HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05031994 - WC.1 WC1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Cmlra
FROM: WATER COMMITTEE •
Costa
Supervisor Tom Powers (Chair)
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
DATE: May 3, 1994
SUBJECT: REPORT ON RECLAIMED WATER, EAST COUNTY WATER MASTER PLAN MEETINGS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Direct Water Agency staff to continue meeting with water and wastewater districts to
determine the best approach for maximization of reclaimed water in the short and long-term,
with consideration toward funding opportunities,coordination efforts,and future County policy.
2. Accept report on East County Water Master Plan meetings.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
1. The County has had long-standing policy maximizing use of reclaimed water. Two ordinances,
one dealing with dual water systems and another urgency drought ordinance requiring
reclaimed water for dust control and compaction were adopted by the County. The County
has actively participated in reclaimed water task force efforts toward regional application of
model ordinances to maximize use of reclaimed water. Water and wastewater agencies have
been involved at all levels in these efforts. GMEDA and Water Agency staff met again with
water and wastewater agencies recently, as a result of the February 15, 1994 Boara report
requesting Water Agency involvement in increasing efforts maximizing use of reclaimed water.
Status of water and wastewater districts projects and plans were discussed, as was the need
for additional reuse projects. What is reasonable as a method to increase reuse was discussed,
and divided into short and long-term goals. Cost was determined to be a major constraint.
The need for coordination with other reuse efforts such as LAFCO and the East County Master
Plan effort was determined to be necessary. There are a great number of technical issues
which remain to be discussed and integrated into any plan, such as Title 22 specifications,
infrastructure constraints, the need for retrofit of existing development versus advanced
planning for new growth. This, in conjunction with current water/wastewater agency projects
can be coordinated in such a manner to expedite reuse consistent with potential detailed future
County policy. The Water Committee recommends that future meetings be scheduled, with
appropriate updates to the Water Committee and the Board.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
I
SIGNATU (S): �
upervisor m Powers (Chair) Supervisor Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD 0 _ qu�APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
✓ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
.AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Roberta Goulart (510) 646-2071 ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department PHIL bAfbHEL6R, CLERK OF THE
Growth Management&Economic Development BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
Agency COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Health Services Department - Environmental
Health Division BY: � ��Q� _, DEPUTY
RG:rw
RRG2:6.3wc1.4bd
Board Report, May 3, 1994
Reclaimed Water, East County Water Master Plan
Page 2
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND (Cont'd)
2. In 1992, due to Contra Costa County interest, Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) prepared
a preliminary supply/demand study for the east county area, which was completed in January
1994. This was anticipated to be the first phase of a comprehensive Water Master Plan for
East County.
On April 21, 1994, Supervisor Torlakson held a workshop of water and wastewater district
representatives to talk about ways to approach phase two of this study. CCWD suggested a
focus on infrastructure and institutional requirements needed to ensure that water supplies
reach areas of demand in east county to the year 2050, as outlined in phase one. CCWD's
future recommendations included a scope of work and an interagency approach for phase two.
Some concerns voiced by representatives of the different districts, such as Diablo Water
District, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, and Ironhouse Sanitary District included the need for
water rights expansion in their communities; low cost, sufficient water quality alternatives; the
distribution of reclaimed water in place of, or in addition to, groundwater for M&I users; and
the use of a single rationing requirement during times of drought.
The City of Brentwood, which currently relies on groundwater as a sole water source, is
considering development of a system that would combine groundwater and surface water
(surface water source has not been determined) to increase water quality and supply. The city
is also exploring the possibility of developing a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the
City, County, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, East Contra Costa Irrigation District, and
possibly CCWD, to develop this kind of water system. Brentwood, reluctant to use CCWD's
new treatment plant in Oakley, stated that it would prefer investing in its own plant rather than
to spending millions on a pipeline to the Oakley plant. Furthermore, the city appears to be
reluctant to join CCWD, citing concerns related to loss of autonomy on land-use decisions.
The water/wastewater agencies will continue to meet with County staff and CCWD to outline
how to proceed further in a coordinated, comprehensive manner.
