Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/1995, 4 - WATER SUPPLY STUDY SESSION MEETING DATE: ���n�ib►►i�ulllflll�li�N°►ql��i� City Of SAn LUIS OBISPO October 3, 1995 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM N ER: FROM: John E. Moss, Utilities DirectoIr Prepared by: Gary Henderson, Water Division Manager Liv a Dan Gilmore, Utilities Engineer Dave Pierce, Water Projects Manager SUBJECT: Water Supply Study Session. CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive the staff report concerning the City's water supply alternatives and reaffirm the current direction. 2. Provide any added direction to staff, as appropriate. REPORT IN BRIEF: Based on the General Plan and policies contained within various Elements to the General Plan, the City of San Luis Obispo needs to develop 3,861 acre-feet per year of additional water supplies. The additional water will meet the water needs for full buildout within the Urban Reserve (56,000 population) as identified in the General Plan. The City is currently pursuing three water supply projects to meet the current and future water demands of the City: Water Reuse, Salinas Reservoir Expansion and Nacimiento Water Supply. There are also several projects which are currently not being pursued by the City which have the possibility of supplying additional water to meet the City's needs. These projects include: Cloud Seeding, State Water, Salinas to Whale Rock Transfer and Desalination. All of the potential water supply projects have numerous impacts and obstacles which must be mitigated or overcome prior to actual construction or implementation of the project. There are environmental concerns, political opposition, water rights issues, regulatory approvals and the ultimate cost to the customer which will impact the future decisions made relative to pursuing any of these water supply projects. Based solely on current cost estimates for the water supply projects currently being pursued, the Water Reuse Project is the most cost effective alternative ($600 per acre foot), followed by the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project($450- $670 per acre- foot) and the Nacimiento Water Supply Project ($900 - 1,100 per acre-foot). The issues, impacts, feasibility, reliability/yield, timing and cost for. each of these projects, as well as the projects not currently being pursued, are discussed in further detail in the body of this report. Staff is requesting that the City Council reaffirm the current direction being pursued to acquire additional water supplies for the City of San Luis Obispo. y "'�n�ul�ill!IIIIIP1QIIIIIII City Of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 2 DISCUSSION: Background The City of San Luis Obispo currently has limited water supplies to meet our current and future water demands. Based on the planning figures contained in the City's Urban Water Management Plan, adopted by Council in 1994, water supplies available for new development are severely restricted and are only available through retrofit off-set. The limited water which is available has only become available as a result of reduced consumption through the conservation efforts of our citizens. The City of San Luis Obispo now has one of the lowest per capita planning use rates (145 gallons per person per day) of any City of comparable size and climate in the State. This per capita planning use rate is used to estimate total water supplies required to meet'the needs of the existing population, satisfy the goals of the General Plan and serves as a target use rate for our conservation programs. The per capita planning use rate does not necessarily represent actual use rates at any one-point in time but represents a level of water use which can not be exceeded during the planning period. While our conservation programs should be recognized for their effectiveness and recognizing that groundwater has been used by the City in the past, the City has developed no new water supplies since before the 1987-91 drought. Use of groundwater was reactivated during the drought but has been significantly reduced due to nitrate contamination. Whale Rock Reservoir was the last additional water supply developed by the City and was completed in 1961. Without additional supplies the effects of the next drought will be hard-felt as the City continues incremental development based on the success of our water conservation programs. In order for the City to satisfy the goals of the General Plan it is critical that we obtain additional water supplies. The reliability of our water supplies for even our existing residents is constantly being threatened by issues such as water rights, contamination, and environmental/public trust needs. Overview In recognition of the need to provide adequate supplies and services to satisfy the goals of the General Plan and in recognition of the need to develop a secure and reliable water supply for existing as well as future residents, the City is currently pursuing the development of three water supply projects: the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, the Nacimiento Pipeline Project, and, the Water Reuse Project. The Coastal Branch of the State Water Project, currently being constructed adjacent to San Luis Obispo, is not being considered at this time, as participation in the project was not supported by a vote of the public. The City is relying on the success of these remaining viable water supply projects to meet our General Plan goals including the establishment of a reliability reserve and, therefore, are the 2=Zcity of San tins OBisPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 3 subject of this study session. These projects are not exclusive of each other. All three projects should be developed to their maximum potential in order to ensure the citizens of San Luis Obispo a secure and cost effective water supply. One need only look to the cities of Morro Bay and Cambria to see the effects of inadequate water supplies on the community's planning goals and on the cost of water. It is easy to see that limited or restricted water supplies are far more costly to the residents than the development,of adequate supplies. As staff has proceeded with the development of each of these projects, each project has developed its own issues, support, opposition and mythology. It has become obvious that development of any of these water supply projects will be difficult technically and politically. It is with this recognition that staff is requesting council reaffirm its commitment to each of the supply projects being pursued. It is also with this recognition that staff provides.this study session and proposes, at a minimum, annual water supply study sessions in the future. The remainder of this report will discuss in detail each of the three previously mentioned water supply projects and discuss each project's impacts, feasibility, reliability and potential yield, schedule, and projected cost. The report also provides a similar analysis of the State Water Project and other projects not currently being pursued, for comparison purposes and full consideration of all possible water supply options. While politically sensitive, the State Water Project may still, in some form, be a technically viable option. This detailed comparison should provide Council with the information required to properly evaluate the City's overall water situation and provide appropriate direction to staff. Water Supply Status and Policy The City currently uses 145 gallons per person per day (gppd) as a planning use figure (UWMP 2.3.2) to determine water demand (present and projected) and availability. The City's present water demand is calculated by multiplying the planning per capita use rate by the present population (UWMP 2.3.4). Projected water demand is calculated by multiplying the population at full build-out (56,000) by 145 gppd for a total of 9,096 acre-feet per year (afy). Safe annual yield is determined by modeling the water supply system operations under conditions of the most severe drought of record. The City's current safe annual yield is 7,735 afy (UWMP 2.1). As stated earlier, the projected demand at build-out is 9,096 afy,leaving the City with a need to develop 1,361 afy additional safe annual yield. In addition, the City has adopted a policy requiring the development of a reliability reserve (UWMP 2.4) in the amount of 2,000 afy safe annual yield and an additional 500 afy to offset reductions in storage at the reservoirs due to siltation. The reliability reserve is to be used only for emergency purposes such as the catastrophic loss of a water supply due to contamination, a future worst-case drought, etc. Thus our total water supply deficit, including the reliability reserve and siltation offset, is 3,861 afy. ���'�i�ilei1111111P° Illl�ll city of San tins OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 4 Table I: New Water Supply Requirements (in acre-feet) Required Safe Annual Yield 9,096 Current Safe Annual Yield 7,735 Additional Sq{fe Annual Yield Required 1,361 Additional Safe Annual Yield Required 1,361 Reliability Reserve 2,000 Siltation Reserve 500 Total Water Supply Requirement 3,861 L EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SOURCES The City currently utilizes water from three separate sources: Salinas Reservoir, Whale Rock Reservoir, and groundwater. Whale Rock and Salinas Reservoirs are operated in a "coordinated" manner which increases the safe annual yield available from the two reservoirs. The safe annual yield of an individual source of water supply is defined as the quantity of water which can be withdrawn every year, under critical drought conditions. Safe annual yield analyses of water supply sources are based on rainfall, evaporation and stream flow experienced during an historic period. The City of San Luis Obispo uses a period beginning in 1943, which covers