HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/1991, 5 - WATER RECLAMATION IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM; ESTABLISHING CITY POLICY TO PRIORITIZE THE USE OF RECLAIMED WATER. MEEnNG
I�� IB���INIIIIIII�AIIUIII � r Angus DATE:
c� o san lugs osispo August 20 1991 Glas
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I NUMBEfl: S
- FROM: William T. Hetland� Prepared By: Robert A. Livick
Utilities Director Water Reclamation Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Water Reclamation Implementation Program; Establishing City policy
to prioritize the use of reclaimed water.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution establishing City policy regarding the use of
reclaimed water.
REPORT IN BRIEF:
The City of San Luis Obispo is currently pursuing a water
reclamation program. The reclaimed water will be used .to fortify
the City's watersupply against times of drought and relieve a
portion of the non-potable use of potable water. As a part of the
water reclamation program the City should establish policy for the
use of reclaimed water along with a priority list for differing
categories of potential reclaimed water users. The proposed city
policy regarding reclaimed water use should put emphasis on
offsetting potable water demand for non-potable use and each
reclaimed water project should be a cost effective project when
compared to the development of a new potable water source.
The amount of water available for reclamation will be based on the
minimum average dry weather flow from the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) . Staff has estimated that there could be up
to 1100 ac-ft of reclaimed water use by existing potable users.
These potential users include the City Parks, San Luis Coastal
Unified School District, Cal Poly and Caltrans.
The steps needed to bring a reclaimed water supply "on-line"
include: completion of a feasibility/marketing study, preparation
and certification of the environmental documents, preparation of an
engineering report, securing a source of funding and establishment
of user contracts. Then a detailed design of storage, pumping and
distribution facilities followed by the construction of said
facilities.
There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of this Council action.
Staff considers the proposed water reclamation use policy to be
consistent with the City's adopted Land Use and Water and Wastewater
Elements of the General Plan and not "a project" requiring further
review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
DISCUSSION:
BACKGROUND
The State of California has always placed a high value on its water
supply. This includes the importance that reclaimed water has
®Ihlh� CIof San LUIS OBISPO
Oftras COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Reclamation Program
Meeting of August 20, 1991
Page 2 j
played in the overall scheme of water supply. As early as 1889
reclaimed municipal wastewater was used in the State of California.
In San Francisco raw sewage was used to fertilize and irrigate the
western dune area of the city. By 1928 the State Constitution
established regulations prohibiting waste and the unreasonable use
of water and encouraging water reclamation wherever safe and
i practical. The State has encouraged and supported the use of
reclaimed water to augment supplies in the water short areas of
California. The State' s support for reclaimed water projects has
continued with the legislature' s consideration of Assembly Bill (AB)
- 24 which would provide $200 million for the water reclamation low
interest loan program. Another bill making progress is AB - 174 ; 11
this bill would strengthen California Water Code to provide for
expanded use of reclaimed water to prevent waste or unreasonable use
of water.
I
In keeping with State policy regarding the use of reclaimed water,
the City should establish policy for the use of reclaimed water
along with a priority list for differing categories of potential
reclaimed water users. This policy should concur with existing City !
policy including the Water and Wastewater element of the General
Plan, the City' s Water Management Plan and the Wastewater Management
Plan.
The Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) of the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) is approximately 4 . 1 Million Gallons Per Day
(MGD) or about 4500 Acre Feet Per Year (ac-ft/yr) . By the year 200011
that amount is expected to increase to about 5. 1 mgd or 5700 ac-
ft/yr. However, the amount of water available for reclamation must
be based on the minimum ADWF from the WWTP, ie. summer with Cal Poly ',
j out. This amount ranges from 3000 to 4200 ac-ft/yr for the years
1985 through 1990. During the years 1985 to 1987 , effluent flow
increased from about 3000 to 4200 ac-ft/yr. Then due to the drought ]
and the water conservation efforts, the July/August effluent flow
decreased back to the 3000 ac-ft/yr level in 1990. A graph showing
this change is included as attachment 3 .
