HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04231996 - MR1 (6) F d
MgSKI
B a s a y�` �E# �� �>F v t o-vx,��•`" F�,>e �r�
NOW t�
who
a ,�ttwv Fps�ya ' .r •6 ,„"' �� •r 't ' ''. w4�y'wa'
s i *. �, � '�e'."'� 'fix ���^' ��' � "�, a *� +•'w
e
'` i Fks�"r y��' � :•':,v :?, x, i 77 y +w fix' €�' �y r x a lw r, �{`#y�(t �'
uk�4vu�d'` xi `u d w M E '`x✓, r a i
3 F •� x s k tv#xi«''"� uxx ,� c M �n}Ei rt' a z y,
sw iE€r
Nz -s^
t+•C R" o 4v RIN Vr
r low �
4
MATT 4 e" �u�a+�i>a.�«'!e#;^ �^�t :rA�; s} w h ..5,' �,� t• S�4
€s�''�sFaM "u' �''. Y r,, r "!, x... �yy'�k• »• xi,' +F*
''j;
W MOW
ll
1V ffi Y� A Mm
a A
�sM a
shot a
rtoo
x
f 3A r S d e x dga y
a
�. n� •, � Ria r: ,. �'yu� .,
s
@ M
p ¢
AN
AM
J 11
s€ i a
MAI
ss'
8E ''^ +x� M
ti � s'. cit
H � ax�.,z,� � �" ass, • v+
y zr rwMRa
a a
t
»
^: % 'f.ttRti:u L i,.�..a•:an..a.k.m. €I ?x '&.r. .' a§Cins..ex S,
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-1
EBMUD's Need for Water . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-1
WSMP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-2
1. WATER CONSERVATION MASTER PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
' Program Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Water Conservation Program Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
Water Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
MP -
2. WATER RECLAMATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1
1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Operating Projects 2-2
Future Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Revised Nonpotable Water Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
3. GROUNDWATER STORAGE/CONJUNCTIVE USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Technical Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Negotiations with San Joaquin County 3-3
Related Issues in San Joaquin County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
NextSteps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
4. MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT SEISMIC UPGRADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Conceptual Planning Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Preliminary Design Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Environmental Documentation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
' Final Design Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
5. LOWER MOKELUMNE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
6. WSMP ACTION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
' WSMP Action Plan of January 24, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
WSMP Action Plan of September 12, 1995 6-2
Folsom South Canal Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
Negotiations with East San Joaquin Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
Discussions with Sacramento-area Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
Enlargement of Pardee Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
' EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
UPDATED WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
THIRD ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT
APRIL 1996
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WSMP Background
IIn October 1993, EBMUD's Board of Directors adopted a Water Supply Management Program
("WSMP")Preferred Alternative consisting of five major elements: a seismic strengthening program
for the Mokelumne Aqueducts;an aggressive water conservation program;a wastewater reclamation
and reuse program;the Lower Mokelumne River Management Plan("LMRMP"); and a conjunctive
use project involving groundwater banking of Mokelumne River water in the eastern San Joaquin
County groundwater basin. The Board certified the WSMP, and EBMUD immediately began to
develop the Preferred Alternative.
' This annual report highlights the current status of the WSMP. The aqueduct seismic strengthening,
water conservation, water reclamation, and LMRMP are currently in various stages of
' implementation consistent with the WSMP. However, the implementation of the groundwater
storage project in San Joaquin County has proven to be complex, due to concerns raised by San
Joaquin County interests and certain technical and regulatory considerations.
' WSMP Action Plan
' In January 1995, the Board of Directors reviewed the progress on the conjunctive use effort and
determined that a broader implementation approach was merited. Staff was directed to pursue
alternative approaches consistent with the original WSMP briefings and EIR, but focused on
multiple water supply options including multi-party regional projects. On September 12, 1995, the
Board approved the most promising of these alternatives for future study. The resulting
recommended Action Plan consists of the following elements:
1. Initiate preliminary design, prepare project-level environmental documentation and initiate
applicable permit processes and USBR contract modifications for a pipeline connection between
the Folsom South Canal and the Mokelumne Aqueducts for the purpose of delivering water to
the customers of EBMUD as a stand-alone project not dependent upon any additional water
' supply project components.
2. Continue negotiations with San Joaquin County interests regarding a joint EBMUD/San Joaquin
' County conjunctive use project to provide additional storage to meet EBMUD's need for
additional water.
' ES-1
3. Initiate discussions with Sacramento-area interests regarding a potential joint
EBMUD/Sacramento-area conjunctive use project to provide additional storage to meet
EBMUD's need for additional water,including negotiations with Sacramento Area Water Forum
' and San Joaquin County Interests on a multi-regional water solution that can be implemented
in the near-term,based on a"Freeport South" alternative that does not include an extension of
the Folsom South Canal.
t4. Initiate project-level studies for raising Pardee Dam to provide additional storage to meet
EBMUD's need for additional water, while simultaneously evaluating Middle Bar and Duck
' Creek Reservoirs as possible alternatives to raising Pardee, and make further recommendations
as to the best reservoir option by December 1995 (in November 1995, Raising Pardee Dam was
determined to be the best available option for increasing Mokelumne River storage capacity).
The Action Plan is intended to generate benefits to EBMUD as quickly as possible by: enabling
EBMUD to take delivery of its American River water entitlement; clarifying EBMUD's
' opportunities with San Joaquin County and Sacramento area interests; facilitating implementation
of solutions to EBMUD's need for additional water; and taking advantage of the benefits of cost-
sharing with cooperating agencies. A flowchart showing the general timing and relationships of the
Action Plan elements is included as Figure ES-1.
To date, all four elements of the Action Plan have been initiated and are in various stages of
development:
' 1. A Siting and Alignment Study for the Folsom South Canal Connection Project is nearing
completion; in this study, Staff and consultants are examining alternatives for potential pipeline
corridors to connect the Folsom South Canal to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. Also, consultants
' for preliminary design and environmental documentation services have been selected, and
negotiations are underway. Board consideration of professional services contracts for
preliminary design and environmental documentation services is scheduled for April 23, 1996.
2. The initial planning phase of the joint EBMUD/San Joaquin County project is complete. A
preferred alternative has been identified that recharges up to 300 thousand acre-feet("TAF")per
year. Next steps in the development of this.joint project are to specify the mutual financial
commitments to the project and to perform additional technical investigations directed at specific
implementation efforts.
i ES-2
O � �
E
V
a a
' Q
w
p to
O N Ica
o O
N U
� � c
W o �
• z '� ie a o c
W w
aa
c
2 m z z 1-111'y E-
J N 7
W 6CL
o
H o M E pCID LD
o
= U N C
. Y C � 32 .
c ii c — a rn ", �Q .
m Q ..
I� p� o L E
c y c 2i I v) '�w aIL
>
C p o y p p I p 0 C I Z
N y*,,
R ma wa ('c y� � � ` m3.
(D ' �d ' r- I a
in' cn %n cU w mN
W y p �
U d rn rn �' +
Z 2
' c m 0
WtO2 � w W
' � o
a s N
I The joint EBMUD/Sacramento project is in the initial phase of development. A wide range of
alternatives has been narrowed to two joint project configurations. Both configurations would
allow for diversions from various locations: the confluence of the American and Sacramento
Rivers; and/or the existing American River intake structure at the E.A. Fairbairn Water
Treatment Plant; and/or at Nimbus Dam. These diversions would be combined with a
conveyance from the diversion area(s)to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The primary difference
in the alternatives as currently configured is whether there is any utilization of the Folsom South
Canal in the conveyance to the Mokelumne Aqueducts.
4. Consultant selection for the Raise Pardee Dam Project is nearing completion. Staff has selected
a consultant team for environmental documentation services and is in the process of selecting
a consultant team for preliminary design services. Board consideration of professional services
contracts for preliminary design and environmental documentation services is scheduled for May
14, 1996.
ES-3
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
UPDATED WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
THIRD ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT
APRIL 1996
Introduction
On October 26, 1993, the East Bay Municipal Utility District ("EBMUD") Board of Directors
certified the Final Environmental Impact Report("EIR")for the Updated Water Supply Management
Program ("WSMP") and adopted Composite Program II as the preferred alternative for meeting
EBMUD's water needs through the year 2020. Composite Program II includes elements of water
conservation,water reclamation and reuse, groundwater storage/conjunctive use, aqueduct security,
and a fisheries management plan for the lower Mokelumne River. In its Findings on the WSMP,the
Board directed District staff to proceed with development and evaluation of these project elements
and to report on their status annually. This is the third annual report on WSMP implementation.
Much of the activity since the adoption of the WSMP has been devoted to continued planning,
' identification of specific projects and actions to best meet WSMP objectives, some preliminary
design, and discussions with potential project partners in San Joaquin and Sacramento Counties.
This implementation status report presents a summary of the following activities:
1. Water Conservation Master Plan
2. Water Reclamation Implementation Plan
' 3. Groundwater Storage/Conjunctive Use Studies
4: Mokelumne Aqueduct Seismic Upgrades
5. Lower Mokelumne River Management Plan
(this element is covered in a separate annual report, which will be provided on October
22, 1996)
' 6. WSMP Action Plan
EBMUD's Need for Water
' The purpose of the WSMP is to identify the actions and projects necessary to provide adequate
protection and enhancement of the Lower Mokelumne River Fishery in balance with an adequate
water supply for District customers. The future "Need for Water" is defined in the WSMP as"the
additional water required at projected 2020 levels of development to'limit rationing to 25 percent
of normal water demand levels when a worst case drought occurs." WSMP planning was based on
' a computed need for water of 130 thousand acre-feet ("TAF"). However, since the adoption of the
WSMP, this estimate has increased to 160 TAF, with up to an additional 20 TAF contingent on
future yield increases from WSMP-related projects. This increase is due to a rerating of the storage
' capacity of Camanche Reservoir and the District's recommended Settlement with the Federal Energy
i-1 WSMP-Introduction
Regulatory Commission ("FERC").
After a recent series of dry years, the District took advantage of an almost-depleted Camanche
Reservoir to estimate the capacity of the reservoir more accurately. Due to improved volumetric
measuring techniques, and to a lesser extent siltation in the reservoir,the rated storage capacity for
Camanche was lowered from 430 to 417 TAF. This resulted in a 10 TAF increase in the Need for
Water.
The FERC reopened EBMUD's license to generate electricity at Pardee and Camanche and
published its staff's findings in its 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"). The in-
stream flow regime recommended by FERC staff would have increased EBMUD's Need for Water
to 286 TAF. In January 1994, EBMUD filed a motion requesting FERC hearings, and in August
1994 a formal FERC settlement process began. The District proposed an in-stream flow regime in
its Offer of Settlement to FERC that, combined with the Camanche rerating, resulted in a Need for
Water of 147 TAF. This incremental change had a modest effect on WSMP planning; in contrast,
flows recommended in the FERC FEIS would have substantially changed WSMP planning and
' future water supply costs.
Recently, on March 8, 1996, the District, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), and the
' California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") initialed Principles of Agreement to settle
disputes over water releases and fishery conditions in the Lower Mokelumne River. The settlement
agreement that is expected to ensue will likely be brought to FERC for approval later in 1996. The
' settlement would increase the Need for Water to 160 TAF, with up to an additional 20 TAF
contingent on future yield increases from WSMP-related projects. The effect of the increase in the
' Need for Water on WSMP-related planning activities is currently being evaluated.
In the next few years,other issues may further influence the District's Need for Water. For example,
based on a recent study, the storage capacity of Pardee Reservoir was also rerated. The results of
that study are not complete. Initial results indicate that the storage in Pardee has decreased, but not
by as much as the storage decrease in Camanche. Additionally, institutional issues may have an
' effect on the Need for Water; these institutional factors include the Bay-Delta proceedings, the
expected decision by the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") on the Mokelumne
River Hearings, and implementation of the Central Valley Improvement Act ("CVPIA"). The
' magnitude of these effects is uncertain but may be significant. Additional flows released as part of
the recommended FERC Settlement may offset these other requirements.