drought periods in 1946-51, 1959-61, 1976-77, and 1986-91. Although future conditions are not likely to occur in the precise sequence and magnitudes as have occurred in the past, this technique provides a reliable estimate of existing water resources and their ability to meet future water supply needs. Prior to 1991, the "controlling drought period" for determining safe annual yield was 1946 to 1951. The adopted safe annual yield estimate of 7,235 acre-feet (from surface water sources) uses the controlling drought period 1986 to 1991. This safe annual yield estimate was adopted by Council as part of the 1992-93 Water Operational Plan. The adopted safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs and 500 acre-feet of groundwater is 7,735 acre-feet per year. ��►►i►���►I!Ili�l►�'u�''ll�lll city of San tins OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 5 Groundwater production during the past Table H: Groundwater Production several years has been drastically reduced which resulted from the loss of the two largest production wells due to nitrate YEAR PRODUCTION (A.F.) contamination. Table H shows the groundwater production since 1990. The 1990 1,955 City currently relies on four domestic 1991 1,953 water supply wells: Pacific Beach #1 & #2 on Los Osos Valley Road, Fire Station 1992 1,543 No. 4 and the Mitchell Park. While the 1993 540 City's adopted safe annual -yield figure assumes 500 acre-feet per year, the 1994 267 current situation limits groundwater production to approximately 300 acre- 1995 300* feet. While staff is evaluating options for increasing groundwater production, * Estimated to End of Year revision of the adopted safe annual yield figures may be necessary if reliable production increases are not achieved. In addition to surface water and groundwater supplies described above, the City has adopted another supply option: water demand management. Water demand management, or water conservation, practices and technology have advanced significantly in the last several years in reaction to the drought of 1986-1991. Historically, water demand management was viewed as an emergency response to extreme water shortage situations. As demand for water resources increase due to growing population and agricultural needs, the importance of using our water wisely and efficiently is a continuing imperative to assure adequate, reliable water supplies in the future. In 1990, the City endorsed a multi-source water supply policy in an attempt to solve both short- term water shortages and establish long-term solutions to the City's water needs. Because of the difficulty in developing new water supply projects, there has been a philosophical shift in perception of water demand management from a crisis management vehicle in 1985 to a water supply alternative for the future. With this philosophical change, the City Council adopted the "Urban Water Management Plan" on November 15, 1994 which identifies water demand management as a critical component of the City's multi-source water policy. The City is committed to an ongoing water conservation program to maintain per capita water use below 145 gallons per person per day. ys �,�°,'�uiGlll!IIIII�Io II���� city of san LAISOBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 6 II. WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS CURRENTLY BEING PURSUED The following water supply projects are currently being pursued by the City to meet current and future water demands. A. WATER REUSE PROJECT jed The City's Water Reclamation Facility aflm�oRousePro - 1.7drs0sdr6 (WRF)treats 4,000 acre-feet per year (afy) =a of municipal wastewater. The effluent so from the WRF is a disinfected tertiaryL:: treated reclaimed water that is suitable forR reuse. As currently proposed, the WaterReuse Project will discharge a minimum of 1.7 cfs (1,230 afy) to the creek for the 7°0 maintenance of instream uses and will ,ao ` distribute approximately 1,233 afy of the MinNarnolachwploCrosk reclaimed water for irrigation and Q0 1290 M/yr industrial use. An additional 1,537 afy o that is excess to irrigation demand will also Jm ti a` #4r "' Ja w ~ to 'a ww o.e be discharged to the creek. The goals of the Water Reuse Project are: a) to provide a drought tolerant non-potable water supply, b) to efficiently manage the water resources of the City, C) to increase the quality of the water in San Luis Obispo Creek by reducing the amount of contaminants discharged, and d) to avoid the addition of expensive nutrient removal processes at the Water Reclamation Facility. The City Council adopted a policy setting priorities for the use of the limited supply of reclaimed water. Two categories of uses were established. The first category includes those uses that will replace potable water, or will serve to maintain the instream uses of San Luis Obispo Creek. The second category includes uses outside the City that would enhance agriculture or open space. Existing users have been identified for approximately 775 acre-feet of the reclaimed water. The remaining 400+ acre-feet is needed to support the growth projected in the General Plan. I Construction necessary to implement this project will include: expansion of the effluent ponds for storage, refurbishment of the abandoned reservoir on Fox Hollow Road for storage, a pump y-� cit' of San Luis OBIspo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 7 station with chlorination and filtration at the south end of the WRF, two booster pump stations to maintain pressure throughout the City, and approximately 11 miles of pipeline. Impacts The use of reclaimed water will reduce the amount of water discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. Until the 1960s, during the summer, most or all of the effluent was used for irrigation of City owned land. Through the early 1980s, during summer months, effluent was used to irrigate pastures adjacent to the WRF. For days or weeks, most or all of the effluent was used to flood irrigate the pastures rather than being discharged to the creek. The planned reduction in effluent raises several water rights and ecological concerns. To address water rights, the City filed a petition for the Change in Place of Use of Treated Wastewater Effluent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Several parties protested the petition based on water rights, environmental, and public trust issues. All protests based on prior water rights have been dismissed by the-SWRCB. The protests based on other issues are pending the completion of the Environmental Impact Report. As part of the environmental evaluation, the City contracted for an Instream Flow Study, a Hydrology and Ground-Water Model of the Lower San Luis Obispo Creek, and a Biological Resource Assessment and Impact Analysis of San Luis Obispo Creek. Modeling of creek flows was made with the assumption that the downstream users obtained all the water they need from diversions or from wells. These studies provided the following information: ■ Downstream agriculture requires 1,000 acre-feet per year. ■ Other than during successive drought years, the basin produces enough natural water for agriculture. ■ Reclaimed water discharged during the winter will recharge the aquifer during successive dry years. ■ All of the City's reclaimed water is not sufficient to drought proof the creek. During the recent drought, there was one month when water did not flow over the fish ladders of the Marre Dam. ■ A 1.7 cfs discharge provides a minimum flow of 1.0 cfs during the average year. During the driest years approximately half of the creek will have no flow for one or more months. ■ A flow of 1 cfs will maintain 90% of the wetted surface area providing production of food for fish. ,/ n o.mnioidll!Illlil1° IIIIIN city of San LUSS 0131Spo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 8 ■ Mitigation measures can reduce the impacts of a 1.7 cfs project on steelhead and turtles to less than significant. ■ The Tidewater Goby, a federally listed endangered species, lives in marginal habitat immediately downstream of the Marre Dam located just upstream of the San Luis Bay Golf Course. A continued flow of fresh water through this reach is needed to maintain adequate habitat. This appears to be the most significant obstacle to project implementation. Staff is optimistic that a project with a proposed minimum discharge of 1.7 cubic feet per second can be adequately mitigated so that the State Water Resources Control Board will issue the necessary permits to allow a change in the use of the reclaimed water. Failure to adequately mitigate the impacts of reduced flows on the habitat does not necessarily halt the project. If the State Water Resource Control Board determines that more water is required to maintain the habitat, other users may have an equal or greater burden to supply all or part of the additional water. To pursue these options the City could file complaints with the SWRCB about appropriative extractions within the creek or could press for the adjudication of the basin. The City's reclaimed water originates outside the San Luis Obispo Creek basin and no downstream user has any right to use that water. Adjudication of the downstream basin (surface and underflow of the creek) could result in a project that would provide more water for reuse than the proposed 1.7 cfs project. It is likely that the adjudication process would require the City to release water to support at least some of the public trust (fauna & flora), but it is not likely that the City would be required to release water to replace that used downstream. Pursuing the City's water rights is likely to generate considerable opposition from downstream property owners and developers. Not pursuing the project does not assure that there will be water in the creek. Many of the downstream users can increase their water consumption with little or no governmental