I
The current quality of that effluent meets secondary treatment
standards. The WWTP upgrade that is currently underway, will
improve the effluent quality to an advanced level, so that a full
water reclamation program can be implemented. At this advanced
level of treatment the reclaimed water can be used for unrestricted
public contact applications, such as park and playground irrigation,
landscape or recreational impoundments, industrial applications and
construction use. Also the water can be used at locations that have
less stringent treatment requirements; these would include golf
course, cemetery and freeway irrigation and some agricultural
irrigation.
city of san LUIS OBlspo
Al
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Reclamation Program i
Meeting of August 20, 1991
Page 3
Staff has estimated that there could be up to 1100 ac-ft/yr of
reclaimed water use by existing potable users. These users include
the City Parks, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, Cal Poly
and Caltrans. The precise amount of potable water that has the
potential for offset through the use of reclaimed water will be
determined during a marketing study and included in the feasibility
report.
Some municipalities have used reclaimed municipal wastewater for j
direct recharge of groundwater basins. Due to the limited capacity
of the San Luis Obispo groundwater basin (Boyle Engineering, January ;
1991) , staff does not recommend pursuing either an injection well or ,
spreading basin groundwater recharge at this time. If Council
wishes to pursue a direct groundwater recharge program a more
detailed study into the geology of the basin will have to be
performed. This study would be needed to comply with Department of
Health Services (DHS) and Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) guidelines for ground water recharge. Even without a direct ;
recharge program, there will be incidental recharge through
landscape and agriculture irrigation with reclaimed water and
continued discharge of treated effluent to San Luis Obispo Creek.
Additional reasons not to pursue direct groundwater recharge are as
follows: increased level of wastewater treatment that may be
required, ie. nutrient removal (nitrogen and phosphorous) , and
demineralization may be required by the RWQCB and DHS, and
insufficient percolation basin sites (DHS recommends at least 6
months underground retention time and a minimum of 500 horizontal i
feet from the percolation pond to the nearest extraction well) .
Implementing a water reclamation program and using it- in conjunction
with other City water sources will serve to maximize the water '
available from groundwater basins and surface water sources while
allowing for incidental recharge from percolating irrigation water
and streamflow. i
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
I i
The status of the water reclamation program is as follows: The
wastewater reclamation coordinator started with the City's Utilities
Department on May 9, 1991 and has developed a detailed schedule for
the first year of the program and a less detailed schedule for the
next three years for the implementation. These schedules have been I
included as attachment 2 to this staff report.
Tasks during this first year include developing City policy for the
use of reclaimed water, determination of the City's water rights,
identification of the users and their quality/quantity needs,
performing economic and financial analysis for the proposed project
alternatives, preparation of the required environmental documents
and the conceptual system design. This all culminates in the
preparation of a feasibility report for submittal to the State Water
5-3
X11111 city of San LUIS OBISpo
Al
ONGA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Reclamation Program
Meeting of August 20, 1991
Page 4
Resources Control Board, Division of Clean Water Programs, for
gaining eligibility for low interest water reclamation loans.
Tasks having the highest priority are the development of City
ipolicy, the resolution of water rights issues, qualification for low
interest state loans and the fulfillment of requirements pertaining
to the California Environmental Quality Act process.
After the tasks for the first year of the program are complete, the
steps needed to bring a reclaimed water supply "on-line" include the
following steps: The certification of the environmental documents,
preparation of an engineering report and its submittal to DHS and
the RWQCB and establishment of user contracts and finally a detailed
design of storage, pumping and distribution facilities followed by j
the construction of said facilities. j
The sources of funding for the project would be secured before any
design or construction takes place and before any reclaimed water is
available to offset the use of potable water for non-potable uses.
The funding options include low interest state loans, general
obligation revenue bonds, user fees and subsides of the reclaimed
water project through an increase in water/sewer fees. In addition
to funding, consideration should be given to the possibility of
establishing regulations making the use of reclaimed water for non-
potable use compulsory for some users. Staff will consider all of
the above funding mechanisms and they will be incorporated into a
revenue program and a possible reclaimed water use ordinance.
i
j PROPOSED POLICY
Staff believes the proposed city policy regarding reclaimed water
use should put emphasis on offsetting potable water demand for non-
potable use and minimizing the amount of groundwater used for non-
potable uses. By offsetting a portion of the current potable water
use with reclaimed water, the City would be able to avoid these
demands on the safe yield from it' s other water sources. Using
reclaimed water to replace or augment that used from private wells
for irrigation and/or other non-potable use will allow for a lower
rate of withdrawal from the basin and more water will be available
for potable use. Furthermore, in keeping with State water
reclamation policy and the requirements to qualify for a State
Revolving Fund (SRF) water reclamation loan, each reclaimed water
project should be a cost effective project when compared to
developing a new potable water source.