WSMP Funding
' WSMP implementation will be funded through a combination of direct customer costs, system
capacity charges ("SCCs"), rate increases, and non-potable water pricing. The pricing policy for
non-potable water will be discussed in a later chapter.
Direct customer costs are the non-reimbursed costs that customers pay for the replacement of a
' i-2 WSMP-Introduction
r
fixture or landscaping resulting from their participation in a WSMP conservation program. The
amount of conservation adopted by the Board when certifying.the WSMP EIR, Conservation Level
1 II, is composed entirely of voluntary measures that encourage customers to purchase water-efficient
devices when they replace existing fixtures and appliances. Since the cost difference between water-
efficient and conventional devices is relatively small, there are no significant direct costs to
customers for replacement of toilets,fixtures, and appliances. Outside of this fixture and appliance
replacement,the WSMP assumed that 50 percent of major irrigators and 20 percent of single-family
and commercial accounts would participate in a landscape rebate program over the 30-year program
life,at an unescalated direct cost to the customer of$200 million. Energy savings from water-saving
appliances and low flow fixtures could offset about nine percent of these costs.
SCCs are fees charged to new applicants for water service that are used to pay for capital programs
necessary to provide new water service capacity. The SCC includes cost recovery for distribution
1 system improvements and WSMP future water supply facilities. As a conservative estimate for
calculating rate impacts, the WSMP had assumed that one-third of WSMP capital costs would be
SCC-funded;this assumption minimized the financial risk to the District and showed the maximum
rate impact. In May, 1995, the District Board adopted an update to the SCC, which instituted cost
■ recovery for the current WSMP capital projects. This update established that the cost recovery for
WSMP capital facilities assigned to the SCC was 73 percent based on the benefit of those facilities
to existing customers and new applicants.
The balance of the capital costs and all of the operating costs are assumed to be rate-funded. The
WSMP calculated rates for a minimum debt service coverage ratio ("DSCR") of 1.6; the DSCR is
a factor rating agencies consider when setting EBMUD's bond rating. The required rate impacts for
the preferred alternative, Composite Program II, as calculated in the WSMP EIR, are 11%above the
No-Action Case in 2000, 9% in 2010, and 7% in 2020.
The rate impacts of WSMP-related capital and operating costs may change as the development of
the WSMP progresses. In the near term, the FY 97 Five Year Plan includes planned rate increases
of 6%, 6%, 7%, 7%, and 7% in FY 97 through FY2001, respectively. These rate increases are
necessitated by expenditures for the WSMP as well as other capital programs, and by increases in
operating expenses.
1
i
i-3 WSMP-Introduction
I
1. WATER CONSERVATION MASTER PLAN
On October 26, 1993, the District's Board of Directors certified the WSMP and directed staff to
prepare a Water Conservation Master Plan ("WCMP") in FY94 to: (1) identify proposed measures
with associated costs and projected water savings for WSMP Level II conservation, as well as
conservation measures mandated by legislative actions and by other agencies; (2) include an
implementation schedule for proposed conservation measures and projected savings over time; (3)
include a set of policies and criteria to guide selection and implementation of all future conservation
measures, including economic criteria, impacts on lifestyle. and proven effectiveness; (4) define
criteria for monitoring the effectiveness of implemented measures and for modifying or
' discontinuing measures that are not achieving water use reduction goals; (5) identify potential
research programs to evaluate the effectiveness of unproven conservation measures that may be
undertaken independently by the District or in partnership with other agencies; and (6) identify
potential sources of program funding outside the District.
In certifying the WSMP, the Board selected Level II conservation as the preferred conservation
alternative. Conservation Level II's savings goal was an additional 13 million gallons per day
("MGD") in the year 2020. The WSMP also estimated that existing and adopted conservation
programs would decrease demand by an additional 20 MGD by the year 2020 ("natural" savings).
The total savings due to water conservation is estimated to be 33 MGD by the year 2020.
The WCMP was prepared by staff and adopted by the Board on May 24, 1994. It estimated that,due
to legislative changes, approximately 14 MGD would be saved through natural replacement of
existing toilets with ultra-low flush toilets("ULFTs"). In addition,approximately 3 MGD of savings
was expected through normal landscape replacement using drought-resistant landscape plantings.
iThus,the total natural savings expected from existing and adopted programs was 17 MGD, versus
the 20 MGD projected in the WSMP. As a result, the WCMP derived a goal of 16 MGD savings
by subtracting the new savings estimate for existing and adopted programs from the WSMP goal of
33 MGD in total savings.
Important elements of the adopted WCMP included:
• Total implementation cost to the District of$60.4 million in 1994 dollars.
• Phased implementation schedule with full implementation in FY97.
• Additional staff members, including reallocation of vacant positions.
• Incremental water savings to the year 2020.
• Monitoring and evaluation component of the plan.
• Customer outreach and service.
• Expanded educational component.
The refined WCMP analysis also includes estimates of benefits to participants, which were not
' included in the WSMP. The program incorporates several elements, which are listed in
Table 1-1.
1-1 Chapter 1 -Conservation
Table 1-1. WCMP Program Elements
AUDITS REBATES REGULATIONS EDUCATION SUPPORT
Single-Family Toilet Water Waste Ordinance School Education Reports
Multi-Family Irrigation Upgrade Landscape Standards Speakers Bureau Research
Industrial Industrial,Commercial,and Non-residential Plan Community Committees/
Institutional Review Events Associations
jCommercial Community Identify funding
Displays Sources
Institutional Workshops and Cooperative Efforts
Conferences
Large Landscape Publications
ET Hotline
Demonstration
Gardens
Awards
Business Office
Displays
Table 1-2 shows the estimated water savings in 2020 due to each program element. Some program
elements, such as educational elements, are not shown in Table 1-2 because the amount of savings
accrued from their implementation is not possible to estimate accurately.
Program Implementation
Following approval of the WCMP and the FY95 budget, staff began implementation of the WCMP.
All elements of the approved WCMP have been implemented. Table 1-3 shows the implementation
schedule for the various elements of the water conservation program by year.
New water conservationams ro implemented in 1995 included industrial/commercial/institutional
P � P
rebates,non-residential plan reviews,and business community awards. The District also participated
with PG&E and two other water agencies in a rebate program for water and energy efficient clothes
washers. Plans were also finalized for a two-year study of gray water in single-family residences
beginning in March 1996. Finally, work on an interactive water conservation and District
educational display at the San Leandro Business Office is projected for completion in May 1996.
i
1-2 Chapter 1 -Conservation
Table 1-2. 2020 Projected Water Savings by Program Element
PROGRAM ELEMENTS Water Savings in 2020(MGD)
AUDITS(site surveys)
' Residential Audits 2.64
single-family 2.07
Imulti-family 0.57
Non-Residential Audits with Incentives 2.56
institutional(health services,hospitals,schools) 0.6
commercial(retail stores,restaurants,etc.) 1.02
industrial(manufacturing/processing businesses) 0.94
Irrigation Audits(parks,golf courses,cemeteries,etc.) 1.60
REBATES
ULFT Replacement(1.6 gallon models) 4.92
Irrigation Upgrades(rebates for water-saving hardware) 1.16
REGULATORY PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Non-Residential Plan Review(Industrial/Commercial) 0.85
Landscape Standards 1.64
Water Waste Ordinance 0.69
REDUCTION IN WATER USE FOR PROGRAM ELEMENTS 16.06
1-3 Chapter 1 -Conservation
Table 1-3. Implementation of District Conservation Program Elements by Year
Pre
Conservation Program Elements 1986 1986: 1982. 1988 1989 1990 ::1991:::::::j992, 1993, :::A994 1995
1 Educational/Inforinahonal
School Program • • • • • • • • • • •
Speakers Bureau • • • • • • • • • • •
Demonstration Gardens • • • • • • • • • • •
Publications • • • • • • • • • • •
Landscape Conference • • • • • • • • • •
Single-Family Residential Audits • • • • • • • • • •
Multi-Family Residential Audits • • • • • • • • • •
Large Turf Audits • • • • • • • • • •
Community Events • • • • • • • • • •
CIMIS Weather Station&ET Hotline • • • • • • • •
Community Displays • • • • • • • •
Landscape Newsletter • • • • • • •
Industrial Audits • • • • •
Commercial Audits • •
Institutional Audits • •
Awards •
Workshops •
Incentive
Device Distribution • • • • • • • • • •
Meter Discount • • • • • • • •
Irrigation Upgrade Rebates • • • • • •
ULFT Toilet Rebate • •
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Rebates •
Regulatory
Landscape Standards&Plan Review • • • • • • • • •
Water Waste Regulation • • • • • • • •
Non-Residential Plan Review •
Programs modified in calendar year 1995 include:
• The expansion and contracting out ($200,000) of single family surveys (audits).
• The addition of single family residential customers to the ULFT program.
• The simplification of forms and administrative procedures for the toilet rebate program. This
includes the use of plumbing supply stores as dispensing agents for ULFT applications and
brochures.
• The use of targeted and personalized marketing for the survey and rebate programs.
1 • The expansion of committee involvement in the California Urban Water Conservation
Council.
• The development of workshops/information sessions for customer outreach and education.
Two reports were prepared in 1995 that involved conservation staff time: the Urban Water
Management Plan and the California Urban Water Conservation Council's annual report regarding
' 1-4 Chapter 1 -Conservation
the District's implementation of best management practices.
Table 1-4 is a program summary reflecting program element activity for FY96, through
March, 1996.
Water Conservation Program Highlights
Audits
The significant highlight in this area is the contracted single-family residential audit program that
' began November 20, 1995. The annual goal of 3,736 single-family audits for FY96 was modified
to 1500 to be accomplished by June 30 due to the mid-year start-up date of the contracted program.
The start date of November 20 allowed the contractors to capture the backlog of audits that were the
result of fourth tier billing inquiries. Additional marketing effort by staff has helped to create an
atypical backlog of audits during the normally slow winter season when the requests are minimal.
All other audit programs have also been successfully marketed with workshops held in the multi-
family, irrigation, and institutional categories.
Financial Incentives
The Irrigation Upgrade program was sold out in Feb Y1996 and staff has established waiting lists
for customers who have indicated a desire to make system retrofits. Customers have been
encouraged to begin their system changes to avoid delays in capturing water savings and to retain
their interest in participating in the program. Funding for this program is expected to be increased
for FY97 to accommodate the large number of"irrigation-only" customers who wish to participate
in this program.
The Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Program has rebated a majority of its FY96 funding to a
variety of commercial and institutional customers. An informational session for school districts was
held January 30 to capture the interest of school districts, which responded both positively and
immediately to the District's rebate program. Additionally, a special mailer to commercial property
owners focusing on cooling tower retrofits was particularly successful due to the low cost to
customers and ease of making this particular upgrade.
For the second year, the ULFT rebate program has been well-received by District customers who
responded favorably to the expansion of the program to the single-family customer. This year's
marketing efforts were enhanced through the placement of ULFT brochures at plumbing suppliers
and hardware stores to take advantage of marketing to every customer purchasing a new ULFT
within the District service area.
1-5 Chapter 1 -Conservation
Table 1-4 . FY96 Program Summary(Through March 30, 1996)
ProgramElement FY96 FY96 FY96
AUDITS GOALSY`i D PENDING
Single Family 3,736 756 459
Multi Family 112 105 90
Irrigation 92 85 10
Institutional 62 56 39
'. Industrial 30 24 6
Commercial 121 120 6
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
Irrigation Upgrade $50,000 $50,301 0
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional $75,000 $52,345 $48,242
ULFT Rebate Program 7600 5185 2415
REGULATORY
Non Residential Plan Review 220 6 0
EDUCATION
Community Events 10 9 4
Presentations 48 26 9
Workshops/Seminars 4 3 1
Permanent Displays 1 1 0
Community Portable Display 1 1 0
Demonstration Gardens 0 0 0
Award Program Yes Yes N/A
Regulatory
A new industrial plan review pilot program for new construction was initiated in July, 1995,and will
continue to be evaluated in 1996.