oversight. Riparian rights are regulated on the basis of complaints from other parties whose water rights have been impacted. Feasibility The primary demand for reclaimed water is irrigation of large facilities such as City parks, schools, Cal Poly, and CalTrans (Highway 101 landscaping). These users are interested in the cheapest water available. The City has several options: 1. State law makes use of potable water for irrigation a waste of water, if reclaimed water is economically available. The City can adopt an ordinance invoking that provision of the state law and then price the reclaimed water so that it is economical to use. i 111 11 city o� san Luis oB�spo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 9 2. A better option may be to negotiate a swap of reclaimed water for the present water being used for irrigation. Completion of the proposed project will require ten separate discretionary approvals on the part of four decision malting bodies and agencies (listed below). There will be opposition at each of these decision points. Opposition will be based on environmental/public trust issues and on the impact on downstream water users.. Cly Council San Luis Obispo • Certification of Final EIR • Approval of Plans and Specifications for Project • Approval of Funding Mechanism and Rate Structure • Approval of Rules & Regulations for Non-Potable Service State of California DgWrtment of Health Services • Engineering Report Recommendation Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board • Approval of Report of Waste Discharge • Issuance of Water Reclamation Requirements • Engineering Report Recommendation State Water Resource Control Board • Approval of Change in Place of Use of Treated Wastewater Effluent Petition • Approval of Water Reclamation loan or Clean Water Act SRF Loan Reliability\Yield A reuse project that releases a minimum of 1.7 cfs for maintenance of instream uses is expected to produce 1233 acre-feet per year for irrigation. Drought conditions have little impact on this flow. Industrial uses for reclaimed water could increase the amount of water available from the 9 city of San WIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 10 project by using water during the winter when excess water is discharged. As the population of the City grows to the 56,000 people projected in the General Plan, the amount of reclaimed water available for irrigation will increase to approximately 1600 afy. Augmenting the reclaimed water with water from wells that are high in nitrates could increase the amount of water available from the project. If well water is added during months where there is no excess being discharged to the creek, enough irrigation customers could be served to use the excess water during other months. For example the use of 110 acre-feet of well water during June, July, and August would increase the amount of reclaimed water that could be used for irrigation from 1,233 acre-feet to 1,432 acre-feet meeting an irrigation demand of 1,542 acre-feet. Failure to pursue this project at this time could result in greater difficulty in claiming rights to the water at a future date. There are no approved appropriations of the discharged effluent downstream and it is not likely that any will be approved in the future. However, it is likely that the environmental/public trust needs will become more dependent upon reclaimed water a`s . development takes place in the Avila Valley and is allowed to use the natural water which will result in the environmental/public trust needs becoming dependent on the City's reclaimed water. Legislation and case law is providing more rights to public trust issues at the expense of traditional water rights. There is no way of predicting how this might play on the City's future right to use the reclaimed water if we delay development of the project. Timing WATER REUSE PROJECT Milestone Optimistic Realistic Issue Draft EIR November 1995 December 1995 State Board Hearing July 1996 December 1996 Certification of EIR July 1996 February 1997 Begin Design September 1996 March 1997 Begin Construction Phase I June 1997 April 1998 Complete Construction Phase.1 May 1998 April 1999 Begin Construction Phase lI August 1999 April 2000 Complete Construction Phase H June 2000 December 2000 yip ��u��bi►�''��illllllll��' IIIIIN City of San WI S OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 11 Cost Phased construction of the reclaimed water distribution system is estimated to cost$9.3 million. The FY 1995-96 CIP includes funding for design and the FY 1996-97 CIP includes funding for the first phase of construction. The Reclaimed Water Project may be funded through a variety of mechanisms. Funding is possible through either state low interest loans or conventional debt financing. Debt service will be recovered through water rates. The total project cost would result in a cost per acre foot approximately $600. B. SAUNAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT The Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project involves the installation of a spillway gate which was originally planned for the dam when it was built in 1941. The gate would increase the maximum water surface .level by approximately 19 feet. This would increase the maximum storage capacity at the lake from 23,843 acre-feet (af) to 41,792 af, which results in an additional 1,650 of of safe annual yield from the reservoir. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) owns the Salinas Dam, related facilities and the surrounding 4,400 acres of land. The Corps has indicated that the expansion of the dam can not proceed until ownership of the facilities is transferred to a local agency. In November 1992, the City Council supported the idea of transferring ownership to the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District which is the agency that currently operates the facilities to deliver the water to the City of San Luis Obispo. The draft EIR for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project was released for comments in November 1993 and the comment period closed on January 3, 1994. Numerous comments were received and draft responses have been prepared for inclusion in the final EIR. Due to concerns raised during and following the comment period for the draft EIR, the Council has directed staff to proceed with a phased approach toward implementation of the expansion project. The current phase of work (Phase III) involves consultations with the regulatory agencies to develop strategies for potential mitigations involving loss of oak trees and impacts to wetlands. During this phase of work, the City Council will be meeting with North County elected officials and San Luis Obispo city staff will meet with North County staff to determine whether there are additional studies or mitigations which will minimize or eliminate the opposition. The main area of concern relates to reductions in downstream flows and the perceived impacts on groundwater recharge. The outcome of this phase of work will identify the additional studies and analysis necessary to prepare the detailed mitigation plans and mitigation monitoring plans. �7y� i�i�ull�llllll� IIIIIII city Of san tuts OBISPO - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 12 Impacts The draft environmental impact report for the expansion project has identified a number of impacts. The two main areas of potential impacts or concern are related to the inundation of additional areas at the lake and potential reductions in downstream flows in the Salinas River. Inundation-Related Impacts Increasing the reservoir's maximum storage capacity from 23,843 acre-feet to 41,792 acre-feet would result in periodically raising the maximum water surface level as much as 19 feet and flooding of an additional 400 surface acres around the lake. This could affect sensitive bird and aquatic species habitat, including relocation of existing lake-edge wetlands, and would probably result in the loss of up to 4,000 oak trees and 930 gray pine trees along the reservoir perimeter. There are two sensitive aquatic species that have been found in the impacted area and are of particular concern. They are the red-legged frog and the western pond turtle. The red-legged frog is proposed for endangered species listing which may require additional mitigation measures or strategies. It has also been determined that the habitat in areas around the lake is suitable for the arroyo toad and the southwestern willow fly catcher which are both listed as federally endangered. The surveys which have been done did not locate the .toad or fly-catcher but additional surveys may be required to verify their non-existence. Mitigation of these impacts could occur through a combination of the following actions: ■ Establishment of an on-site ecological habitat preserve ■ Replanting of oak and pine trees on-site or nearby ■ Acquisition and preservation of sensitive off-site oak woodland, wetlands or other habitat elsewhere in the County ■ Replacement of wetlands on-site in appropriate areas ■ Working with local groups for enhanced oak habitat or wetland protection/enhancement Depending on the nature and extent of,mitigation implementation, some residual impacts could remain after mitigation is complete from inundation effects. These residual impacts may require the Council to make statements of overriding consideration when the EIR is certified to allow the project to proceed. �►�h���lll!IIIII� IIUIU city of San WI S OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 13 Downstream Flow Reduction Impacts. Downstream property owners and public agencies rely on groundwater to meet their water demands. As such, numerous individuals and agencies have expressed concerns relative to potential downstream flow reductions and the potential impacts to groundwater recharge and other water rights along the river. Based on hydrologic