Staff recommends the following as a policy guideline for approving
the use of reclaimed water. Staff further recommends that if demand
for category I is met, then reclaimed water could be made available
to category II.
S1
ty 1qdlll'll... b`
City of San LUIS OBISPO
MaZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Reclamation Program
Meeting of August 201 1991
Page 5
I _ �
i
CATEGORY I
I �
• EXISTING IRRIGATION/NON-POTABLE WATER USERS WITH CONNECTION TO CITY WATER
SYSTEM.
This use would directly offset the use of the City's drinking
j water supply. The use of reclaimed water could be made
compulsory for this category of user. (The amount of reclaimed
water use in this category is estimated to be between 800 and
1200 ac-ft/yr. )
Examples of these users are: City of San Luis Obispo Parks,
Caltrans, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, California
Polytechnic State University, existing commercial landscaping,
existing homeowners association landscaping, existing nurseries
and industrial users.
i
• EXISTING IRRIGATION/NON-POTABLE USE THAT IS WITHIN THE URBAN RESERVE LINE j
(URL) , WITH OR WITHOUT A CONNECTION TO THE CITY WATER SYSTEM WHICH EMPLOY
A PRIVATE WELL TO SUPPLY OR AUGMENT THEIR NON-POTABLE WATER REQUIREMENTS
When these users reduce their private well use, they help
reduce the level of overdraft from the groundwater basin(s) .
In some cases the City may be able to do a "direct water swap, "
providing reclaimed water to the user in exchange for the
City' s use of an existing well. Again, the use of reclaimed
water could be made compulsory for those within the City's
corporate boundary. (The amount of reclaimed water use for
this category is currently estimated to be between 50 and 2000
ac-ft/yr. )
i
Examples of these users are: agricultural irrigators,
cemeteries, some industrial applications and construction uses.
I '
• MAINTAINING CREEKFLOW FOR EXISTING INSTREAM USES AND INCIDENTAL
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.
Maintaining some flow to San Luis Creek with the advanced
treated effluent would provide for flow downstream of the WWTP
discharge structure for salmon and steelhead migration and
other. flora and fauna in and along the creek. (Staff will be
working with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) , the RWQCB
and other concerned parties to determine the minimum flow for
this category. If this baseline flow rate cannot be determined
by staff, DFG and the RWQCB, a Request for Proposal for
Environmental Services will be developed to determine the
required minimum creek flow. )
CATEGORY II
• NEW IRRIGATION/NON-POTABLE USERS WITHIN THE URL.
By allowing this category of use, the City would accommodate
development that used reclaimed water for landscape, park and
5-S
city of San LUIS OBISpo
u ,lIII' �JLill���
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Reclamation Program
Meeting of August 20, 1991 j
Page 6
school irrigation. Staff also recommends that all new
development within City jurisdiction be evaluated for the
mandatory installation of "dual water systems" on a case by
case basis. (The amount of reclaimed water use for this
category) is currently estimated to be between 400 and 1000
ac-ft/yr. )
Examples of this class are: the various specific plan areas
(Airport Area, Dalidio, Edna, Irish Hills, Islay and Margarita)
and any other new development within the City.
i
• OUTSIDE OF THE URL IRRIGATION/NON-POTABLE USERS.
By allowing these users to purchase reclaimed water from the
City, additional capital could be raised for water reclamation
purposes. Additionally, some groundwater withdrawal would be
offset. These users would have to pay for their capacity of
the transmission and pumping facilities and pay substantial
user fees to offset the on going cost of delivery. This
category may require LAFCO and/or County approval before a
connection is made. (The amount of reclaimed water use for
this category is currently estimated to range from 800 ac-
ft/yr to the total flow from the WWTP. )
Examples of these users are: agricultural irrigation and
development tied to the establishment and preservation of a
permanent open space reserve around the City.