Education
The highlights for this area include an innovative, interactive display to be unveiled in mid-Spring
at the San Leandro Business Office. Conservation staff and District service forces joined forces to
develop a permanent conservation display that will allow customers to have "hands on" education
about water conservation. The Water Education Center is expected to draw both educators and lay
1-6 Chapter 1 -Conservation
persons to this exhibit on a regular ular basis.g
This year's Conservation Awards Program was held in conjunction with the Business Luncheon at
the Parc Oakland Hotel on January 26. The five recipients who received awards this year included:
Acalanes Union High School,Alta Bates Hospital, City of Lafayette, DHL Properties, and Prentiss
Properties Limited. All made significant changes to their systems and water management
methodology.
Water Savings
Estimates of water savings for this report have been calculated using the mechanical estimate
approach, which is based on published data for average savings per either installed device or site
survey. The data needed to calculate water savings based on statistical comparisons for the
implemented WCMP will not be available until the 1997 report. Table 1-5 shows the estimated
water savings by program element. The total estimated savings for calendar year 1995 is 0.94 MGD.
Cumulative water savings since the implementation of the WCMP in July 1994 are estimated to be
1.05 MGD.
Table 1-5. Mechanical Estimate of Water Savings - Calendar Year 1995 Activity
WCMP
AVERAGE TOTAL 1995 CUMULATIVE
SITE USE SAVINGS/SITE SAVINGS IN SAVINGS INGPD
PROGRAM ELEMENT QUANTITY (GPD) IN%OR GPD GPD 7/9412195
Audits:
• Single-Family 586 230 7% 9,435 11,689
• Multi-Family 142 1,000 7% 9,940 10,640
• Commercial 20 8,400 5% 8,400 21;00.
• Institutional 14 15,000 5% 10,50012,.000
• Industrial 16 28,000 5% 22,400 31,500
• Irrigation 146 2,700 10% 39,420 55,620
Toilet Rebates:*
• Single-Family 772 21.2 GPD 16,366 22,726
• Multi-Family 5,447 36.5 GPD 198,816 290 066
Irrigation Upgrade Rebate* 16 2,700 10% 4,320 8,3 70
ICI Rebates* 1 4,200 3,000 GPD 3,000
3,1000
Water Waste Ordinance 58 mgd** 1% 580,000 580;000
ICI Plan Review 0 13,000 10% 0 0
Total Estimated
Water Savings*** 0.94 MGD 1.05 MGD
* Total FY96 goal of 7,600 toilet rebates will be achieved by June 30,1996.Total FY96 irrigation rebates of$50,000 will be achieved by June
30,1996. Total FY96 rebates of$75,000 will be achieved by June 30,1996. Goals and rebates re expected to increase if funds are approved
by the Board for FY97.
** Water Waste Ordinance-The savings from the ordinance is based upon a 1%savings of outside use(58 mgd)by all District customers.
*** Water Savings-The savings estimates are based on those used in the WSMP and the WCMP;they represent estimates that are generally
accepted in the industry.
1-7 Chapter 1 -Conservation
2. WATER RECLAMATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The District has pursued water reclamation since the mid-1970's by recycling 4.2 MGD of treated
wastewater effluent at the District's main wastewater treatment plant and recycling another 4.7 MGD
of filter backwash water at the water filter plants. The District's other reclamation projects use either
reclaimed water from other East Bay wastewater treatment plants or untreated surface water from
local watershed areas. Sources of reclaimed wastewater include the San Leandro Reclamation
Facility,the Dublin San Ramon Services District("DSRSD"),the City of Livermore,the Livermore-
Amador Valley Water Management Agency ("LAVWMA"), and the West County Wastewater
District. Lake Chabot is the source of untreated water.
In 1995, the District delivered nearly 10 MGD of reclaimed water to 10 customers (15 sites,
including EBMUD water and wastewater operations), conserving enough potable water to supply
34,000 households. This reuse provides a safe and effective water supply alternative for nonpotable
purposes, extends the limited potable water supplies of the District, assures customers of a more
reliable water supply during periods of drought,reduces wastewater effluent discharges into the San
Francisco Bay, and benefits the environment by providing the District with greater flexibility in
meeting instream needs in the American and Mokelumne watersheds.
History
In 1984, the District initiated its first off-site reclamation project serving reclaimed water to the
Richmond Golf Course. Recognizing the increasing importance of water recycling, the Office of
Reclamation was established in 1988 to conserve potable water supplies by identifying and
coordinating cost-effective reclaimed water projects. The Office of Reclamation has completed
several notable water reclamation projects, including the irrigation of five golf courses, a business
park and freeway medians. In 1995,the District commissioned its largest project to date to deliver
up to 5.4 MGD of reclaimed water to the Chevron Richmond Refinery for use in the cooling towers.
The Office of Reclamation has constructed landscape test plots at the District's wastewater treatment
plant to serve as a demonstration garden to measure the impacts on various plant species irrigated
with reclaimed water.
In its WSMP Findings,the Board of Directors directed staff to proceed with the development of an
expanded water reclamation program with a goal of 8 MGD of additional recycling by the year 2020
beyond existing and adopted programs. This level of development is consistent with Composite
Program II,the preferred alternative adopted by the Board. As a first step in the development of the
expanded Reclamation Program, staff was directed to prepare a Water Reclamation Implementation
Plan("WRIP")for presentation to the Board during FY94. The Board approved the WRIP on May
24, 1994.
The WRIP is an important step for the Office of Reclamation because it establishes the guidelines
for implementation of all reclamation projects. It identifies the following policies, procedures and
practices as necessary to implement the expanded reclamation program:
2-1 Chapter 2-Reclamation
• Revised Nonpotable Water Policy, which mandates the use of nonpotable water for
nondomestic purposes under specified conditions.
• Uniform nonpotable water service regulations to be included as amendments to the District
Regulations Governing Water Service.
• Uniform pricing structure for nonpotable water,parallel with,but independent of,the potable
water pricing structure, and consistent with the findings of the System Capacity Charge
("SCC"), to eliminate the need for negotiated individual customer agreements.
A combination of water revenues(potable and nonpotable),state loans,revenue bonds,and SCC fees
are expected to be used to fund water reclamation projects. The WRIP includes the recommendation
that the District fund all distribution piping costs to the customers' meters and on-site retrofit costs
for existing customers.
The WRIP includes a Community Outreach effort to increase public awareness and gain support for
the expanded reclamation program. This effort will target three principal audiences: the general
community, local elected officials and agencies, and potential nonpotable water customers.
Operating Projects
In FY95,a total of 9.5 MGD of reclaimed water was used within the water service area. The District
reclaimed approximately 8.9 MGD for use at water and wastewater treatment facilities. The
remaining 0.6 MGD was used at seven (7) landscape irrigation sites located throughout the water
service area. Table 2-1 lists the projects in operation or under construction during 1995.
Water Filter Plants
The District operates six filter plants, which treat water from the Mokelumne Aqueducts before it
is distributed to customers. The plants filter water through beds of sand, which capture small
particles. The sand is periodically cleaned by washing the filters with pure water. This filter
"backwash" water contains most of the particles captured by the filter.
To conserve supplies and meet stricter state discharge requirements, the District discontinued
PP g
discharging untreated backwash water to storm drains and began treating the water at its filter plants.
The backwash water is held in basins to settle out the particles. The clarified backwash water is then
recycled to the untreated water system and later undergoes potable water treatment. Recycling the
backwash water in this manner results in a gain in potable water supplies. One exception is at the
Orinda Filter Plant,where standard operation is to discharge approximately 5 MGD to the San Pablo
Creek, where the water ultimately flows into the San Pablo Reservoir and is recycled at the El
Sobrante and San Pablo Filter Plants. During FY95, approximately 4.7 MGD was recycled at the
Lafayette, Sobrante, Upper San Leandro, and Walnut Creek filter plants.
2-2 Chapter 2-Reclamation
Table 2-1. Projects in Operation (1995)
..... ..............................
.............
..........
.............. ........
..........
4 ... ......
Crk1
. .... ...............-... .......
. ... ...... ...... ..........
................. . ......
........... ......
.......... .......
..........
. ........ . ......I...... ... .......I
la
EBMUD Filter District-Wide 1970 IND 4.7 NA 4.7 4.7
Plants
EBMUD Oakland 1970 fND/IRR 4.2 NA 3.9 4.2
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Richmond Golf Richmond June 84 IRR 0.16 <0.02 0.09 0.09
&C.C.
Galbraith Golf Oakland July 88 IRR 0.24 0.84 0.20 0.01
Course
Alameda Golf Alameda July 91 IRR 0.39 2.40 0.39 0.33
Complex
Harbor Bay Alameda July 91 IRR 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.02
Parkway
Willow Park Castro Valley Sep.91 IRR 0.09 0.39 0.09 0.08
Golf Course
Chabot Oakland Oct.91 IRR 0.14 2.60 0.14 0.11
Municipal G.C.
CALTRANS/ Castro Valley 1994-1995 IRR 0.12 0.16 0 0.01
LAVWMA San Leandro I
Chevron Richmond 1995-96 IND 5.4 31.0 0 0
Refinery F_
TOTAL 15.47 37.51 9.54 9.50
IND=industrial;IRR=irrigation
Wastewater Treatment Plant
The District operates a 168 MGD wastewater treatment plant in Oakland that serves more than
610,000 East Bay residents. Recognizing that it was not necessary to use potable water for many
wastewater treatment processes, the District began using partially and fully treated wastewater
whenever possible. For example, reclaimed water is used to dilute concentrated chemicals prior
1 to mixing them with wastewater. In FY95, approximately 4.2 MGD of secondary- and tertiary-
treated reclaimed water was used at the treatment plant.
Richmond Golf Course Reclamation Project
In June 1984,the West County Wastewater District('WCVv'D')began supplying reclaimed water
to the Richmond Golf& Country Club("RCC")in the Richmond/San Pablo area. The golf course
2-3 Chapter 2-Reclamation
used an average of 90,000 gallons per da d" of reclaimed water in FY95. The irrigation
g g P Y ("gpd") g
project facilities were funded and constructed by the RCC,and the WCWD operates and maintains
them. The RCC pays only for WCWD operation and maintenance costs and EBMUD
administration fees,making it one of the least expensive water reclamation projects developed by
the District. In 1991,the EBMUD modified the system due to drought-related problems,installing
a potable water connection to irrigate putting greens at the golf course to wash away salts
accumulated in soils underlaying the putting greens. Under non-drought conditions, normal
amounts of rainfall are sufficient to wash away accumulated salts from the putting green soils.
Galbraith Golf Course Reclamation Project
In July 1988, the Galbraith Golf Course Reclamation Project was completed in Oakland/San
Leandro. This project pumps reclaimed water from the City of San Leandro wastewater treatment
plant to the irrigation system of the Galbraith Golf Course. In December 1994, the Port of
Oakland, through an agreement with the City of Oakland,shutdown the golf course and converted
the site for its San Francisco Bay Dredging Project for use as drying beds. The Office of
Reclamation transferred the responsibility to use reclaimed water to the Port of Oakland, for the
irrigation of landscaping. The Port used 10,000 gpd of reclaimed water in FY95. The bay
dredging project is expected to last approximately 5-7 years,after which time the Port of Oakland
will construct a brand new championship golf course to be irrigated with reclaimed water.