studies, computer models, and historic riverflow data, the draft EIR concluded that the impact to downstream users will be insignificant. This finding of insignificance is based on two main factors. First, is that the "live stream" agreement must be adhered to and was established by the State Water Resources Control Board as a condition to the City's water rights permit at Salinas Reservoir to protect the downstream vested water rights. The second, is that only about 20 percent of the Salinas River flows at Paso Robles come from the watershed area upstream of the Salinas Dam. The majority of the flows come from tributaries downstream of the dam. It is also estimated that 98 percent of the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin lies outside and upgradient from the Salinas River floodplain, therefore ont'y a small portion of the total groundwater recharge is provided by river flows. The existing terms of the "live stream" agreement will continue with no change if the reservoir is expanded. The agreement requires the release of all water flowing into the reservoir until a visible flow is observed between the dam and the confluence with the Nacimiento River. This requirement limits the months during which water can be diverted to storage and protects the water supplies of downstream users and aquatic resources along the river. Downstream flow reductions that would be attributable to the expansion project are relatively small, less than one percent on average, when compared to the amount of water that is diverted by downstream users and groundwater wells. As part of the draft EIR, a computer modeling simulation based on historical flows from 1944 to 1991 was used to evaluate the downstream impacts of the reservoir expansion. The model used historical hydrologic information and available reservoir storage capacity (assuming the expanded reservoir storage was in place) to estimate flow reductions at the downstream monitoring stations at Paso Robles, Bradley, and Spreckles. These are the only three locations where gage stations were available to provide historic information. The model assumed a City demand of 10,000 acre-feet per year, which is a "worse case" scenario since total City demand at build-out is projected to be 9,096 acre-feet per year. Based on the results of the computer model, the avera a flow reduction at the Paso gaging station, using a scenario of 10,000 acre-feet per year demand, is calculated to be less than one (.088) percent, with a residual flow past Paso Robles of 54,751 acre-feet. Even in the absolute worse case year, the maximum flow reduction was estimated to be 10.68 percent. Even with "��i�iie�►I!IIiIIPil�lll city of San Luis OBlspo H-Mam mw COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 14 this reduction in flow, the flows past Paso Robles would have been in excess of 165,000 acre- feet. The analysis and issues discussed above led to the conclusion that potential impacts due to reduction in downstream flows would be insignificant, but there are still concerns raised by agencies and individuals in the north county relative to potential impacts to groundwater or surface water supplies. Additional analysis and discussions with concerned agencies and individuals may be warranted as part of the update of the draft EIR. Staff has been working with downstream agencies to gather additional information on the groundwater basin to facilitate this analysis. Feasibility The three major issues which must be addressed prior to implementation of the project are: certification of the environmental impact report, transfer of ownership from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to a local agency, and resolution of the City's water right permit by the State' Water Resources Control Board. Each of these issues could potentially prevent the project from being completed. As stated earlier, the draft EIR was distributed for comments and many concerns have been raised relative to impacts to wetlands, oak trees and downstream water users. Additional work in these areas is necessary and development of detailed mitigation plans will be completed prior to certification of the EIR. Consultation with regulatory agencies (Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, and the Corps) has been ongoing for the past several months to determine what mitigation strategies will be acceptable. Mitigation measures could have various levels of replacement for oaks and wetlands (ie. 1 to 1 replacement, 4 to I replacement, etc.) which will result in significant differences in costs. The range of costs are outlined later in this report. The mitigation costs could escalate to the point that the project is not financially feasible. The EIR could also be litigated by agencies or individuals that are opposed to the expansion project. It is staff's belief that the City would prevail is such litigation, however it should be avoided if possible. The transfer of ownership has a number of hurdles to cross prior to the actual property transfer. The most difficult obstacle appears to be the approval of the agreement between the City and the County for property transfer. Language within the agreement to assure that the County does not "oppose or obstruct" the expansion project has been met with protest from individuals and agencies who oppose the project. This opposition will make approval by the Board of Supervisors difficult and will probably extend the timeline. i The final major issue involves the City's water right permit for the Salinas Reservoir. The City's current permit for Salinas Reservoir expired in 1981 and the City requested an extension �„�!�►iii�l►NI!1►1►°1lPllll city of San tulS OBISPO EMEW COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 15 of time to allow for the implementation of the expansion project. A protest was received by the state to this request during the official protest period (CalSpa protest) and numerous protests have been filed by north county agencies and individuals following the close of the protest period. The State Water Resources Control Board will schedule a Board Hearing following certification of the EIR for the expansion project. The Board will decide whether to grant a time extension and allow the City to develop the rights to storage of up to 45,000 acre-feet as currently allowed in our permit or to reduce our permit to the maximum storage that has occurred in the past (23,843 af). If the City does not diligently pursue the expansion project, the Board may likely reduce our permitted storage capacity, thereby eliminating the option for expansion of the reservoir. Even if the City aggressively pursues the expansion project, the State Board could decide to reduce the City's storage rights to 23,843 acre-feet. Reliability/Yield Based on computer analysis using hydrologic information since 1941, it is estimated that the expanded storage capacity will increase the safe annual yield by 1,650 acre-feet. This is the' . additional amount of water that can be withdrawn annually even during the worst drought period since 1941. There is the potential to have a "new" worst case drought which could impact the safe annual yield figure. Also, changes'in water rights or rulings by the State Board could result in modifications to our permit conditions which could reduce the yield from the reservoir. This could happen whether or not the reservoir is expanded. The recent decisions concerning Mono Lake are an example of changes that can drastically alter water rights. Timin An optimistic and conservatively realistic schedule for the major milestones for project implementation are presented below. It should be noted that schedules developed for this project in 1990 indicated that construction would have been completed by now. SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT Milestone Optimistic Realistic Certification of EIR December 1997 December 1998 State Board Hearing July 1998 June 2000 Ownership Transfer July 1998 June 2000 Begin Construction October 1998 June 2001 Complete Construction January 2000 June 2003 4z "r,��u�ili�d�ll!!IIIiP1fp1u��Il�lll City Of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 16 Cost The most recent estimates prepared in February 1995 indicate that the range of costs for the additional studies, regulatory permitting, ownership transfer, implementation of mitigation plans and final design are between $1.4 and $2.4 million. The actual construction costs are estimated to range between $6.0 and $8.7 million. The costs for an on-going long-term mitigation program are currently not included in the above estimates. These costs will be developed following the development of the detailed mitigation plans. The total estimated cost, excluding on-going mitigation program is estimated to be $7.4 to $11.1 million. This total cost would result in a cost per acre foot between $450 to $670. This price range does not include operation and maintenance costs for delivery or treatment of water. C. NACIMIENTO WATER SUPPLY PROJECT The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FCWCD) has an entitlement to 17,500 acre-feet (af) of water from Lake Nacimiento. An amount of 1,300 of has been designated for use around the lake, leaving 16,200 of for the Nacimiento Water Supply Project. The Nacimiento Water Supply Project involves the construction of an intake structure, regional water treatment plant, pumping stations, storage facilities, and over fifty miles of transmission pipelines to deliver Nacimiento water to various agencies in San Luis Obispo County. The Nacimiento project will benefit several jurisdictions in San Luis Obispo County. Eighteen agencies from Paso Robles to Cayucos and south of San Luis Obispo are currently participating in the Nacimiento project. Once constructed, the project will be operated and maintained by either the County or an agency formed under a Joint Powers