I
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
I
Additional or different use of reclaimed water, when compared to the
current practice of wastewater disposal, may lead to environmental
impacts. These potential environmental impacts include reduced flow
to San Luis Obispo Creek, accumulation of salts in the soil and
groundwater, and urban or suburban development in or near the City.
Those impacts must be addressed in an environmental document before
the City approves a reclaimed water program or project. Staff has
determined that Council ' s providing direction as in the recommended
priorities, intended to be consistent with the adopted Land Use and
Water and Wastewater Management elements of the general plan, is not
"a project" requiring further review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
I i
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION j
I
Lack of policy as to who has priority for the use of reclaimed water
could cause the City to provide this resource to those users who
least contribute to meeting the City' s water conservation and
community development goals.
iiliG city of San LUIS OBISpo
AL
XXAZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Reclamation Program
Meeting of August 20, 1991
Page 7
CONCURRENCES:
I
This staff report and the proposed policy have been reviewed by the
i Community Development Department. They concur with the findings of
this report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of this Council Action.
The construction of the capital improvements necessary for a water
reclamation system will be a major cost to the City. Although this
cost is recoverable through user fees, the City will need to have I
funds available at the start of construction. All or a portion of
the design and construction costs may be financed through low
interest State loans (Water Reclamation Loan Program) . Only after a
detailed market study is performed can a precise engineering cost
estimate be performed.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Council may change the recommended priority order.
2 . Council may direct staff to break the two categories of users
into sub-categories and prioritize the sub-categories.
i
3 . Council may direct staff to develop a request for proposal for
geological services to further evaluate and analyze the
potential for direct groundwater recharge.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution establishing City policy regarding the use of
reclaimed water.
ATTACHMENTS:
I
1. Resolution.
' I
2 . Water Reclamation Program Schedule.
3 . Graph of Average Daily Effluent Flow (1985-1990) .
I
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution
S-8
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
ESTABLISHING POLICY REGARDING
THE USE OF RECLAIMED RATER
WHEREAS, City policy is to pursue a water reclamation
program to supplement the City's water supply, and
WHEREAS, By offsetting the current non-potable water use
with reclaimed water, the City would be able to avoid demands on
the safe yield from its other water sources, and •
WHEREAS, using reclaimed water to replace or augment that
. used from private wells for irrigation and/or other non-potable
use would allow for a lower rate of withdrawal from the basin and
more water available for potable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council- of the
City of San Luis Obispo that City policy regarding reclaimed
water use places emphasis on offsetting potable water demand for
non-potable use and minimizing the amount of groundwater pumped
for non-potable use.
BE IT RESOLVED, in keeping with State water reclamation
policy, each reclaimed water project should be a cost effective
project when compared to developing a new potable water source.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following is the City
policy guideline for approving of replaimed water projects. If
demand for category I is met; then reclaimed water could be
distributed to category II.
CATEGORY I
• EXISTING IRRIGATION/NON-POTABLE WATER USERS WITH CONNECTION TO CITY
WATER SYSTEM.
• EXISTING IRRIGATION/NON-POTABLE USE THAT IS WITHIN THE URBAN
RESERVE LINE (URL) , WITH OR WITHOUT A CONNECTION TO THE CITY WATER
SYSTEM WHICH EMPLOY A PRIVATE WELL TO SUPPLY OR AUGMENT THEIR NON-
POTABLE WATER REQUIREMENTS
• MAINTAINING CREEKFLOW FOR EXISTING INSTREAM USES AND INCIDENTAL
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.
CATEGORY II
• NEW IRRIGATION/NON-POTABLE USERS WITHIN THE URL.
• OUTSIDE OF THE URL IRRIGATION/NON-POTABLE USERS THAT MAINTAIN OR
ENHANCE AGRICULTURE OR OPEN SPACE.
Resolution No. (1991 series)
Upon motion of
seconded by
and on the following role call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this
day of
1991.