RG:rw
RRG2:6.3we1.4bd
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Date: April 21, 1994
To: Val Alexeeff, Director of GMEDA
From: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director
By: Edy Zwierzycki, Planner I (Water Agency)
Subject: The Amount of Reclaimed Water at Sanitary Districts
in Contra Costa County
Ironhouse Sanitary District
Approximately 1.6 million gallons/day (mgd) of reclaimed water
is processed through secondary treatment and available for use.
East Bay Municipal Utility District
EBMUD's Wastewater Treatment Plant provides secondary
treatment for a maximum flow of 168 mgd. The average dry-weather
flow is 90 mgd. Approximately 4 mgd of water is reused at the
Plant for on-site processes and landscape irrigation. EBMUD
established six landscape irrigation water recycling projects
within its water service area using water from West County
Wastewater District (WCWD) , the City of San Leandro's waste water
treatment plant, and Lake Chabot (an EBMUD emergency raw water
storage reservoir) . EBMUD is constructing the Chevron Refinery
Reclamation Project which will further treat and distribute
effluent from WCWD and is participating in the Caltrans/LAVMA
project which will provide highway landscape irrigation water. The
operating projects and the projects in construction will reuse a
1
total of 7 mgd by 1995.
West County Wastewater District
The treatment plant treats 6 mgd of reclaimed water (a dry
weather figure) . Note, however, starting June 1995, the wastewater
district will only support enough water to supply the Chevron site
through East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) , and Richmond
Country Club golf courses. According to the West County Wastewater
District, there will not even be enough reclaimed water to fill
Richmond Construction trucks for spraying construction sites and
maintaining dust control, after June 1995.
Dublin-San Ramon Services District
Approximately 8.5 mgd of reclaimed water at the Dublin-San
Ramon Service District is treated and available for use both on and
off the treatment facility site. Currently, however, the pumps
distributing reclaimed water to tanker trucks are not capable of
pumping this much water. On average only 500 to 8,333 gallons/day
.of reclaimed water is allocated to projects, such as Caltrans
landscape irrigation along freeways, and dust control at
construction sites .
Attached is a table providing more detailed information on
reclaimed water at the Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) ,
titled "Anticipated Major Uses of Recycled Water: Potential Demands
to DSRSD WWTP" . Please note that the amount of reclaimed water is
presented in acre-feet/ year. If you are interested in converting
2
the figures to gallons per day, multiply the number of acre-
feet/year by 892 .74 .
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
Currently, reclaimed water is not available at the Delta
Diablo Sanitation District since there is currently no marketing to
get water sold, however during the drought the District used their
recycling facility to treat 1 mgd of reclaimed water. The quality
of treatment is low, whereby a sand filter, and a combined
activated carbon and sand filter are used.
According to Delta Diablo Sanitation District, it currently
has the structural capability and piping to load reclaimed water
onto tanker trucks if there were a willing buyer. In addition, the
Sanitation district recently obtained some land upon which a
treatment facility could be built for the treatment and
distribution of approximately 7 to 7 .5 mgd of reclaimed water. A
recent pilot test confirmed the feasibility of such a project.
Central Sanitary District
The treatment plant at the Central Sanitary District currently
has the structural capability to treat and discharge
1 million gallons/day of reclaimed water for use on and off site.
According to Central Sanitary District, the capacity to support
30 mgd of reclaimed water is possible, if the necessary piping and
treatment facilities were linked to the system.
3
",IS%94 10:01 0510 829 1180 DUBLIN SR SVCS D 12002
AN77CPATED MAJOR USES OF RECYCLED WATER
POTENTIAL DEMANDS TO DSRSD WWTP
;....:.