Alameda Reclamation Project
In July 1991,the Alameda Reclamation Project was completed in the Oakland/Alameda area. This
project extends the Galbraith Golf Course reclaimed water distribution system to serve two golf
courses at the Alameda(Chuck Corica)Golf Complex as well as median landscaping along Harbor
Bay Parkway for the Harbor Bay Business Park. This project represents the District's largest
recycled water irrigation project to date. In FY95,the golf complex used approximately 330,000
gpd and the business park 16,000 gpd of reclaimed water.
Willow Park Golf Course Irrigation Project
The Willow Park Golf Course Irrigation Project in Castro Valley was completed in September
1991. The project supplies the golf course with untreated water from Lake Chabot,a District stand
by emergency storage reservoir. The golf course used 75,000 gpd of untreated water in FY95.
2-4 Chapter 2-Reclamation
Chabot Golf Course Irrigation Project
The Chabot Golf Course Irrigation Project in Oakland was completed in October 1991. This
project also utilizes untreated surface water from Lake Chabot for landscape irrigation. In FY95,
the golf course used approximately 110,000 gpd of untreated water.
Chevron Refinery Reclamation PrWect
1 Completed in 1995, this reclamation project represents the District's largest single project by
further treating an additional 5.4 MGD of wastewater effluent from the WCWD wastewater
treatment plant and distributing it to the Chevron Refinery in Richmond for industrial cooling
purposes. This project is one of the largest industrial reuse projects in the country and will
conserve enough drinking water to supply approximately 20,000 households. Due to startup
related problems with the Chevron Refinery's internal water delivery pipeline system,no reclaimed
water was delivered to Chevron's cooling towers in 1995. Routine deliveries of reclaimed water
are expected to begin in the late spring or early summer of 1996.
CALTRANS/Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency Reclamation Project
This is a joint project between CALTRANS, LAVWMA and EBMUD for highway landscape
irrigation in San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Castro Valley and Hayward. The reclaimed water is
pumped from a pipeline carrying treated effluent from the City of Livermore and the DSRSD
wastewater treatment plants to CALTRANS' irrigation system. The transmission pipeline is
owned and operated by LAVWMA. In 1995, two pump stations, owned and operated by the
District, delivered approximately 11,000 gpd of reclaimed water to the nearby highway
landscaping.
Future Projects
The Office of Reclamation is planning six new water reclamation projects, and is considering a
seventh, to meet the WSMP goal of 8 MGD of additional demand reduction by 2020. This
program will expand the existing system to provide recycled water for golf course irrigation,
highway median and cemetery irrigation, some commercial and industrial processes, and some
front-yard residential irrigation. The WRIP will provide a guide for implementing the projects.
At an estimated cost of$81 million in 1994 dollars for the six projects,the program will replace
more than 8 MGD of potable water with recycled water. Table 2-2 lists the future reclamation
1 projects as well as their projected yields and estimated costs. Figure 2-1 provides the estimated
potable water savings for the expanded program by fiscal year.
San Ramon Valley Water Recycling Project
In 1995, the District entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)with DSRSD for a joint
2-5 Chapter 2-Reclamation
Table 2-2. Future Water Reclamation Projects
............ . ...... ....... .10C
IT A. ff....A
...
L.......
..........
...................
M ......
............ ................
..........................
...........-............-........
San Ramon San Ramon 2001 IRR 2.8 23.4
Hercules/Franklin Hercules 1998 IRRAND 0.4 3.8
Canyon:Phase I
Hercules/Franklin Hercules 2010 IRR/IND 2.0 19.8
Canyon:Phase 11
Lamorinda Lafayette, 1999 IRR 1.3 13.4
Moraga,Orinda
Oakland/Berkeley Oakland/Berkeley 2004 lRR/rND 1.2 12.4
San Leandro San Leandro 2015 IRR/IND 0.8 8.8
Expansion
Phase III
SUB-TOTAL 8.5 81.6
Richmond Richmond 2019 IRR/IND 0.7 11.8
TOTAL 1 9.2 �934 1
Project to be implemented only if needed. IND=industrial;IRR=irrigation
Figure 2-1. Projected Potable Water Savings from
4; W SNI P Water Reclamation Projects
10 10
8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5
8 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7
6 6.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5 6
E
5.1
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.
4 4
2 1.7 2
0 0 0 0 0
0.4
0 0
pre-FY95 FY96 FY98 FYOO FY02 FY04 FY06 FY08 FYiO FY12 FY14 FY16 FY18
Fiscal Year
reclamation project in the San Ramon Valley. The JPA establishes the DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled
Water Authority ("DERWA")as a wholesale agency to distribute reclaimed water to each member
agency. At an estimated cost to the District of$23.4 million for the transmission system,the project
2-6 Chapter 2-Reclamation
will serve approximately 2.8 MGD of reclaimed water within the District's service area. This project
represents.an increase of over 100 new recycled water customers for the District.
Franklin Canyon Water Reclamation Project Phase I
Originally initiated in 1991, this project was deferred until the adoption of the updated WSMP.
Currently in the planning phase,this project would supply approximately 0.42 MGD of treated
secondary effluent from the Cities of Pinole and Hercules for industrial cooling purposes and
landscape irrigation at the Unocal Carbon Plant and the Franklin Canyon Golf Course,respectively.
The project supply agreements and environmental review process should be completed in 1996.
Lamorinda Water Reclamation Project
This is a proposed joint project with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ("CCCSD") for
landscape irrigation in Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill. The proposed
project would make use of an abandoned Shell Oil pipeline to deliver approximately 1.3 MGD of
reclaimed water from CCCSD's wastewater treatment plant to District customers.
Other Projects
Other planned future projects include: the use of reclaimed water from the District's main
P P J
wastewater treatment plant to irrigate the 1-80 corridor in Emeryville, Berkeley and Albany, and
cemeteries and additional golf courses in Oakland; an expansion of the Franklin Canyon project to
include industrial reuse at the Unocal Rodeo Refinery; and an expansion of the San Leandro
Reclamation Facility to serve additional landscape and commercial uses in San Leandro. Supply
�. agreements will be required to obtain nonpotable water from the City of San Leandro and
Community of Rodeo. The agreements each address four areas: preliminary engineering,
institutional arrangements, environmental assessments, and public education.
Revised Nonpotable Water Policy
The District's first policy on the sale of reclaimed water was adopted by the Board of Directors on
November 24, 1987. The policy required that reclaimed water be used where and when a suitable
supply was available;however,no mechanism was put in place to enforce the policy. Past practice
for nonpotable water service has been to negotiate terms and conditions with individual customers
on a project-by-project basis. The policy also stated that a potable water backup would be provided,
and the price for reclaimed water would be established at less than or equal to potable water rates.
A key element of the WRIP is a revised nonpotable water policy. The policy includes the
development and adoption of uniform regulations,rates and charges governing the use and price of
nonpotable water. The policy revision is necessary to fulfill the goals set in the WSMP, which is
anticipated to result in a twenty-fold increase in the total number of nonpotable water customers (10
to 200). If there were no policy, individual agreements would be needed for each of these new
2-7 Chapter 2-Reclamation
customers, increasing administrative responsibilities and overhead, and leading to price inequities
among customers.
In April 1995 staff made a presentation on the WRIP to the Board Planning Committee. Based on
P � P g
staff's recommendations,the Planning Committee agreed to ask the full Board to consider adopting
the proposed policy revisions and to conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the
District's Regulations Governing Water Service and Schedule of Rates and Charges necessary to
implement the policy. The Board conducted the public hearing on February 27, 1996, and formally
adopted the revised nonpotable water policy and the amended regulations, rates, and charges on
April 9, 1996. Key provisions of the revised policy include the requirement to use nonpotable water
for nondomestic purposes when it:
• Is available for delivery to the customer.
• Is of adequate quality for the intended uses.
• Complies with all applicable laws and regulations.
• Is not detrimental to the public health and will not adversely affect plant life, fish and
wildlife.
The projected customer increase also necessitates an alternative to individually negotiated customer
agreements. Without these agreements, enforcement of the nonpotable water policy requires
amending the water service regulations. Existing customers would be subject to the nonpotable
water service regulations, and rates and charges once their current 20-year customer agreements
expire. Key elements of the amended water service regulations, rates and charges are:
• Definition of"feasible" nonpotable water service and key terms used in the regulations.
• Statement on appropriate nonpotable water uses(e.g., landscape irrigation, commercial, and
industrial processing).
• Procedures to determine the feasibility of nonpotable water service.
• Notification and permitting procedures for existing customers and new applicants.
• Installation and maintenance responsibilities including dual plumbing and retrofit
requirements.
• Uniform pricing schedule for nonpotable water that is established in conjunction with other
rates and charges(e.g. system capacity,meter and installation charges)to cover the District's
overall cost of water service.
The price should be comparable to the potable water price, as required by state law, and a uniform
price for each customer class should be incorporated into the Schedule of Rates and Charges.
Nonpotable water customers and applicants will have an opportunity to appeal a determination for
nonpotable water service through an administrative process established by the New Business Office.
2-8 Chapter 2-Reclamation
3. GROUNDWATER STORAGE/CONJUNCTIVE USE
The groundwater storage/conjunctive use component of Composite Program II,adopted by the Board
on October 26, 1993,would use excess Mokelumne River flows in wet years to recharge a portion
of the groundwater basin in San Joaquin County adjacent to the Mokelumne River and Mokelumne
Aqueducts. and would extract water from the basin in dry years. The project, also known as the
Mokelumne Aquifer Recharge and Storage Project, would be operational by the year 2002. As
defined in Composite Program II, the project purpose would be to meet only the District's need,
though it would provide incidental benefit to San Joaquin County. It would rely on the Mokelumne
River as the source of direct and in-lieu recharge. The District's contract with the United States
Bureau of Reclamation("USBR")for delivery of up to 150 TAF per year of American River water
would not be an element of this project.
There are two primary ongoing activities associated with implementation of the groundwater
component: technical studies and negotiations with agencies in San Joaquin County.
Technical Work
The first phase of detailed technical groundwater studies for the Mokelumne Aquifer Recharge and
Storage Project is complete. The project was initiated in June, 1994. Primary objectives of Phase
1 activities were to:
• determine the best locations and means for groundwater recharge and extraction;
• establish operating strategies and criteria for storing and extracting water;
• develop methods for quantifying benefits to all affected parties resulting from the program;
• develop conceptual designs for a range of alternative projects;
• establish a technical base for selection,ranking,and further development of specific projects
as well as for facilitation of public discussion; and
• define additional studies required in subsequent phases of the project.
The principal product of this work is a set of primary alternatives representative of the range of
feasible options that conform with the parameters defined for the groundwater component of the
WSMP Composite Program II.
Results and Progress
The first phase of the project was to identify and collect data needed to site project facilities and to
evaluate the performance of project alternatives.
Data requirements were identified, and the collection of existing data and the development of data
management tools is complete. Collected data was converted into "coverages," which are basic
information layers for developing and screening alternatives within the ARC/INFO Geographic
Information System ("GIS"). Using existing information, coverages were created for institutional
3-1 Chapter 3-Groundwater Storage
boundaries,infrastructure,pipelines and canals in Woodbridge Irrigation District,North San Joaquin
Water Conservation District, and Stockton East Water District, well locations, land use,
contaminated sites, sensitive habitat locations,and endangered species sightings. The extent of the
coverages varies,but they are generally limited to San Joaquin and Sacramento Counties. The GIS
was used to help site and analyze project alternatives.
The Integrated Groundwater/Surface Water Model "IGSM" was used to understand better the
g ( )
functioning of the groundwater basin. The same model is being used in the American River Water
Resources Investigation("ARWRI"), of which San Joaquin County is a sponsor. Use of the IGSM
aids in the selection of locations for recharge and extraction,as well as development of strategies for
optimizing operation of the project. Portions of the model are linked to the GIS, facilitating the
development of alternatives.
