigation and industrial
purposes.
3
Legal Framework
Permission to Purvey Recycled Water
• May need to "ask" CCWD
- The Water Code prohibits publicly -owned utilities
from providing water service to any land within a
water district that is subjected to the lien of a
general obligation bonded indebtedness (such
as Los Vaqueros), unless approved by the water
district's Board of Directors or unless a 2/3 vote
is passed by the voters in the portion to be
served by the new water service.
• No need to "ask" EBMUD
Legal Framework
Duplication of Services
• May apply for both CCWD and EBMUD
• Offset investment already made to
serve users
• Many alternatives to quantify
investment
E
Environmental /Regulatory Framework
Potential Benefits and Impacts
• Potential Benefits of Recycling Wastewater
- Reduces mass load of pollutants to the Bay
-Has a regulatory value in terms of buying good-
will with the Regional Board (permit negotiation)
- Complies with the CA Government Code, Water
Code and other policies that declare the use of
potable water for non - potable uses a waste
• Potential Impact of Recycling Wastewater
-May increase salinity at CCWD's intake
Financial /Funding Opportunities
Grant Funding
• Federal Grant Funding under Title XVI
- Staff is currently pursuing this funding for our A-
line Recycled Water Project as part of the Bay
Area Recycled Water Coalition
• State Grant Funding
- Funding through the Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan
- Staff is currently pursuing this funding for our A-
line Recycled Water Project
5
Financial /Funding Opportunities
Low - interest Loans
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund Low-
Interest Loans
- Low interest loans provided at 2.5 -3.5%
- 0% interest loans available for 20 years on
projects, if the agency can contribute the
matching 0.575% to cover administrative costs
- Spreads payments out over time to mitigate rate
impacts
Recycled Water History
• Filter Plant and distribution pipelines to
refineries constructed in the 1970's for
industrial reuse
• Industrial reuse not implemented due to
institutional constraints, costs and water
quality issues
• Filter Plant only used for plant utility water
and to supply a few small businesses near
the plant ( "hotel users ") until mid 1990's
0
Recycled Water Facilities
Filter Plant Facilities
Recycled Water Facilities
Dual -media Filters at our Filter Plant
Recycled Water Facilities
Hypochlorite Storage Tanks and Chlorine Contact Pipeline
Recycled Water Facilities
Recycled Water Clearwell & Pumps
Recycled Water History
Series of landscape irrigation and industrial
projects scoped in the late 80's and early 90's
Recycled Water Project
Estimatetl Demand
(MG ay )
Water Agency
Zone 1 (Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Concord near 1 -680 Freeway)
3
CCWD
Lamorinda (Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga)
3
EBMUD
Martinez (south of Highway 4)
1
City of Martinez
North Concord
3
CCWD
Walnut Creek/South Concord (near future A -Line sewer alignment)
4
CCWD
Industrial Projects
21
CCWD
CCCSD treatment plant uses (existing)
1
CCWD
TOTAL DEMAND
36 MGD
(31,000 AFY)
Filter Plant Capacity Limits
Recycled Water Production
• CCCSD currently produces about 40 MGD of
secondary effluent that could be recycled.
• Our peak -day recycled water demand is currently
about 3 MGD.
• Our current Filter Plant capacity (about 4 MGD)
inhibits a significant expansion of our Recycled
Water Program.
• Industrial use for refinery cooling towers would
require Filter Plant upgrades and construction of
ammonia removal facilities.
we
Agreements with Contra Costa
Water District (CCWD)
• General Agreement, negotiated in 1994,
allows projects to move forward with project -
specific agreements.
• Zone 1 project agreement, negotiated in
1995, allows CCCSD to purvey recycled water
within certain areas of Martinez, Concord and
Pleasant Hill.
• In addition, an 0 &M agreement was
negotiated in 2004 for CCWD to maintain
and repair our recycled water pipelines.
CCCSD Recycled Water
Program Highlights
• 11 miles of recycled water pipelines in
Martinez, Concord and Pleasant Hill near
1 -680 Freeway
• 30 customer connections
• Annual recycled water use
- 200 million gallons (600 AF /year) sold for
landscape irrigation and commercial uses
- 400 million gallons (1,200 AF /year) used by
CCCSD at its treatment plant in Martinez
10
11
Diablo Valley College
Use: Approx. 30 -35 MG /yr
College Park High School
Use: Approx. 10 MG /yr
12
Stubbs Road Triplexes
Use: Approx. 400,000 gaVyr
Valley View Middle School
Use: Approx. 4 MG /yr
13
City of Pleasant Hill
Street Medians
Use: Approx. 1.5 MG /yr
Pleasant Hill Recreation
and Park District
Use: Approx. 10 MG /yr
14
Contra Costa County
Animal Services
Use: Approx. 2 MG /yr
Industrial Customers
County Quarry Concrete Batch Plant
Use: Approx. 10 MG /yr
15
CONCO
Truck Washing
Use: Approx. 1 MG /yr
Our Newest Addition
Recycled Water Truck Fill Program
16
Current Recycled Water Program
• Total Capital Cost = $11,000,000
• Annual Revenue = $250,000 - $300,000
• Annual 0 &M Costs = $200,000
• Revenue towards capital cost = $50,000 /yr
average
• Capital payback =100 years
• Actual cost per acre -foot = $1,500 /AF **
• Cost of raw water on spot market (per CCWD) _
$200- $300 /AF
"Assumes capital cost amortized over 20 years
Future Recycled Water Projects
• Smaller Scale
-A-Line Project in Concord
- Near -term Inf ill Projects
- Moraga Country Club Satellite Plant
• Larger Scale
- Concord Naval Weapons Station
- Industrial Recycled Water Projects
• East County power plants
• Central County power plant
Recycled Water Pricing
• Rates set at approximately 80% of
customer's competing water source:
- $2.75 /1,000 gallons for customers
previously on potable water
- $1.31/1,000 gallons for customers
previously on canal water or wells
• Annual 3% increase built into CCCSD
code to keep up with inflation and water
district rate increases.