:.ProjectIffarinirtg ReCycSed C�isio'mec- rity
.... . Area
Water:Demand Class-
ec:ce-ftlyr a
Existing Dublin 600 Rwsit—In Dicuia 1
Service Area (b)
Eastem Dublin(c) 2100 R:uit-toDiivk, 1
Western Dublin (d) 200 Retail-In MOO 1
subtotal priority 1 29001 1
Existing San Ramon (e) 400 whawusweton%oLm 2
(within DSRSD) t1*lXMD~WvteesrU)
New Golf Enterprises 800 Retail-act Is DSRSD 2
subtotal priority 2 1200
San Ramon Valley(e) 2700 wwws1Q10EB%iLm 3
(outside DSRSD area) -_ _
subtotal priority3, 27001
Dougherty Valley— Shapell (f) 600sadetertaincd snkto m
(less ESMUD utt service area)
Dougherty Valley—Windernere Boo ssdeterstlwd sskown
Tassajara Valley Properties (g) 1200 sndocrmincd snknarn
(HPOA)
subtotal unknown priority(h)l2600
North Pleasanton 50 Retail—sot in DSRSD ata(i)
Improvement District
City of Pleasanton G) 43001 wndculetoriematos also)
subtotal Pleasanton 4350
- total of all demands (k)l . 13750
(a)Per DSRSD policy: Priority 1 if DSRSD serves vruter&se+wur
Priority 2 if DSRSD provides sn+tr service only,or if a ditto retail cttstnmer ontside
of DSRSD service boundary(i.e.,contract customer)
Priority 3 it DSRSO serves neither
(The existing policy was formed when wastewater export to CCCSD was the preferred export plan by
DSRSD. With the treated export option now being considered.it is likely th+t the DSRSD plant will be
expanded to treat additional stavngs and therofom Wive more recycled water available. Thus,prioritization
may not be as signiGmat an issue due to in—valley treatment of w astawater. Further studies are require&)
(b) From analysis of existing Dublin customers with greater than 7 arra filyrconsumption,based on
maximum bimonthly billiogs(i.e.bimonthly use>500 ccf).
(e) Dans not include Doolan Canyon arca
(d) No current land use plan txists. 200 acre—f1 assumes a future doaisixcd project without a golf
course end only park,randwuy mediau,&ntiuor residential mcvcicd water irrigation.
(c) Total of 3100 acm—ftlpr less 400 acro—ft for arses within DSRSD sewer service(priority 2), 3100
acre—ft includes 1000 acre—ftlyr for the Country Club at Gale Rat,ch thit is within the Dougherty Valley&
the EBMUD ultimata service boundary.
(f) Does not include attic within EBMUD ultimate service boundary.
(g) Based on land use summitryprovided by dk Associates.Robert Duchi
(b) Service provider yet to be dcurmined via 1 AFCA&other aches»,
(i) Recycled water projects within and by City or Pleasanton ary nut subject to DSRSD's prioritisation policy.
(j) From Zone 7,Livermore-Amador Valley Water Recycling Study,May 1992,Table 3-1,p.3-8
less DSRSD comumptive use at truck loading
(k)The existiag DSRSD wwtp capacity is 11.5 mgd ADWF,or 12.M0 acre-f iyr. Of the touti plant
copachy,DSRSD's share is 4365 mgd,or 4.890 acre-ftlyr. The.13,750 acre ft identified equals 1227
ctyd&a future plant expansion would be required to serve all the demand.
�i�..+wwv«ravy..s3 aoC tonss3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
RECOMMENDED POSITIONS ON WATER-RELATED LEGISLATION
RECLAIMED WATER
AB 3588; Rainey - Water Supply ( 02/25/94 , amended 04/04/94 )
Summary:
The bill prohibits a public entity other than the water district
from providing nonpotable water service to any entity until the
appropriate water district responds in writing, to a written
request, within 120 days. If the water district rejects, or does
not provide a written response within this 120 day time-period,
nonpotable water service may be provided by a public entity other
than the water district. Also, the bill would require the cost of
supplying the treated reclaimed water to be comparable to, or less
than, the cost of supplying potable domestic water, unless the cost
to the user of the reclaimed water is established by agreement
between the user and the supplier of the reclaimed water.
Recommended Position:
Support in concept; monitor amendments.
Rationale:
Contra Costa County has had long-standing policy encouraging
maximum use of reclaimed water. The County's Dual Water Systems
Ordinance, and subsequent efforts by the County, for widespread
(regional ) application of Model Water Re-Use Ordinances have
focused on maximum beneficial use of this additional water source.
Efforts to utilize and distribute reclaimed water should not be
constrained by agencies with authority, but without means or desire
to do so.