The model reflects the interaction between the surface water and groundwater systems in the
groundwater basin; as groundwater tables drop, natural recharge through channel losses and
subsurface flows increases. The opposite is also true; a rise in the groundwater table results in
' decreased channel losses and subsurface flows. This partially subdues the beneficial effects of an
artificial recharge program,because the increased groundwater levels resulting from such a program
may reduce the amount of natural recharge to the basin. However,the reduction in natural recharge
may have other beneficial effects, such as increasing stream flows and increasing subsurface flows
towards the Delta.
Because natural recharge in the basin varies with changing groundwater levels, model studies
indicate that the groundwater basin will reach equilibrium for any scenario of supply and demand.
For example, increasing the amount of groundwater pumping increases natural recharge, which in
turn will stabilize the basin at a new, lower equilibrium level. Initial model studies performed for
the ARWRI indicate that at 2030 demand levels, a supplemental need of approximately 130 TAF/yr
is required to maintain 1990 groundwater levels in the basin. One point to note is that while 130
TAF/yr may be required to maintain the average groundwater storage at 1990 levels, the basin is
very responsive to hydrologic conditions, and the basin storage will vary considerably above and
1 below the average storage level.
Allowing the groundwater table to decline further may exacerbate a saline water problem in
southwestern Stockton, where increasing levels of salinity in some wells have resulted in their
abandonment. Resolution of this problem is an important element of long-term groundwater
management in San Joaquin County,but not enough is presently known about the source or behavior
i of the saline water to predict what supplemental water requirements or management strategies might
be required. A review of existing data supported no conclusions, other than that a monitoring
program is needed to understand better the source, nature, and management of the saline water
problem.
The results of the previously discussed technical work were presented to the Board of Directors at
WSMP Board Workshop#17, held on February 28, 1995.
3-2 Chapter 3-Groundwater Storage
i
Following the February Board Workshop, staff continued with the project development. A
groundwater sampling program conducted in the northeastern portion of the Stockton East Water
District showed that native groundwater is generally not as of good quality as the District's water
supply from Pardee, although it may be of better quality for some constituents (refer to Figure 3-1).
The sampling program did not examine groundwater quality in the area experiencing increasing
groundwater salinity in southwestern Stockton. This was because the focus of the study was to
characterize groundwater quality in the area anticipated to be used for groundwater storage in a
conjunctive use project.
District staff worked with San Joaquin water interests to implement a pilot recharge program in San
Joaquin County. A pilot project would involve the construction of direct recharge basins or injection
wells to demonstrate the feasibility of direct recharge, collect operational information, and obtain
site-specific data on direct recharge methods. Should direct recharge prove infeasible, the
conjunctive use project could still be implemented using in-lieu recharge (switching groundwater
pumpers to surface water in wet years),but at substantially greater cost. A pilot project using a half-
acre recharge basin in the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District ("NSJWCD") was
' identified. EBMUD staff developed the design and operational procedures for the project;however,
the project was deferred to allow time to resolve liability concerns from both project partners. Those
concerns were addressed by EBMUD staff, and in the next water year when water from NSJWCD
is available for recharge, the project may be reinstated.
EBMUD staff and consultants completed the alternatives development process by selecting a
preferred alternative. The criteria for alternatives evaluation was similar to that used in the WSMP.
The preferred alternative, shown in Figure 3-2, incorporates direct recharge from the Mokelumne
Aqueducts through the use of injection wells. Up to 50 TAF in wet years would be injected in
NSJWCD, and up to 40 TAF of the injected water would be extracted in dry years. The extracted
water would either be returned to the Aqueducts for delivery to District customers or pumped into
Camanche Reservoir, where a like volume of water would be freed up in Pardee Reservoir for
delivery to District customers. The capital cost of this project is estimated to be $22.8 million in
1994 dollars, or$50.8 million if additional treatment of extracted water is found to be necessary.
The results of the conjunctive use study will be incorporated into the development of joint project
alternatives with water interests in San Joaquin County. The development of a joint project with
' interested agencies in San Joaquin County is discussed next.
Negotiations with San Joaquin County
Direct participation of San Joaquin County water interests' "Eastern San Joaquin Parties" or
P P q tY ( q
'
Agencies represented on the technical committee are North San Joaquin Water Conservation District,
the City of Lodi,Woodbridge Irrigation District,City of Stockton, Stockton East Water District,Central
San Joaquin Water Conservation District,and the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District.
3-3 Chapter 3-Groundwater Storage
1
h c �
N
d
O N
� � o
w
A
O �
1 � A
1
Figure 3-2
Mokelumne Aquifer Recharge and Storage Project -
Preferred Alternative
Cam= Jie
Reservoir
4"
Of NSJWCD
WID ���
22 Wells/ 4.200 hp
40,000 AF 20 Wells/50,000 AF(Extraction?
(Injection}
SEWD
Stocldon
Key:
Water District Boundaries Injection Well &Extraction(Direct)
SEWD Stockton East Water District 00 Booster Pump Station
NSJWCD North San 3a:.quir.Water Conservation District bp Pump Size in Horsepower
WD Woodbridge Irrigation District 20 Wells Number of Wells to Satisfy Peak Demand
20,000 AF Volume of Water in Acre Feet
"ESJP" in EBMUD groundwater planning began in 1990 during development of the water supply
alternatives evaluated in the WSMP. At that time,a County representative became a member of the
WSMP groundwater working group, which also included District staff and consultants. The same
County representative also sat on the selection panel for the District's consultant for the present
groundwater project. Additionally,the ESJP are regularly briefed, and their comments on works-in-
progress are requested. Technical information exchange and joint efforts on groundwater recharge
pilot projects with San Joaquin County interests were initiated in the latter half of 1991.
At the initiative of San Joaquin County interests,a joint policy-level ESJP/EBMUD Conjunctive Use
Negotiation Committee was formed in late 1992 for the purpose of developing a conjunctive use
project beneficial to both parties. The Committee has met numerous times, starting in April 1993.
Both EBMUD and the ESJP agreed that there is a high potential for achieving mutual benefits
through development of a joint project,but the parties had been unable to make significant progress
until early 1995.
The primary issues impeding progress concerned the use of the District's USBR contract for
' American River water in the conjunctive use program, the benefits that the County would derive
from the program, and concerns by the County that the WSMP Composite Program II groundwater
project might hinder the County's ability to resolve the ongoing depletion of its aquifer. A milestone
in the negotiations was achieved in March of 1995 when an agreement was reached to pursue joint
project studies. The study results were intended to support negotiations between EBMUD and the
ESJP regarding implementation of a joint project.
The objective of these studies was to define specific project alternatives that benefit the County and
the District. These alternatives differed from the groundwater component of Composite Program
II in two key respects: they utilized the District's USBR contract for American River water, and
they were designed to meet the long-term needs of both the District and the ESJP.
The primary engineering consultant for the joint project studies was MWA/CH2M-Hill, which
performed the work under an amendment to its existing contract. The ESJP hired an independent
consultant, Boyle Engineering Corporation,whose role included monitoring and participating in the
alternatives development effort. The total cost of these activities, approximately $700,000, was
shared equally by the District and the ESJP.
A technical committee composed of ESJP and EBMUD staff and consultants developed five
' preliminary alternatives for further development. Each of these alternatives assumed a major
north-south conveyance, a saline mitigation project, and increased diversions from the Mokelumne,
Calaveras,and Stanislaus Rivers. Alternatives are distinguished primarily by the source of imported
water:
3-4 Chapter 3-Groundwater Storage
- Alt I - American River via Folsom South Canal extension
- Alt II - Sacramento River at Freeport to Folsom South extension
' - Alt III - American River direct to Mokelumne Aqueduct
- Alt IV - Delta Source (Beaver Slough)
- Alt V - American/Stanislaus with maximum in-lieu recharge
Conceptually, up to 300,000 AF would be recharged in a wet year(including 85,000 AF allocated
for saline water mitigation).' Preliminary estimates indicated that such recharge could produce
115,000 AF of extractable groundwater in dry years(surplus to all ESJP needs). Of this 115,000 AF,
an estimated 50,000 AF would be required to meet minimum EBMUD dry-year needs. The
remaining 65,000 AF could be allowed to remain in storage, helping to replenish the groundwater
basin.
The preferred alternative identified in the joint project study consists of two phases, as shown on
Figure 3-3. Phase 1 water sources include the American,Mokelumne,and Stanislaus Rivers. Phase
1 facilities include a new pipeline from the terminus of the existing Folsom South Canal to the
Mokelumne Aqueducts, and a new canal from the vicinity of the Mokelumne River to the
Farmington Canal. New distribution facilities extending from the vicinity of the Mokelumne
Aqueducts and the new canal are also included. In wet years, these facilities would deliver water
to new injection wells and to irrigators who would otherwise pump groundwater. This combination
of direct recharge and reduced pumping would store water in the groundwater system. In dry years,
high quality water previously injected in the groundwater basin would be pumped into the
Mokelumne Aqueducts and delivered to EBMUD customers or to Camanche Reservoir.
Phase 1 develops up to 300,000 AF/yr of groundwater recharge in wet years. In dry years, Phase 1
develops a supplemental water supply of 50,000 AF/yr for EBMUD3. As shown on Figure 3-4, the
resulting net recharge would substantially raise groundwater levels in eastern San Joaquin County.
This may reduce or eliminate groundwater quality degradation in the County. However, existing
data are not sufficient to support a definite conclusion. Therefore, during Phase 1, detailed field
investigations would establish the rate, extent and nature of the degradation. If these investigations
' conclude that degradation is not corrected, Phase 2 of the joint project would be implemented.
Phase 2 consists of additional storage and/or diversion facilities. Any or all of these facilities would
be constructed if Phase 1 failed to correct the groundwater degradation problem. Potential Phase 2
facilities include:
z
As a variation on these alternatives,the recharge program for Alternative V was also downsized to
200,000 AF to reduce cost.
' 3 50,000 AF/yr for three dry years is assumed adequate to meet the WSMP Need for Water.
' 3-5 Chapter 3-Groundwater Storage
- Folsom
Reservoir Phase I Conveyance from Folsom South Canal to
' FaeOities Lower Farmington Canal(canal.pipeline.
Nf)J or both).
�FOLSOIn Calavens River Diversion.
Project Injection/Extraction Facilm
In-Lieu Recharge Fanhna i
_ Injectioniorin
Salinity Monitoring
.Phase 2 South Gulch andFarmingtm Reservoir.
? e� Facilities Sxcramonto Riva Diversion.
_JiP� Saline Inclusion Project(SIP).
(Potential)
Add'1 tnj°com Facilities. .
Operations RECHARGE.Deliver American River
e t0'@ _ water to the Mokelumne Aqueduct for the
S,aen
direct use of EBMUD.Deliver
Mokelumne River,Sunislaus River and.
other water to the project for injenion and
EIIMUU in-lieu recttarge,up to 300 kAF annually:
7Lraou( as available.
Freeport_ �
J# EXTRACTION, Extract 50 kAF in dry
' saerarieoto River - years using project extraction wells.
Diversion Pipeline
(Potential Phase 2 I'milit
Folsom Implementation Implement Phase 2 if saline inussion is
South not mitigated,if water supplies are not
E - Canal reliable.err if recharge is not effective_
' t,
Gro re Cost Phase I Capital Cera=S'N6.0 million. ,
Phase 2 Capital Cast=$0-S369.0 million. l
Pardee
Reservoir
Y9'
Cr
my Camanche
Reservoir
WW In-Lim
Recharge - lnjaaim and m-lieu �
Recharge m NSIWCD
II t r Cttrk ` `Wutto fin • 4tdt cJpc
AJ
ort pzl+
Woodbridge odi San Joaquit • C�J�
I.D. W.C.D. �qo�'
8H Folsom South Canal Coaaeetor
Convey-ft Facility
t
�tpe
Proj n d Colurrrat
action Facility
Stockton Fast
N'-D-
�\c
Injection and m-lieu
Recharge in SEND rptf' Peters Lower
ockton e'�° Farmington
Canal
Central SJ in
.D.