Authority for that specific purpose. The Nacimiento Participants Advisory Committee (NPAC) has been formed to provide input to the County and to assist in guiding the work of the consultants. The NPAC is made up of representatives from each of the participating agencies. Several preliminary studies have been completed on the Nacimiento project. These studies are discussed later in this report. The current phase of work involves the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR consultant is expected to begin work in September of 1995. Preliminary engineering work will be performed by a separate consultant to support the preparation of the EIR and to refine project cost estimates. Project management and coordination between all of the purveyors, agencies, and consultants is being handled for the County under a separate contract with Boyle Engineering. i�u�i iilldlllllllll I1°°ui'IIU�U City of San tui S OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 17 Impacts There are several significant issues associated with the Nacimiento Water Supply Project. The Nacimiento project will cause concern over the environment, impacts to downstream entities, recreational impacts, reliability, water quality, and the question of whether or not multiple agencies can work together to construct, operate, and maintain the project. The extent and severity of these impacts will not be fully known until the EIR is completed. These impacts were identified in early studies and were all determined to be mitigable. Most of the issues will be addressed in the environmental impact report. Although it is not expected to be a legitimate water quality issue, public perception of the existence of mercury in the reservoir may cause concern. Other environmental concerns are likely to surface, including the export of water from one drainage basin to another and the impacts of constructing a pipeline, treatment plant, storage tanks, and pump stations. Property owners and water agencies downstream of Nacimiento will continue to be concerned about the diversion of historic flows. Residents and businesses around Lake Nacimiento will continue to be concerned about possible impacts to the recreational aspects of the lake. These perceptions and concerns will escalate as the project proceeds. Feasibility In June of 1992, the FCWCD retained Boyle Engineering Corporation to perform a reliability assessment, preliminary engineering study, geotechnical evaluation, and environmental assessment. The final report was published in May of 1994. The geotechnical evaluation, prepared by Fugro-McClelland (West), revealed no immitigable barriers that would prevent successful completion of the project. A preliminary environmental assessment was performed for the 56 mile pipeline corridor by Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Again, no unmitigable probable impacts were found along the proposed pipeline route. Large players withdrawing or reducing their allocation request could alter the project substantially. It is possible that changes in agency participation could even be significant enough to stall or stop the project from moving forward. Reliability/Yield Boyle Engineering's reliability assessment, published in November of 1992, concluded that the full amount of the.County's entitlement could have been delivered each year (from 1950 to 1990), including the most critical year of the recent drought. CIt' osan tins oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 18 The Preliminary Engineering Evaluation and Environmental Assessment, by Boyle Engineering, indicated that the Nacimiento project is a viable water supply project. The document lays the groundwork for the next phase, which includes preliminary design and the environmental impact report (EIR). As previously stated, the total yield of the entire Nacimiento project is 17,500 af. With 1,300 of dedicated to uses around the lake, 16,200 of would be available for deliveries to the subscribers. The City's current allocation request is 3,380 af. This is the amount that has been determined to meet the needs of the City through General Plan build-out. The figure includes the 2,000 of Reliability Reserve and assumes no other water supply project will be completed. The City's allocation request can be adjusted either up or down until such time as final participation agreements are executed with the County. Timing Once the EIR is certified, the project will move to final design, followed by construction. Preparation of the EIR has just begun. Writing the EIR and responding to comments should take just over a year. Any additional studies or controversy could extend the process six months to a year. The EIR is expected to be certified by April of 1997. Final design of the facilities should take twelve to fourteen months to complete. Construction of the full project is likely to take twelve to eighteen months. Realistically, water deliveries from the Nacimiento project are not expected before the year 2000. The current schedule estimates for the completion of the Nacimiento Project are shown below. NACIMIENTO WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Milestone Optimistic Realistic: Issue Draft EIR November 1996 December 1996 Certification of EIR March 1997 June 1998 Complete Project Design . June 1998 September 1999 Begin Construction September 1998 December 1999 Complete Construction December 1999 June 2001 Cost The City's participation in the EIR and preliminary design is expected to cost around $265,000. The City's capital cost for 3,380 afy of Nacimiento is likely to be in the $20,000,000 to "biill�lll►1!' li' C� o San IuIS OBISPO i►II Illlll► � � COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 19 $25,000,000 range. In addition to the capital costs, the cost to treat Nacimiento water should also be included. Nacimiento water will be treated at a regional water treatment plant. Treatment plant operations, maintenance, overhead, and expenses will be distributed proportionally to all participants. Boyle Engineering has estimated the annual operations and maintenance costs to be around $325/af. This would bring the total cost of Nacimiento water to between $900 and $1100 per acre-foot. III. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS NOT CURRENTLY BEING PURSUED The following projects are not currently being pursued by the City but may be viable alternatives . for Council's consideration. A. CLOUD SEEDING The City of San Luis Obispo activated a three year cloud seeding program in January 1991 in response to the continuing drought and limited surface water supplies at Salinas Reservoir. The program "targeted" the Salinas and Lopez Reservoir watersheds, and the County of San Luis Obispo paid their prorata share of the total cost for the cloud seeding program. The City's participation in the program ended in January 1993, when the Salinas Reservoir filled to capacity and began spilling. Evaluations of each year's cloud seeding program were completed following each winter season. Estimates of increased precipitation ranged from I I% to 14% for Salinas and Lopez Reservoir watersheds. These were substantial increases and proved to be a cost-effective means of enhancing runoff during periods when Salinas Reservoir and Lopez Lake water levels are low. Salinas Reservoir's watershed runoff characteristics are favorable for producing significant runoff during normal rain seasons. Therefore, cloud seeding is not viewed as an annual program but as a program that the Council may approve following below normal rainfall years and/or periods when significant storage volume is available in Salinas Reservoir to capture additional runoff. Cost The cost for a full season of cloud seeding (November 1 through April 1) was approximately $150,000. This was for both Salinas and Lopez watersheds. R. STATE WATER PROJECT i The Coastal Branch, Phase H, of the State Water Project is currently under construction to provide water deliveries to San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. The City of San Luis cit' of San tuts OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 20 Obispo is not a participant in the State.Water Project. The Coastal Branch, Phase H, will be a regional water treatment plant and a buried pipeline approximately 102 miles long. It will transport water from the California Aqueduct from the Phase I terminus near Devil's Den in Kern County, continue through San Luis Obispo County, and terminate at the Tank 5 site on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County. Local water transport facilities, such as the Chorro Valley Pipeline, will connect to the Coastal Branch pipeline to deliver the water to the service areas of local water agencies. Water deliveries to San Luis Obispo County are estimated to be available in November 1996. The information presented below is for comparison purposes and Council consideration as potential alternatives to minimize future water rate impacts. If the Council chose to pursue State Water as an option, although not required, the issue could be presented to the residents as a ballot measure, perhaps in conjunction with the City Charter amendment restricting the 2,000 of reliability reserve for emergency purposes (not new development). Background The County of San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District(District)entered into a contract in 1963 with the Department of Water Resources for an allocation of 25,000 acre- feet of water per year from the State Water Project. Since that time the District has been making payments under the terms of the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, payments increased over time since 1963 which recovered the,4ebt service relative to the District's prorata share of the construction of the conveyance facilities from the Delta to the point of connection of the Coastal Branch of the California Aqueduct. For