1
Legislation Passed in 1993
The following reclaimed water bills were passed, and signed by the
governor of California in 1993:
AB 704 Sher: Reclaimed Water; on establishment of state-wide
reclamation criteria, and determining the contribution of
reclaimed water to contamination, if any.
SB 7 Kelley: Reclaimed Water; water suppliers may handle
reclaimed water for a beneficial use if use is in accordance with
statewide reclamation criteria and regulations.
SB 129 Kelley: Public utilities- Water service; on procedures
for Public Utilities Commission to follow concerning reclaimed
water service.
SB 286 Presley: Insurance - local agency building contracts;
exempts water and wastewater projects from insurance
requirements.
SB 365 Kelley: Reclaimed Water; use of potable water for
irrigation of residential landscaping, cooling towers etc. as
wasteful .
SB 497 Kelley: Water Quality; concerning money transfers from the
State Water Quality Control Fund to the State Water Pollution
Control Revolving Fund.
SB 1196 Kelley: Reclaimed Water; on discharge of reclaimed water
in coastal zones.
SCR 17 Kelley: Water Reclamation; regarding expansion of public
awareness on water recycling to lower demand for Delta water, and
achievement of water recycling goals by 2010.
2
t
C, 0 z -r
_ East CO
considers ways
to meet demand for water
By DAVE THAM son called Thursday's meeting at have the city invest millions of dol-
stalff writer the Delta Community Service Cen. lars to build a pipeline to the plant
ter to allow everyone interested in when it could invest that money in
BRENTWOOD — Cooperation the study to have their say on its its own treatment plant.
was the buzzword this week as wa- second phase. But CCWD board memb:r Don
ter officials from different agencies "The bottom line,I think,is peo- Freitas and Roberta Goulart, a
agreed to work together on an on- ple agreed to work together to solve Board of Supervisors water commit-
going study of East County's water the problems," said Art Jensen, tee staff member,suggested it made
supply. CCWD director of planning. more sense for Brentwood to join
Brentwood officials, however, Thursday's group agreed to have CCWD and use the Oakley plant.
seemed as reluctant as ever to join the managers of various East Coun. They added that a growing com-
the Contra Costa Water District. ty water districts mee', soon to de- munity cannot rely solely on ground
At issue was a CCWD study of termine the scope of the study's fi- water, as Brentwood does.
East County's water system. The nal phase.. Doheney said the city knows it
study's first phase explored future CCWD hopes to have the study needs another supply to augment its
demand and supply,concluding that completed by summer 1995. ground water. But repeating Brent-
East County would need aMt Representatives from the Diablo wood's longtime reluctance to ac-
121,000 acre-feet per year if b It Water, Byron-Bethany Irrigation cept CCWD's offer to serve the city,
out according to general plans. and lronhouse Sanitary districts Doheney said CCWD's water-supply
The report says that Brentwood, didn't have any major demands plans seem expensive.
CCWD and the East Contra Costa Thursday. He also said the city is worried
and Byron-Bethany irrigation dis- But Brentwood Councilman Bill about losing some of its autonomy
tricts combined have about 185,000 Doheney floated a plan to form a on land-use decisions if it joins
acre-feet of untreated water joint agency among the city,county, CCWD and has to follow edicts on
available. far East County's two irrigation dis- water usage and landscaping.
The study is now moving into its tricts and possibly CCWD to build a "I want to make it very clear I'm
final phase — determining what water treatment plant for far East not trying to be antagonistic.We are
must be done.to treat and deliver County. not trying to simply escape your dis-
cc 41 that water to serve growing East Although CCWD's new treat- trict. We want the highest-quality
! - County through the year 2050. ment plant in Oakley has excess ca- water at the lowest cost," Doheney
- County Supervisor Tom Torlak- pacity, Doheney was hesitant to said.
Of C. :� � � `_. '..3 �! �T Jct Jvvvv .. �• •.• — — — — —
C r :.fir 1 1 ) ) ) 00 '00
C, � ' r � 1 X1 , 1 1 ) 1 1 ► 1000
000
Of
t00
cif
i