MAYOR RUN DUNIN
ATTEST:
Pam Voges, City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
1 A r ey
ATT.ACIiMENT 2
Water. Re.c.lamation Program S.chediule
N N N m m N N N N P a P A P m P Q T
P P O. T P P P P P P P P Pyy P P P P O
2 V 7 6 T �. O T C � C O � J ] ] Y A O V V ,• 7 � . . � C 'J A J
AadaR Aga66ee � £
- a
P P P P P P P T P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Q P
y T C T eV e0 C d^ G C G C G T T > > C T T > C b G p T
] J ] A N W ^ ^ ] ^ ^ A O O ^ A A O O A V A
fizz ffzzdl+.
m
6 d y N N N 2 — R a r� < ry O O O N R N N N O 19 m < N N
s z z Z
o ..
u + +
II + i
o u + n + + n +
n n + n + + u +
q q + U + + u +
n o + u + + n +
+ o q + II + + u +
f n n + n + + n +
n u + u + n + + n 4
u
It
+ II + n + + n +
a n u + n + n + + u +
< o u + u + u + + o +
n n + n + n + + u +
u n + u + n + + n +
n n + n + II + u + + n +
f n n + n + n + u + + + u +
II II + II + II + II + } + + + II +
u II + II + II + II + + + + f II +
s o u i + II + II + + + II + + + + In,
+
ti 0 Y i + 11 + II # 4 + 11 + # + # tl +
o n + + u + u + + + n r r + r u +
o u + + u f II + + + u + + + + n +
9 n n + + n + u 4 + f n + + +
n II + + II + u + + + II + + +
II II f II + + + II + Y + + p + + +
U u + II + + + U + n + ♦ 4 + + +
tl tl + 4 f + f tl + 11 + + n + + +
0 0 + n + + i n + n + + u + + +
u tl + II i r i q + u + + II + + +
n o + n f 4 4 p ♦ n + + U # + 4
p p n + n i + + n + 11 + + II + + +
z n n + o + + + o + n + + n # + r
II n + + u + + + II + II + It +
u u + + II + + + u + u + u +
u n + + u + + + tl + n + II +
n n + + n + + + u + o + n +
tl n + + II # + + u f + II + q +
II n + f II + + + tl f + It + II +
Oy. 11 II 11 + + I s + + II # f } II + I +
yj II II II f + I i # 4 II # } # II + II }
u Y II + + II + + II + + + II + II +
n n n + + n + + n + + + u + q +
u u n n + + u + + + + I + n +
6 n Y n n + + Y + + + + p + II +
q n p II + + n + + + + II f II +
f� 0 II n II + + II + + + + 11 + II +
d II 11 p II + + II } f + + II + It +
GI .� II II II II + + II + # f f II + n +
2
Y II II II II 4 II + # # II + II #
II +
J
C 4 n 11 11 + 11 + II + II i
+ 11 + II
G7 II II 11 + II II + II +
I+- II II
It + II II ♦ II +
O
p
<
J C
S V V 4 e0
m E fi 'C ]
r c 6 o c 2 F n
e
z TE
z
Y 9 9
��po _ � � � •g R� a
W
$ 7 d YS 3 U T. 3 z Vel Y! V W [Y W b LL to !1] f� [g O a U p 7
p _ -
Z
O II X X
y II II
Q II II
� II II
Q II II
� II II
Iz., II II
p II II
Z II II
O II II
y 11
Q tl II
� II II
Q II II
� II II
p II II II
�^ Z II II II
W O II II II
� y II II II
C1G Q II II 11
CL
Q � II II II II
� Q II II II II
J � II It II
W � (L II II II
y� p II II it
F z n u 11
a O u u n
F-
U Q
a �
p " c
m
Y m 2 c o y c °
a ' z °
cz
7 w J
C y ^+
,�-13
ATTACHMENT 3
Graph of Average Daily Effluent Flow (1985-1990)
' U
W
O
z
• U
LL
O
F
N
0 T T
� a
J
Q 7
w o CO CD
•cz V/
J00 00
acz
cc
rn rn
cz
� � Q
cn
Q /
W
LL
z
0 0 0 0
m (D 7 N
144-0L) MOI-I