Farm ngton Ly
it s C
prtt� Fltwd ntro
ul Basin
1 Man ca
MOKELUMNE AQUIFER RECHARGE AND STORAGE PROJECT
EBMUD/ESJP JOINT PROJECT
1 Final Report
Picric tiler to Task Reim D
for ftgt m which describe the
Preferred Alternative IiWNW factha a in OPater detail.
Figure 3-3
0661
or 8861
IN 986t
Z 19
< El 17861
w lk
0861
oc 0 z
a 8L61
9L61
0
U- ot■ t7L6 L
or ZL6 L
w
w ■ OZ61
Z 996 t
to 9961
z
0 w K 17961
Z
0 mr 2961
>
w sr 0961
LLI 0 936 L
_j <
>W C) 9561 UJ
w 1796
JW ■
Cc 7) e36 L
W 0
1— 0561
<
: 6 8t76 t
CC Z
w 91761
0 w 171761L
l
w X 0
Zt761
w CC
0 > a-
o 0176 L
0 a- 0 8861 .
<
cc
w 9C6 L
<> w 1766 L
0 U6 t
w
OC6 t
9Z6 L
9261
17Z6
Z26
C) C) C) Q
0� L?
(ISLU OAoqe joa;)
NOLLVA313
• South Gulch Reservoir, an off-stream reservoir to regulate flows from the Stanislaus River•,
g
• Farmington Reservoir, modification of the existing Farmington Flood Control Basin to
1 regulate flows from the Stanislaus River and local streams;
• Freeport Diversion, new diversion on the Sacramento River to increase the supply available
to the project; and
• Additional water treatment capacity and distribution systems to deliver treated surface water
to M&I users, replacing groundwater pumping in the Stockton area.
The capital cost of Phase 1 facilities is estimated to be $345.5 million in 1995 dollars, or $373.5
million if additional treatment of extracted water is necessary. The capital cost of Phase 2 facilities
could range from $0-$369.0 million.
The Technical Committee published its final report on joint project opportunities on March 25, 1995.
The report describes the following major topic areas:
• Water supply availability;
• Configuration of alternative joint projects;
• Estimated costs of the alternatives;
• Hydrologic performance of the alternatives;
t • Environmental impacts of the alternatives; and
• Evaluation and comparison of the alternatives.
The report concludes that the joint ESJP/EBMUD project described above is the best of the
alternatives considered for providing a 300,000 acre-foot wet year recharge program. The report also
concludes that a number of factors are subject to negotiation between EBMUD and the ESJP.
Specifically, operational criteria and cost sharing between the parties must be negotiated. Finally,
the report provides the technical basis upon which alternative projects might also be negotiated.
Related Issues in San Joaquin County
Groundwater Management Programs in San Joaquin County
Water agencies in the Mokelumne area,including Woodbridge Irrigation District,North San Joaquin
Water Conservation District, Stockton East Water District, and San Joaquin County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, have either announced their intention to develop or are in the
preliminary stages of formulating groundwater management plans under Water Code Section 10750
(AB3030). Agencies that implement such plans would be provided with all the powers of a water
replenishment district, including the ability to impose fees and assessments, limit pumping,
implement groundwater recharge programs, and construct necessary facilities.
3-6 Chapter 3-Groundwater Storage
Groundwater Export Ordinance
For over a year, San Joaquin County has considered development of an ordinance to regulate the
export of groundwater from the County. EBMUD has provided comments and suggestions on the
evolving draft ordinance, and was successful in exempting projects, such as the joint project
proposed by EBMUD and the ESJP, that provide a net benefit to the groundwater basin, provided
the Board of Supervisors makes a finding that the project is consistent with the intent of the
Ordinance.
On January 17, 1995,the San Joaquin County Advisory Water Commission voted 9-2 to recommend
' the Groundwater Export Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. Included in the Ordinance is
language which exempts projects which provide net recharge to the groundwater basin. However,
the California Farm Bureau Federation was successful in adding an additional condition to such
exemptions. This amendment would require the Board of Supervisors(or a Joint Powers Authority
on which the Board has membership)to prepare and certify the Environmental Impact Report on the
project. District staff considers this an unnecessary technical requirement that may compel the
' Supervisors to act as lead agency on the EIR,possibly impeding progress on a regional water supply
solution that incorporates elements outside San Joaquin County. Staff is providing specific
comments to the County requesting that the amendment be removed from the Ordinance.
In late January, the San Joaquin County Counsel determined that the Ordinance is subject to
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and a Negative Declaration was
' subsequently filed. The Board of Supervisors' consideration of the Ordinance is expected in May,
1996.
Water Conservation Zone 1
The ESJP is an association of seven separate entities with varying viewpoints and differing available
resources. There is currently no single mechanism available to finance construction and operation
of a joint project. Therefore, San Joaquin County has taken steps to form a Water Conservation
' Zone,Joint Powers Authority under the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, or Mokelumne River Water and Power Authority. This new entity would cover the
geographic area represented by the ESJP. Its Board of Directors would likely be comprised of one
Director or Council Member from each of the ESJP. Entity Board members would be appointed by
the County Board of Supervisors. The entity would be empowered to assess real property within its
area, sell bonds, and otherwise cause project facilities to be constructed.
Negotiations With ESJP
Following identification of a potential joint project,the ESJP asked the County Board of Supervisors
for direction and guidance in negotiating implementation details with EBMUD. The Board of
Supervisors approved the"Principles for Negotiation,"and these principles were recently approved
by each of the ESJP boards and city councils. These principles have been developed to provide
3-7 Chapter 3-Groundwater Storage
guidance and a starting point for their negotiators. The principles are not necessarily points on which
EBMUD and the ESJP currently agree. At a negotiation session held January 11, 1996,the ESJP
asked for EBMUD comments on the Principles. A negotiation session held February 1, 1996
focused on these principles, together with additional guiding principles proposed by EBMUD.
EBMUD's comments on the Principles were given to the Board in February, 1996.
Next Steps
tDespite the significant progress represented by the March 1995 agreement for joint technical studies,
the institutional hurdles to developing a joint project remain formidable. Some or all project
' alternatives may have significant implications regarding participants'Mokelumne River water rights.
Alternatives may also require modification of the District's USBR contract and further court
clarification of the Physical Solution imposed by Judge Hodge as part of the 1989 settlement of
litigation over that contract. Uncertainties also remain regarding the ability of such a project to
satisfy all of the County's needs as well as those of the District. The steps that must be completed
in order to have a joint project on line by the WSMP Action Plan 2002 target date are as follows:
' Ne otiations
' Negotiations with the ESJP must proceed aggressively to meet the 2002 on-line date for these water
supply projects. Key factors that must be established by negotiation before a joint program can be
' implemented include:
• Cost sharing, for
- continued near-term studies and pilot projects.
long-term capital construction.
- contingent EBMUD/ESJP Phase 2 construction of facilities required if anticipated
American River or Stanislaus River water supplies can not developed,or saline intrusion
problems are not mitigated by Phase 1 efforts.
• Conditions under which EBMUD will have access to dry year water, including resolution
of:
the proposed San Joaquin County Groundwater Export Ordinance.
- conditions for EBMUD extraction and export from San Joaquin County.
- terms for EBMUD access to additional groundwater supplies, if the Need for Water
increases due to SWRCB, FERC, or other increased requirements.
• Formation of a groundwater management entity in San Joaquin County and the degree of
EBMUD participation therein.
• Definition of and participant agreement on specific facilities to propose to Judge Hodge,
' USBR, SWRCB, FERC and other interested entities.
3-8 Chapter 3-Groundwater Storage
Technical Investi atg ions
The major technical areas that require greater understanding in the near-term include:
• Location-specific performance and pilot testing of groundwater recharge, including:
- injection and recovery wells.
- recharge ponds.
- in-lieu acceptability to growers and practical in-lieu distribution system requirements.
• Nature, rate, and extent of groundwater quality degradation in the Stockton area,
establishment of a monitoring program, and possible saline mitigation measures.
' • Integrated operation of the groundwater,Mokelumne,Folsom South/American,Farmington/
Stanislaus, and/or Sacramento River water systems.
• Potential regional water supply and/or Bay-Delta benefits and potential environmental
impact trade-offs.
1
3-9 Chapter 3-Groundwater Storage
' 4. MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT SEISMIC UPGRADES
' The unstable soils where the Mokelumne Aqueduct System("MAS")crosses the Sacramento Delta
region have a high potential to fail during a seismic event, which could result in an outage of the
MAS exceeding 18 months. The objective of the Mokelumne Aqueduct Seismic Upgrade Program
("MASUP") is to secure Mokelumne Aqueduct No. 3 such that the pipeline could be repaired and
returned to service within 6 months of an earthquake with a minimum 500-year return period.
Currently, the MASUP is in the Environmental Documentation Phase and is developing the
resolution for project adoption by the Board of Directors.
Conceptual Planning Phase
Historically, the potential for outages of the MAS was estimated by observations of failures of
adjacent Delta levees and by geotechnical investigations completed by the District during the early
1980's.
In 1992, as part of the WSMP, detailed geotechnical evaluations and identification of probable
damage scenarios were developed. Geotechnical studies concluded that the area was highly subject
to levee failure and earthquake-driven liquefaction,primarily resulting from a newly postulated local
fault, the Coastal Range-Central Valley ("CRCV"). Conceptual seismic upgrades were produced
that could mitigate failure of the MAS.
The seismic security of the Mokelumne Aqueducts was therefore identified as an essential element
of the WSMP. The resulting MASUP was subsequently assigned to the Engineering Department's
' Design Division for implementation. One of the projects identified at this stage was implemented
immediately. The replacement of support frame bolts(as recommended by the conceptual upgrade
plans) could reduce the risk of failure from 50% to 15%, and this was carried out as an interim
measure until the final improvements are in place.
Preliminary Design Phase
In mid-1993, the District began work on the Preliminary Design Phase to more accurately
characterize and assess the geotechnical/seismic hazards, assess pipeline structural performance in
a seismic event,investigate permit requirements, develop the optimal upgrade strategy and prepare
an implementation plan. This phase was completed in August 1995.
The key findings of the Preliminary Design Phase were:
• The CRCV is the predominate earthquake fault to guard against.
• The levees are vulnerable to failure,both in existing static conditions and especially during
a seismic event.
• The instability of the river crossings poses the single greatest threat to the Aqueducts.
4-1 Chapter 4-Aqueduct Seismic Upgrades
' • The elevated portions of the Aqueducts can be strengthened with less foundation work than
originally estimated.
• The buried portions of the Aqueduct, Holt to Stockton, are also highly subject to the risk of
seismic damage.
1 Environmental Documentation Phase
t The District has prepared and circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project, released
for public review on March 15, 1996. The projected date for project adoption by the Board of
Directors is May 28, 1996. Other work in progress includes preparation of the needed land surveys,
including aerial photography and underwater soundings, the identification of the construction
easements,and planning for the aqueduct system shut-down and the public outreach program during
construction.
' Final Design Phase
Final design is scheduled to begin after adoption of the environmental document. The overall design
of the project will require approximately 14 months and should be completed by August 1997.
' The District is planning to award three distinct construction packages:
• Levee Strengthening
• Buried Section Upgrades
i • Elevated Section Upgrades
1 The planned order of the three construction packages is prioritized based upon the existing seismic
risk. Table 4-1, which presents the existing seismic risk and the risk reduction, is attached.