Recycled Water Capital Expenditures
Since Program Inception in 1996
Description
Capital Cost*
Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor
recycled water distribution main
$4,200,000
Customer connections and retrofits
$2,300,000
Treatment Plant Upgrades
$4,500,000
Total Capital Expenditures
$11,000,000
*Does not include grant money for the original construction of
filter plant in 1970's
17
Smaller Scale
A -Line Project in Concord
• Represents the largest concentration of
connections, in the Zone 1 Area, not currently
being served with recycled water
• Potential for 48 new customer connections
• Construction delayed due to costs added by
CCWD's backflow prevention requirements
• Staff is currently pursuing funding assistance
- State and Federal Grants
- Chevron Partnership - will reconsider in 2 years
19
Smaller Scale
Near -term Fill -in Projects
• Potential near -term landscape irrigation
projects near existing recycled water
pipelines
• Blum View Estates (Zone 1)
• Nishizawa's Nursery (Zone 1)
• Gregory Gardens Elementary School (Zone 1)
• Pleasant Hill Park (Zone 1)
• Pleasant Hill Elementary ( EBMUD territory)
• Potential recycled water demand = 20 MG /year
Smaller Scale
Moraga Country Club Satellite Treatment Plant
• Partnership with EBMUD and Moraga Country
Club (MCC)
• Currently looking at the feasibility of
constructing a satellite recycled water facility
that would scalp raw wastewater from CCCSD's
Moraga Sewer Pump Station and treat it to
recycled water standards for irrigating MCC's
golf course
• Potential recycled water demand = 70 MG /yr
20
Smaller Scale
Moraga Country Club Satellite Treatment Plant
tl4
Larger Scale
Concord Naval Weapons Station
• Staff has coordinated with the City of Concord
about wastewater and recycled water service.
• The next step is for the Citizen's Advisory
Committee to recommend a development
scenario to the Concord City Council.
• Once Concord releases the EIR for the selected
development scenario, staff will evaluate the
recycled water service options.
• Based on current info, do not need to ask
permission of CCWD to serve
21
Larger Scale
Concord Naval Weapons Station
22
Larger Scale - Industrial
East County Power Plant Study
• Study of potential recycled water supplies
available for potential new or expanded power
plants in Pittsburg and Antioch
• Joint study with Delta Diablo Sanitation
District, Ironhouse Sanitary District, CCWD,
cities of Pittsburg and Antioch, PG &E and
Mirant Power companies
• Partially funded by State Board grant
• Potential recycled water demand = -3,000
MG /yr
Larger Scale - Industrial
East County Power Plant Study
• Study being completed by RMC Water and
Environment, with input from agencies
• Completion estimated at March 2009
• Exchange option concept added by CCCSD and
CCWD and contracted separately with RMC
- Adds option of CCWD providing raw water service to
new /expanded power plants with CCCSD providing
equal amount of recycled water to local refineries
- Most cost - effective recycled water option, but may
have institutional barriers
23
Larger Scale - Industrial
Central County Power Plant Study
• Study to evaluate the feasibility of constructing
a power plant near CCCSD's treatment plant
• Study being completed by RMC Water and
Environment in parallel with East County Study
• If feasible, power companies will be
approached to determine interest level
• Potential recycled water demand = -39000
MG /yr
Most - Promising Large -Scale Project
Serving Local Refineries
• This option has been looked at a number of times over
the years with the most recent study being in 2002.
• Staff has contracted with a refinery expert to reconfirm
water quality and quantity requirements at the local
refineries.
• Staff and CCWD will meet with Shell and Tesoro
Refineries in November to discuss options for serving
them with recycled water and the possibilities to
reduce cost of service.
• Potential recycled water demand = -7,000 MG /yr
24
Suggested Next Steps for
Serving Local Refineries
1. Define potential project and quantity and
quality of water needed
2. Develop updated cost and schedule
information for project implementation
3. Develop Business Plan in accordance with
CCWD Agreement and meet with CCWD to
determine their interest
4. Pursue outside funding sources by promoting
the project
Benefits and Costs of Recycled
Water to CCCSD Ratepayers
• Benefits
- Mass load reduction to Suisun Bay
- Increased water supply
• Costs
- Refinery Project is estimated at $25 -$100 Million
and would translate to a $15 -$70 rate increase
per customer per year for 20 years (outside
funding is needed)
- Concord Naval Weapons Station would likely be
funded by the developer
25
Recommended Next Steps
• Work closely with the City of Concord on the
Naval Weapons Station development
• Develop a Business Plan for a refinery project
and present to CCWD
• Continue implementing smaller scale projects,
where cost effective
• Leave Recycled Water funding flat for current
CIB /CIP
Boardinput
%L--6••
26