many years prior to 1992, numerous cities, water districts, agricultural interests, and individuals expressed interest in participating in the project to deliver State Water to the Counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. The City of San Luis Obispo continued to express an interest in the State Water Project and had requested an entitlement of 3,000 acre-feet per year. Prior to the City Council's decision to participate in the State Water Project, the Council requested a special election and placed an advisory ballot measure to receive public input concerning the City's participation in the State Water Project. The special election had a 30 percent voter turnout. The advisory vote recommended against participation in the project with 3,670 opposed to 2,927 supportive (55.6% to 44.4%). Following the advisory vote, the City Council approved execution of the agreements for participation in the State Water Project on April 21, 1992 on a 3-2 vote. Following this action by the City Council, a petition was circulated and sufficient signatures obtained for a referendum to overturn the Council's decision to execute the agreements. The referendum was placed on the November 3, 1992 ballot. The November election had an 81 y� ��!V�II►i►i�Illlli�P° II�IU City of San LUIS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 21 percent voter turnout. The referendum to overturn the Council's decision passed with 11,411 in favor and 9,423 opposed (54.8% to 45.2%). There were many concerns raised relative to the State Water Project which led to the City resident's decision not to participate in the project. The issues included reliability concerns, environmental impacts to the delta, environmental impacts due to pipeline construction, growth inducement, high costs and water quality concerns and a preference for local supply projects (Salinas Dam, Water Reuse, and Nacimiento) as lower cost, environmentally superior projects. The pipeline is currently being constructed and many of these issues are now more clearly defined or may no longer be valid issues as discussed below: ■ Mitigation strategies for protection of the delta are currently being negotiated which will ultimately be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. These negotiated agreements are being developed with representatives from agricultural, environmental and urban interests. These agreements will place new operational constraints on the project. Although the operational constraints will ` impact project deliveries, it will also provide urban interests with a greater degree of certainty relative to future water planning. ■ The impacts associated with the pipeline construction have been addressed in the final environmental impact report and subsequent supplements to the document. ■ The potential for significant cost overruns on a project of this magnitude are always a possibility. In 1992, the costs per acre foot for water delivered to the City were estimated to range between $500 - $700. Current cost estimates if the City were a participant would be at the high end of this price range at approximately $700 per acre foot. ■ The issue of water quality is more of an emotional issue than a technical issue. The water will be treated at a regional water treatment to meet all state and federal water quality standards. This level of treatment is not an option but an solute requirement. ■ The costs and impacts of local water supply projects are now more clearly defined as identified earlier in this report. Numerous agencies and individuals decided in 1992 not to participate in the State Water Project. Although the District had an entitlement of 25,000 acre-feet, only 4,830 acre-feet were actually contracted for within San Luis Obispo County. There are currently discussions between the County and several agencies who have contracted for State Water to purchase an additional 1,713 acre-feet of the unallocated water for reliability purposes. This leaves 18,457 acre-feet city of San LUIS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 22 of unallocated state water which the District is currently negotiating for sale to agencies outside the County. The pipeline and water treatment plant are currently under construction and have been designed based on the contracted water entitlements within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Therefore, there is no available capacity in either the delivery system or treatment plant for additional participants within the two counties; however, as noted above, additional participants could be accommodated through re-allocations of existing entitlements. Alternatives If Council were interested in pursuing options relative to using state water, they may wish W consider its potential for use as a reliability reserve. The "reliability reserve" or other water needs, could be presented to a vote of the residents of San Luis Obispo. Although there was opposition to the project in the past, there are several alternatives which may be supported by the residents based on the goal of minimizing future water rates. Based on the fact that a large percentage of the additional water supply needs of the City are for a "reliability reserve" (2,000 acre-feet) which will not be needed except in emergencies, there could be opportunities to deliver water from other sources through the State's conveyance system.("wheel water") during these periods. The expense to rate payers for securing the reliability reserve through the projects currently being pursued could exceed $2,000,000 per year. The alternatives are conceptual in nature and have not been thoroughly evaluated to determine feasibility, reliability or actual costs. The following list may not include all of the potential combination of alternatives. 1. The least costly alternative would likely be to request that the City be allowed to construct a turnout on the State Water Pipeline for emergency use in the future. In the event of an emergency, the City would have no water allocation or treatment/delivery capacity and would have to negotiate a deal with another downstream State Water contractor for capacity and allocation. This option would likely not provide the level of reliability that the City desires to adequately protect our residents. 2. The City could request a connection to the pipeline and immediately negotiate an agreement with another contractor for use of their allocation and treatment/delivery capacity during an emergency situation. The allocation could be from an agency within San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara County or could be negotiated with an agency that has other water supplies which could be "wheeled" through the system. Other water sources could come from agencies or individuals with large groundwater basins, surface water sources separate from the Delta or desalination facilities. ��'������►iil!Ililll►° il��lll city of san tins ogispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 23 3. The City could request an allocation from the unallocated water which the District is currently negotiating for sale. This would provide the City with a right to a certain amount of water but would not provide the City with any right to the delivery/treatment capacity. An agreement could then be negotiated with a downstream water agency to utilize their treatment/delivery capacity during an emergency period. The County is interested in recovering the costs which have been paid by County residents since 1963 for the remaining unallocated water supplies. Therefore, the County may require a one time lump sum payment to purchase an entitlement. It is estimated that this charge would be on the order of$1,000 - $1,500 per acre foot of entitlement. There would also be an annual payment of approximately $125 per acre foot until the year 2035. If the City requested 2,000 acre-feet, the one time lump sum payment would likely be between $2 and $3 million. The lump sum payment could be debt financed, in which case the annual debt service cost would be about $200,000 to $300,000. Under this circumstance, the cost per acre foot would be between $225 and $275. 4. The City could negotiate with a downstream contractor to buy a portion of their entitlement in the State Water Project. This is likely the most costly alternative and the negotiating agency would likely try to recoup the full costs which they are required to pay. Since charges to contractors are based on their prorata share of the capital costs for the delivery and treatment facilities to their point of connection to the pipeline, the contractors in Santa Barbara County pay more than contractors in San Luis Obispo County. Reliability Reliability of the State Water Project is a major concern to all participants in the State Water Project. Some agencies have decided to increase their allocation amount by 100 percent which would allow the agencies to receive the original contracted amount even if deliveries are cut by 50 percent due to drought or other operational limitations. These agencies are not increasing their capacity in the Coastal Branch delivery or treatment facilities which are the major ongoing cost for participants. It should also be noted that during the recent drought when State Water Project deliveries were drastically reduced, agencies were able to purchase water from a "water bank" which the state created through negotiations with water contractors that had other sources of water or who were able to cut back their water needs. While agencies during the drought did not receive their full allocation from the State Water Project, agencies could purchase additional water from the drought water bank for between $75 and $150 per acre foot. The drought bank had more water available than agencies needed. The State Water Project does provide many opportunities to negotiate water trades or purchases from other areas. Purchased