' The total upgrade program cost is $39 million, as listed below:
Env. Doc., Pre/Final Design= $ 4,000,000
' Construction: Levees = $ 19,000,000
Buried Section= $ 7,500,000
Elevated Section= $ &500,000
TOTAL = $ 39,000,000
Staff recommended staging of the construction across multiple fiscal years to the Board Planning
ICommittee on September 5, 1995 in order to limit the size of the annual rate increases and distribute
the program's cash flow. The anticipated schedule for the program, by phase, is attached as Figure
4-1.
' 4-2 Chapter 4-Aqueduct Seismic Upgrades
N
d
E '0
LN
L � O OO
a �n LO O
0
1 � —
V M
L
co M r- CU m
m ayi
. N �
C _
Q� E m co
cflc`acra) co
a�
Q O �°
w o >,
Lo
q o
= li O cu N L
E c �, 0 0
d o
rn
p O U 3 0 0
E
CD cm CL
u >
0 CD
cu
� W > N
J m W z
0
O �
F
'd m
m
� to
0 3
3
r
°
rN Q
O
N
r °
°
O �
a 6
r � °
j
W
r N Z
d
CD
W
'Z
g
r � m
Q
r °
N �
vA s 4- N N rj tl>
r
1
5. LOWER MOKELUMNE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN
This element is covered in a separate annual report, which will be provided on October 22, 1996.
5-1 Chapter 5-LMRMP
6. WSMP ACTION PLAN
The Board's Findings regarding EBMUD's Updated WSMP, adopted when the EIR was certified
on October 26, 1993,directed staff to develop further Composite Program II. The program includes
' a Mokelumne-only groundwater project with primary benefits to the District and incidental benefits
to San Joaquin County; the groundwater project is to be implemented by the year 2002.
The Findings also state that District participation in a joint project with San Joaquin County that
includes the District's USBR American River contract as well as the Mokelumne River source is not
precluded,provided that environmental review is begun de novo. The Findings further state that if
the groundwater component of Composite Program II proves to be infeasible, further study and
evaluation of other alternatives identified in the WSMP EIR would be undertaken.
WSMP Action Plan of January 24, 1995
Following a lack of progress during 1994 in negotiations with San Joaquin County to implement the
conjunctive use component of Composite Program II, and amid growing concern that the District
might not be able to renew its USBR contract for American River water if that contract is not put
to beneficial use prior to the 2012 renewal date,the Board adopted a WSMP Action Plan on January
24, 1995. The Action Plan directed staff to expand the range of water supply and storage options
to be evaluated to meet the District's Need for Water and had three primary elements:
Item 1: Continuation of work on the Mokelumne-only groundwater component of Composite
Program II (discussed in Chapter 3 of this report);
Item 2: Evaluation of expanded groundwater projects that utilize the District's USBR contract
for American River water and provide primary benefits to San Joaquin County as well
as the District(discussed in Chapter 3 of this report); and
Item 3: Identification and evaluation of other water supply and storage alternatives, utilizing
the District's USBR contract for American River water.
To address the requirements of Action Plan Item 3, alternatives were identified that focus on supply
to the District only, as well as joint or regional solutions that would involve water transfers and/or
cost sharing with others. The District initiated a public scoping process to identify prospective
partners (in addition to ESJP interests)who could:
• Provide additional surface storage
• Provide groundwater storage
• Purchase excess District water in wet years
• Supply additional water in dry years
Public workshops on the development of alternatives for Action Plan Item 3 were held in
1 6-1 Chapter 6-WSMP Action Plan
Sacramento and at Camp Pardee on June 7th. Preliminary alternatives were formulated and
presented to the Board of Directors on July 18th.
Most Promising Alternatives
Under Action Plan Item 3, a total of 13 potential alternatives were formulated. Following
development and evaluation, four alternatives were selected for further consideration. These were
a conveyance from the area of the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers to the
Mokelumne Aqueducts; and a conveyance from the Folsom South Canal to the Mokelumne River
in combination with a surface storage option, either a new reservoir at Middle Bar or Duck Creek,
or an expanded Pardee Reservoir. These four alternatives were characterized as a regional
groundwater banking/water supply program and development of additional surface storage.
A Board Workshop on July 18, 1996 updated the Board on the status of Action Plan Items 1 and 2
and summarized the development of alternatives for Action Plan Item 3.
WSMP Action Plan of September 12, 1995
Board WSMP Workshop 419, held on September 12, 1995, presented a status report on the
development of the January 24, 1995 WSMP Action Plan. One significant finding was that the
Folsom South Canal Connection project was a potential component of every primary joint water
supply alternative as well as a project to supply EBMUD only. Another significant item to report
was that Sacramento-area water interests had displayed an interest in potential joint water supply
projects as a result of the Action Plan Item 3 Scoping Process. Based on those findings and progress
to date,the Board approved a staff-recommended plan for further development of the January 1995
Action Plan elements. This "WSMP Action Plan of September 12, 1995" directed staff to:
1. Initiate preliminary design,prepare project level environmental documentation, and initiate
applicable permit processes and USBR contract modifications for a pipeline connection
between the Folsom South Canal and the Mokelumne Aqueducts for the purpose of
delivering American River water to the customers of the East Bay Municipal Utility District
as a stand alone project not dependent upon any additional water supply project components;
2. Continue negotiations with San Joaquin County interests regarding a joint EBMUD/San
Joaquin County conjunctive use project to provide additional storage to meet EBMUD's
need for additional water;
3. Initiate discussions with Sacramento area interests regarding a potential joint
EBMUD/Sacramento area conjunctive use project to provide additional storage to meet
EBMUD's need for additional water, including negotiations with Sacramento Area Water
Forum and San Joaquin County Interests on a multi-regional water solution that can be
implemented in the near-term,based on a"Freeport South"alternative that does not include
an extension of the Folsom South Canal; and
6-2 Chapter 6-WSMP Action Plan
4. Initiate project-level studies for raising Pardee Dam to provide additional storage to meet
EBMUD's need for additional water while simultaneously evaluating Middle Bar and Duck
Creek Reservoirs as possible alternatives to raising Pardee, and make further recommendations
as to the best reservoir option by December 1995.
' District Staff immediately initiated or continued work on these four elements of the September 12
WSMP Action Plan. A schedule for completion of the Action Plan is shown on Figure 6-1.
Element 1 of the September 12 WSMP Action Plan - Folsom South Canal Connection
Environmental Documentation
District staff took initial steps toward preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for
the proposed project to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"). An Initial Study'was prepared for the purpose of focusing the preparation of the project
EIR on effects deemed to be significant, and identifying effects which are not significant.
The Notice of Preparation and Initial Study were mailed to over 600 parties, and advertisements
were placed in five major newspapers in the project region and EBMUD local area. Three scoping
meetings were held on February 8 and 13 in Oakland, Sacramento and Lodi to solicit public and
responsible agency input. All the comments received during the scoping period will be taken into
consideration in preparing the Draft EIR.
1 Procurement of environmental consultingservices to complete environmental documentation for the
P
FSC connection is underway. Requests for Qualifications for environmental consulting services
were distributed in December, 1995. In response, eleven firms returned Statements of
Qualifications, and Staff sent Requests for Proposals to the four most qualified firms. Proposals
were due on February 16, 1996. In March, 1996, interviews were conducted, and staff selected a
preferred consultant team. Staff is currently negotiating with the preferred consultant. Board
consideration of the professional services contract for the environmental documentation services is
scheduled for April 23, 1996.
Siting and Alignment Studies
The District is currently conducting siting and alignment studies for the FSCC. These studies, to be
completed in April 1996, include an evaluation of alternative pipeline alignments and project
configurations. Two basic pipeline alignments are being studied, shown in Figure 6-2:
t
4Pursuant to Section 15063(c)(3)of CEQA Guidelines(State of California 1995).
6-3 Chapter 6-WSMP Action Plan
o °
E
C C U
U
0 0
A a
Q
w
—
0
2 o
c 16
p
0
U c
N _ z U
'o s
a
3
W o Q N ' ° o
W w o � wo
c v p y 0. 0
a Q �
_ E.
W ; N
C
r-i O V E c v a
LL
,6 z
a � >
� Z
�. C w
H o QEC �
` .0 C t M y
v C on
� ?� E C N N a W
� a
C U- y
� v m
� L mo
> CL
a do
w L) i 4) CD
..
cc a �-
i° CL 6 EE
=
lin 'ocn �i � s
, Wal m >
p> ,`OF 'O h `O 'O^ I p 0 C m Zcc
11�.
E N d N w U O) O I '6
`m v ca � a ILZM 'I IL
tm
Za 0 CD cm
rn c yD
ma � .c UZ � UZ�
� w fmn 2 m W
ON E H W H
xZ ww �
W � U
oz za � (15Q
m ap Oa a "I� CON
!
I ,g Fig -
: ' Folsom South Canal
,. Connection
J I
6 .�` r ,� ,• ,� East Bay Municipal
0
Utility District
} T
I` Z.. Alignment Alternatives
t
Ali
Length:33.9 9 Miles
Allg melt
} i
Alignment nment 2
` = a Length. 15.9 Miles
J �? Alignments Considered
but not Selected
..iNoke Gnn
Aqueduct or Canal
Perm.Stream or Canal
Int. Stream or Canal
Major Road
i L Railroad
::
y °-�- Power Transmission Line
i l •
VL
Ills
Y.
7 ...,.
SOUVWn P.d60 RR
.5-to
i
11 Apr 06 06:46:36 nwrd.y
1 I �M aM
Alignment 1 (specified in the Initial Study) -from EBMUD s contract turnout on the FSC to the
Mokelumne Aqueducts, within the Central California Traction Co. (CCT)railroad right-of-way,
and
Alignment 2 - from the terminus of the FSC to the Mokelumne Aqueducts, either along a
corridor that includes the shortest route or within the CCT right-of-way.
Alignment 1 begins at the delivery point specified in the District's USBR contract. A contract
amendment would not be necessary for this alignment. Also, this alignment makes use of an
existing right-of-way, possibly facilitating the procurement of the pipeline corridor, since there is
only one owner for much of the alignment. Since the pipeline would be on an established right-of-
way, it appears that there would be relatively few biological and environmental impacts along
Alignment 1.
However, there is significant uncertainty as to the availability and timing of purchase of the CCT
right-of-way. Also,the project along Alignment 1 would be much more expensive than one along
Alignment 2, since the total length of pipe is longer (32 miles instead of 15 miles for the shortest
route). Finally, Alignment 1 would cross three more streams than Alignment 2, including the
Cosumnes River, adding expense, complexity, and environmental impacts.
For Alignment 2,many routes can be drawn connecting the terminus of the FSC to the Mokelumne
Aqueducts. Alignments that lie within the western portion of the study area better avoid biologically
and environmentally sensitive habitats. In addition,the topography there is less varied, so a pipeline
would be less complex to design and construct. However,the western alignments would also cross
more farmland and residential areas. Land acquisition would be more difficult there due to a higher
degree of parcel subdivision and development. One sub-alternative being considered under
Alignment 2 utilizes the CCT right-of-way. This alignment shares with Alignment 1 the advantages
associated with single ownership of the CCT,but does not require a Cosumnes River crossing. The
total length of the alignment from the canal terminus utilizing the CCT right-of-way is about 22
miles.
The preferred route for Alignment 2 selected by the consultant team and Staff is shown on Figure
6-2. The route was selected based on environmental, economic, operational, and other factors.
Final products of the siting and alignment studies will include project design criteria, a preliminary
operation plan,and a recommended Alignment 2 alternative and associated pumping plant sites. The
siting and alignment studies are scheduled for completion in late April, 1996.
Project Capacity
The nominal project capacities under consideration in the FSCC siting and alignment studies range
from 250 to 400 cubic feet per second(cfs). 250 cfs is the minimum capacity required to deliver the
150,000 acre-feet/yr available under the USBR contract. 400 cfs matches the combined capacity of
6-4 Chapter 6-WSMP Action Plan
Mokelumne Aqueducts 2 and 3,the historical maximum monthly aqueduct draw,and the minimum
capacity of the FSC turnout per EBMUD's USBR contract.