or negotiated water can then be "wheeled" through the system. While state water is not a guaranteed source of supply, neither are any other source of water supplies which can be loss due to issues such ����ib�uidilllllllll1° ���Ill city of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 24 as: groundwater contamination, water rights, public trust, legal actions, etc. This ability to negotiate water trades and "wheel" water may hold significant potential to provide the City the reliability that we are seeking through the 2,000 acre-feet per year reliability reserve at a much lower cost. Timin¢ The Coastal Branch of the State Water Project is currently under construction with deliveries to San Luis Obispo County expected to begin in November 1996. Cost The estimated costs in 1992 for the City of San Luis Obispo were estimated between $500 and $700 per acre foot. The staff report presented to the City Council on April 21, 1992 estimated that the cost was approximately $608 per acre foot. The most recent cost estimates are shown in Figure 1 on the next page. In the vicinity of San Luis Obispo, the total cost per acre foot' (including operations, maintenance, etc.) is estimated to be $694 per acre foot. If the City were to pursue one of the alternatives discussed previously, the cost could be less than this amount or significantly higher depending on which alternative is pursued and the outcome of the negotiations with other agencies. C. SALINAS TO WHALE ROCK TRANSFER The idea of transferring water from Salinas Reservoir to Whale Rock Reservoir was evaluated by City staff and presented to Council in 1993. The analysis revealed numerous obstacles and limitations as discussed below. The Council directed staff not to proceed at that time with further studies relative to the project. Background The idea of transferring water, which would otherwise spill downstream, from Salinas Reservoir to Whale Rock Reservoir has been proposed as a project in the past to meet future City water demands. Salinas Reservoir spills frequently due to the large drainage area and favorable runoff characteristics of the surrounding area. In contrast, Whale Rock Reservoir has only spilled six times since it was constructed and may be able to store water in excess of the natural inflow to the lake. Based on an evaluation of historical hydrologic'information, there is the potential to transfer significant quantities of water which would otherwise overtop the Salinas Dam spillway and flow downstream. The actual quantity of water that could potentially be transferred annually would be limited by two major interrelated factors: the conveyance system capacity and the City's N���►����IIIIIIiPp1 l�illll city of San Luis OBISpo NMI COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 25 water demand. As the City's demand.for water increases in the future, the potential water transfers will be significantly reduced. This will be due to the pipeline from Salinas to the City's Water Treatment Plant being at maximum capacity. Only the amount of excess capacity above the City's water demand could be transferred to Whale Rock, assuming no other operating or system constraints. To avoid this problem would require the installation of a new, dedicated pipeline and pumping plant(s) from Salinas Dam to Whale Rock Reservoir. A number of potential obstacles to the implementation of the project have been identified. The major area of concern relate to a reduction in water quality as a result of water transfers, specifically as it may impact both the California Men's Colony (CMC) and the Department of Fish and Game. The potential degradation of water quality would increase the costs to CMC associated with treatment and may affect their ability to meet Federal and State drinking water standards. Fish and Game staff have indicated concerns for impacts to the fishery at Whale Rock due to water quality degradation. Additionally, the project would result in additional export of Salinas River Basin water to San Luis Obispo and would likely be contested by the North County. Additional costly studies would be necessary in order to fully evaluate the feasibility of this project prior to implementation. Since a number of the obstacles to this project have the potential to be insurmountable and the City is currently actively pursuing additional water supply projects (ie. Salinas Reservoir Expansion and Nacimiento), Council directed staff not to proceed with further studies. Despite the identified difficulties with this project, if other more feasible projects are not completed, this project may warrant additional investigation. cost The costs for delivering water from Salinas to Whale Rock Reservoir have not been determined. Further feasibility studies and preliminary design would be necessary to fully evaluate the cost impacts. D. DESALINATION Background In May 1990, the City was faced with the prospect of reaching minimum pool in both of its surface water supply sources within an 18 to 20 month period. In response to the crisis, the City embarked on a short term desalination feasibility investigation. The consulting firm of James Montgomery Engineers was hired to prepare a study which evaluated the various desalination methods, site options, joint venture opportunities, and financing. The preliminary i analysis concluded that 3,000 acre-feet per year of desalted water could be provided by using reverse osmosis technology which was considered the most cost effective technology at that time y '''����►i�lvill{Illlil���u����Ill city of San WI S OBI SPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 26 to meet the City's needs. The project.capital cost was estimated to be $19.5 million. The recommendation was based on capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, decommissioning costs, aesthetics and environmental concerns. Due to the limited time available to site the facility and build the necessary infrastructure, a tentative agreement with PG&E was reached to locate the short term facility at the Morro Bay power plant utilizing their seawater intake and outfall facilities. The "Miracle March" rains of 1991 provided adequate runoff and subsequently increased water storage in the City's reservoirs to allow termination of the desalination project. The City Council officially directed staff to discontinue the project on April 16, 1991. Future Desalination Project Using desalted water as a future water supply source will have to be investigated independent of the past research and study projects. Because the previously discussed desalination endeavor was planned to be a short term water supply to meet a crisis situation, the cost analysis,` location, environmental review, and technological information would have to be reevaluated for a long term project. Desalination is a viable technology which is not rainfall dependent. This would provide a high level of reliability for the City. The major disadvantages of desalination are the cost, potential environmental impacts, and high energy demand. When compared to existing water supplies and other future water supply options under consideration, desalted water is significantly more expensive at this point in time. Desalination may be a water supply consideration in the future if other water supply projects currently under review are not accomplished. Also, advances in desalination technology in the future may reduce the costs to a more acceptable level when compared to the cost of other water supply sources. cost The cost to construct and operate a desalination facility will vary greatly depending on the technology used, the site limitations, the availability of intake and outfall facilities, the cost of energy, etc. In the 1990 feasibility studies the costs were estimated to be between $1,800 and $2,200 an acre foot. The cost for water from the City of Santa Barbara's desalination plant is on the order of$1,900 acre foot until the capital costs are paid off. IV. SUMMARY The City of San Luis Obispo is currently pursuing three separate water supply projects to meet current and future water demand: Water Reuse, Salinas Reservoir Expansion, and Nacimiento +����i14u�1111111iP���u''1I�IU City Of San lulS OBISPO i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water Supply Study Session Page 27 Pipeline. All of these projects have issues and concerns which must be overcome prior to implementation. Some of the issues which need further analysis include environmental impacts, water rights issues, regulatory agencies approval, and refined cost estimates. Staff requests that the City Council reaffirm the current direction being pursued to acquire additional water supplies for the City of San Luis Obispo. A summary of costs for the water supply projects currently being pursued, as well as those which the City is not pursuing, are shown below in Table III. TABLE III WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS October 1995 Potential Total Estimated Per Estimate Water Supply Project Acre-Foot of Fust Project in Acre-Feet Cost Cost Water Per Year Delivery A. Water Reuse Project 1,233 $9.3 million $6002/. 2000 B. Salinas Reservoir 1,650 $7.4 - 11.1 million $450-670 2003 Expansion Project (exclusive of ongoing mitigation) C. Nacimiento Water 3.380 3/ . $20-25 million $900- 1,100 total .2001 Supply Project (design&construction)1/ (City of SLO) D. State Water 3,861 3/ n.a. $700 19% Project E. Desalination 3,86I 3/ n.a. $1,800-.2,200 2005 i �,w���ii��will!IIIII�u IIUIN City Of san tins OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT r Water Supply Study Session Page 28 1/ The Nacimiento Water Supply and Water Reuse Projects have operating, maintenance and additional treatment costs that are included in the total cost per acre foot. The Water Reuse and Salinas Reservoir Expansion projects as currently proposed can be supported by the current treatment,distribution systems. The capital costs for Nacimiento are only .the City's share. 