The EBMUD/ESJP joint project study,the basis for alternatives and cost estimates in the September
J p J Y p
1995 WSMP Action Plan, considered a 250 cfs capacity for the FSCC. Higher capacities are now
being considered in the FSCC siting and alignment studies because increased capacity allows more
water to be utilized under the Hodge restrictions, and because it is desirable for an EBMUD-only
facility to have the capacity necessary for use as an alternate water supply during emergency or
planned shut-down of the District's Mokelumne River supply. The tradeoffs between pipeline
capacity, project yield, and cost are being evaluated.
Consultant Procurement for Preliminary Design Services
Requests for Proposals for engineering services for the FSCC were distributed in December. In
response, six firms submitted Statements of Qualifications, and on January 31, 1996 the three most
qualified firms were invited to submit proposals. Proposals were due on February 26, 1996.
Interviews were conducted in early March, and a preferred consultant team was selected shortly
thereafter. Staff is currently negotiating with the preferred consultant. Board consideration of the
professional services contract for design services is scheduled for April 23, 1996.
Element 2 of September 12 WSMP Action Plan -Negotiations with East San Joaquin Parties
P g 9
The status of this element of the September 12 Action Plan is discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.
Element 3 of September 12 WSMP Action Plan -Discussions with Sacramento-area Interests
Subsequent to the September 12, 1995 Board Meeting, EBMUD and Sacramento area
1 representatives met on several occasions to explore the format for meaningful discussions on joint
project opportunities. A draft memorandum of understanding describing the format for further
discussions between EBMUD,the ESJP,and Sacramento area interests was developed. In February,
1996, the ESJP indicated their interest in participating in 3-Way technical and policy discussions.
They further indicated that they do not intend to sign the MOU nor be a financial participant in the
technical studies at this time. However, the ESJP have chosen to participate in the discussion
' between Sacramento area water interests and EBMUD as observers.
Participants have agreed to examine the entire range of available options. The draft MOU defines
a Technical Team consisting of EBMUD, the ESJP, and Sacramento area representatives and
consultants. It also identifies a Policy Team whose responsibility is to identify a mutually agreed-
upon project configuration and operation. Provided that an acceptable project is identified,the cost-
sharing participants would negotiate the financing, cost-sharing, and operation of joint project
facilities. The Sacramento area cost sharing participants have stated their intention to seek
Sacramento Water Forum approval, as well as integration of any joint project into the Water Forum
process. The MOU does not commit signatories to construct or finance the agreed-upon project.
6-5 Chapter 6-WSMP Action Plan
Meetings between EBMUD, Sacramento area water interests, and ESJP technical representatives
g P
were held throughout the first months of 1996. The first Policy Committee session was held on
April 4, 1996. It is intended that negotiations will lead to agreement on a joint project by Summer
1996, consistent with both the EBMUD Action.Plan schedule and the schedule established by the
Sacramento Water Forum.
EBMUD/Sacramento-Area Joint Project Alternatives
A wide range, in excess of 150 combinations, of alternative diversion locations, conveyances, and
facility sizes were considered for the joint project. These have been narrowed to two conceptual
alternatives for further study. Two other alternatives have also been developed for comparison
purposes; they are non joint project alternatives that represent options for EBMUD-only and
Sacramento interest-only projects. The principal features of the joint project alternatives,illustrated
on Figures 6-3 and 6-4, are as follows:
Both Alternatives contain these components:
a new diversion/ um station just upstream of or at the confluence of the American and
. P P J P
Sacramento Rivers
• optional diversion at the existing Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant Intake Structure
• optional facilities to treat water for EBMUD and/or the ESJP
The Alternatives have these differing components:
Alternative 1: (Figure 6-3)
• a pipeline south along the Central California Traction Railroad alignment, connecting to the
Mokelumne Aqueducts
Alternative 2: (Figure 6-4)
• a pipeline towards the east connecting to the Folsom South Canal
• a pipeline from the terminus of the Folsom South Canal south to the Mokelumne Aqueducts
There are numerous permutations of facility sizes and capacities being examined, and the resulting
' costs (currently being estimated)may vary widely. Key parameters'being examined include:
• capacity of the supply to EBMUD and/or the ESJP:
r - 250 cfs,which would allow delivery of the full 150,000 acre-feet/yr EBMUD entitlement to
5 Conversion Table
MGD 100 1 134 162 259
KAF/yr 112 1 150 1 181 290
cfs 155 1 207 250 1 400
6-6 Chapter 6-WSMP Action Plan
r
f
f i
5-- , PLAC
spc
u N 'OO
v FAi
T nom`
\"o� p
Over�or► e SR 1610
Wo
f
cb
l
p 1 tPp �'�; • GO. Ei Calf
_ ISd r
ccoV
tt 1\
G00
o J 1
i
f
An
� ' l SR
,Qt J
6 ! `
i
St
y L �, F figure 6 3
a t �BMvo , �gJP
SACRAMLwo
S�RNA�,v�1
A
SU7ER CO_
- SACRAMENTO CO. �O
i-5 a
Fairbairn
�. WTP 1� N
4n T
c�0
01, O
Div aim 5¢ '�o "� , •0
f
SR 16
0
1+ ��
tO
To ? o�
auth Are
t3 LO l�4
- SR 104 ��^' v�N arn
GO
GALS
4 Thornton '�"�"'� sip/
'54
ryol
G't`r yl\
1200
\�. SR 12
cc. t
River
14\
t�c
A
a Figure 6-4
SACRAMENTO IEBD / ESJP
ALTERNATIVE
EBMUD and/or the ESJP over a ten-month period,
- 400 cfs, which would match the EBMUD's historical draft on the Mokelumne Aqueducts.
• capacity of the supply to Sacramento County:
- 50 or 100 MGD from the American River.
• whether treated water,untreated water or groundwater is supplied to EBMUD,and the source
water quality and degree of treatment required.
• whether or not water is diverted at Nimbus to meet EBMUD and/or ESJP needs.
• whether or not ESJP is served water.
Sacramento Water Forum Progress Report
Established in 1993,the Sacramento Water Forum is a coalition of 46 interests representing business,
environmental interests,public agencies, and water suppliers in Sacramento,Placer and El Dorado
' Counties. The stated objectives of the Forum are to:
• provide a reliable and safe water supply through the year 2030; and
' • preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the Lower American
River.
In January, the Forum released its report "Progress Toward a Regional Water Agreement." This
report proposed a mix of new surface water supplies, groundwater banking, conservation, and
reclamation to meet water needs. It also proposed changes in changed Folsom Reservoir operations
and identified habitat improvements to address Lower American River concerns. One key to their
river strategy is to identify alternatives to additional American River diversions, although new
' diversions from the Lower American River are proposed for the City of Sacramento, Arcade and
Carmichael Water Districts, as well as new Folsom South Canal deliveries to utility, water district,
and agricultural interests in southern Sacramento County.
EBMUD's contract with USBR is identified as a"remaining challenge"by the Water Forum. The
Forum's progress report suggests that EBMUD's needs be met from a new Sacramento River
diversion either at or below the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers.
Next Stens
' Negotiations
Negotiations with the Sacramento and San Joaquin water interests (and the ESJP) must proceed
aggressively to meet the 2002 on-line date for these water supply projects. Key factors that must be
established by negotiation before a joint program can be implemented include:
• Definition of, and participant agreement on, specific facilities.
• Cost sharing for long-term capital construction.
• Acceptance by Judge Hodge, if applicable, and governing regulatory agencies.
6-7 Chapter 6-WSIVIP Action Plan
Technical Investigations
' The major technical areas that require greater understanding in the near-term include:
• Physical configuration, operation details, and costs.
• Potential regional water supply and/or Bay-Delta benefits and potential environmental
impact trade-offs.
rElement 4 of September 12 WSMP Action Plan -Enlargement of Pardee Reservoir
' To address the fourth element of the September 12 Action Plan, staff and environmental consultants
performed an analysis of the three reservoir storage alternatives, identifying enlargement of Pardee
Reservoir as the best alternative for the District to pursue. The Board approved this recommendation
on Nov. 28.
Figure 6-5: Pardee Reservoir
The Pardee Reservoir enlargement project would consist of several major components, including:
enlarging the main dam, modifying or replacing the spillway, modifying or replacing the intake
' tower, modifying aqueduct facilities, modifying or replacing recreation and shoreline facilities,
replacing the Highway 49 bridge over the Mokelumne River, and constructing a secondary dam in
the vicinity of the existing Jackson Creek outlet.
Previous studies for thisro'ect conducted in 1991 and 1992 focused on an enlargement of 150,000
P J g
acre-feet. As configured in 1991-92, the dam enlargement would be carried out by adding a
substantial amount of roller compacted concrete on the downstream face, increasing the height by
approximately 60 feet, incorporating an overflow spillway on top of the main dam, enclosing the
powerhouse within the enlarged dam,and constructing large wing dikes on the southern and northern
abutments adjacent to the main dam to retain the higher water level. As proposed in 1991-1992,the
existing South Spillway would be abandoned.
Consultant Procurement for Engineering and Environmental Studies
Two consultant procurement processes are currently in progress, one for engineering and
geotechnical services, and one for environmental services. Consultants will perform project-level
studies on each major component, including preliminary design work,environmental evaluation and
1 documentation, operations analyses, and detailed construction planning to ensure the project can be
implemented without posing unacceptable risks to water supply reliability, operations or
environmental and recreational resources. Another key objective is to identify the tradeoffs between
' project size, cost, and impacts. As stated previously,the Need for Vater has increased due to the
rerating of Camanche and the FERC Settlement,so the originally proposed 150 TAF expansion may
not be adequate.
' 6-8 Chapter 6-WSMP Action Plan
� c � ,tea i 4� !Q•+� �
ca tE O
y W L c^c N S 8 w 3 L fyy°�qY 3 a N =
d N O_1 ll) f0 NVi 'D d O L` L toC C d
N EO[ Ej= iu iv mgF o iec �' O c v 0
•- YR XO CD E
J -9 Ti E a a E d P: .
m Oaf e'pd W �3Em fn 0 d E
to m?� gam€
ca mg
Lij Cc
CL
� 1
I'l
I -•�� �\ rl7
r
r'
l
i
r.
i
1
These studies and planning efforts are expected to last one to two years while simultaneous project-
level work is carried out for conjunctive use/groundwater storage alternatives and the FSCC Project.
' The consultant contract for preliminary work on Pardee will allow for final design to proceed only
upon an EBMUD Board decision to proceed further with implementation of the enlarged reservoir.
Separate Requests for Proposals for engineering/geotechnical services and environmental services
were distributed in December 1995. Five Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) for engineering and
geotechnical services for the Raise Pardee project were received on January 5, 1996, and all five
firms were invited to submit proposals. Seven firms submitted SOQs for environmental services and
the four most qualified firms were invited to submit proposals. The proposals for both
environmental and engineering/geotechnical services were due on March 1, 1996. Interviews for
both contracts were held in March,and staff is now negotiating with the preferred consultant. Board
consideration of both professional services contracts is scheduled for May 14, 1996.
rFederal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC Licensing
On December 26, 1995 FERC approved the interim modifications proposed by the District for the
south spillway rather than the full modifications required to safely pass the Probable Maximum
Flood. Construction of the interim modifications is scheduled for summer and fall of 1996. FERC's
' approval of interim modifications is based on the District's continuing consideration of the reservoir
enlargement project. FERC has requested regular meetings to document progress and review work
products. Coordination with FERC,the State Division of Safety of Dams, and other agencies and
organizations is expected throughout this work.
1
1
i
i
r
r
r
6-9 Chapter 6-WSMP Action Plan
1
End of Document