2/ Assumes a low interest rate, twenty-year loan through the State Revolving Loan Fund. 3/ Could meet total water supply requirements. I I •r IU AGE"A DQ ra -? ITEM # Mayor Allen Settle and Councdmembers Bill Roalman, David Romero, Kathy Smith, and Dodie Williams October e, 1995 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I am alternately pleased and alarmed by the reports I hear and read regarding the development of future water resources for our city- specifically,the negotiations being carried on with north county officials regarding the expansion of Salinas Reservoir and/or tapping Nacimiento. This letter breaks the cardinal rule of keeping communications short, but please allow me to offer several suggestions based on the rather long experience I have had and continue to have with water affairs. i TheCounMaster Plan for Water What is missing in the reports I have read is any reference to the County's Master Plan for Water. I would hope that Mayor Settle and Councilman Romero(and the entire council for that matter) would develop some familiarity with both the original Master Plan as well as the 1986 update. Those Plans describe the various water projects in the county, State Water,Nacimiento, Jack Creek, Santa Rita Creek, Santa Rosa Creek and others. I would urge you to look at the maps contained in the original master plan as they make it easy to visualize how the water contractors throughout the county might tie into the various projects in the most economical manner. Then understand the order in which the various projects were ranked in the Master Plan. It is also of interest to note the dates when the various new projects were expected to come on lime based on projected population growth in the county. One of the major changes made between the original plan and the 1986 update is the ranking of the Nacimiento and State Projects. The original had Nacimiento first and State Water second;the 1986 update reversed these ranking's placing State first and Nacimiento second. It would also be well to know that in 1972 (or thereabouts)a district was proposed to finance the building of a Nacimiento Project. The proposed district included the north county, Morro Bay, Los Osos-Baywood Park. San Luis Obispo declined to join believing that the State Water Project was the most advantageous;the south county also declined to join. The popular vote required to form the district failed due to a lack of a plurality in Los Osos-Baywood Park. County engineering staff designed another Nacimiento distribution system which would have brought a different set of contractors together,but that design essentially died for lack of interest. 2. Ground Water Basins I also urge you to become familiar with the locations and sizes of the various underground water Page 2 basins in the county, particularly those in the north county. The so-called Paso Robles basin covers 640 square miles and underlies Paso Robles,the majority of Templeton and a goodly part ofAtascadero. These communities rely solely on well water. This basin's capacity is enormous, yet the best estimates of its replacement flow is somewhere around 47,00 acre feet per year. Interestingly, 88,000 afy is currently being extracted. Even so the water table is only dropping one foot per year. You need to appreciate that the capacity of this basin and the low cost of well water are considerable forces that shape the bargaining position of the north county communities in their deliberations with SLO. No north county community receives water impounded by a dam and transported by an aqueduct system If the Nacimiento project is to move ahead, the Paso Robles City Council, Community Service Districts and Mutual Water Company Boards of Directors who elect to contract for an allocation may have an very tough time "selling" the project to their customers in light of the cost differences between well water and Nacimiento water. Should a bond election fail in the north county, what then will be SLO's options? San Luis Obispo, as we long suspected and the recent drought proved out, does not sit on a ground water basin worth talking about- I seem to recall,that the final figures on sustained yield of our basin was 500 afy. That's a far cry from 47,000 afy enjoyed by our northern neighbors. There are some serious water issues in some parts of the south county. Conceivably, some south county contractors might wish to tie in with Nacimiento albeit the price will be very,very high. For San Luis Obispo, surface water sources are critical. That we have allowed our population to out-run our supply(based on a seven year drought)has serious implications on our need to resolve this supply issue fairly quickly. 3. Water Contractors It would also be well to understand who furnishes water to water users. In SLO and Paso Robles water is a municipal utility service. There are other systems. In Templeton, water is firrnished by a Community Service District, in Atascadero, its a mutual water company. Each water supplier has its own agenda Municipal water systems are normally run as nonprofit utilities and community growth management issues are all tied together by one controlling entity- the city council. Not so with, say, private water companies. Private water companies are in the business ofselling_waterfor proms They are controlled by private parties who often times can be at odds with the authority making land use decisions- be it a city council or the Board of Supervisors. Because private water companies are just that, private,their pumping records are tightly held and the impact of their pumping on a ground water Page 3 basin is not of public record. Just how much water is being extracted by private land owners and by private water companiesmi the Salinas River basin is not known. As more is pumped, are the operators of the Salinas Reservoir obligated to release ever increasing amounts of water to fill the basin? If so, the safe annual yield of the reservoir will steadily diminish forcing SLO to look for still another source. I add this as an interesting side note. Until just a year or so ago, little Cayucos had three entities providing water;now it has only two. And Los Osos- Baywood is equally crazy, it has a County Services District and a private water company. A for profit water company usually doesn't care beans about how much water it extracts even when it knows the supply is limited or, as in Baywood,the supply is subject to salt water intrusion. (Water conservation is usually not practiced,witness the excessive use of water in the Country Club Estates during SLO's recent drought.) But Los Osos- Baywood is not north county. The point is that our "negotiators"need to arm themselves with knowledge about supply, supply capacity, system of delivery and what the differing agendas may be ofthe water suppliers. 4 The 'Live Stream' Concept and Operational Implications For many years after San Luis Obispo began receiving Salinas Reservoir water,water releases from the dam were managed by the county(who "operates" the reservoir)to maximize water storage in the reservoir. That is to say,water was not released downstream until the reservoir was full. In rain short years that meant that no water might be released. The north county riparian users understandably objected and applied to the State Water Resources Board for a change in this operating policy. This occurred in the early 1970's. The "live stream" operation concept was ordered by the WRB. Simply stated, no water could be impounded in the reservoir until a live stream could be observed from the face of the dam to the Monterey County line. The quantity of water entering the reservoir had to be released to the river. Now the situation is reversed. In rain short years, conceivably,no water could be impounded and SLO would be dependent on water reserves within the reservoir collected in prior "wet"years. The implications of this WRB order were/are several-fold. The early concern was that records of flow into the reservoir spanned such a short period of time statistically that SLO was unable to accurately predict its safe annual yield. (Time has now improved predictions.) Another implication was that this order should apply to all tributaries to the Salinas River from the face of Page 4 the dam to the Monterey County line because any obstruction(e.g. dam) on any tributary diminished water flow that would contribute to establishing the live stream at the earliest possible moment and allow closing of the reservoir's release gates for SLO to collect water. It now fell to SLO to contest the construction of g dam which would retain water that might contribute to the flow to create a "live stream" in the Salinas river. (I believe SLO still does this today.) But at that time, we discovered that there existed numerous illegal stock ponds on these tributary streams. The owners of these stock ponds had never applied for or received a WRB permit. It was to SLO's advantage to have these removed, or at best brought before the WRB to order to have them properly regulated/operated. Before we could have our day in court, so to speak,then State Assemblyman Robert Nimmo introduced a bill into the State Legislature to "grandfather" these existing stock ponds. The bill passed resulting in a diminution in stream contibutions to the live stream The result of this bill and the continued contesting of new applications has not made for the best of relations on either side of the grade. 5. Agricultural Water Supplies I now chair the SLO County Planning Commission. We have just concluded the sixth public hearing on a comprehensive update of the county's Open Space Plan now to be known as the "Agriculture & Oaen Space Element." This is a very interesting document initially written by the County's Agricultural Liaison Board as directed by the then Board of Supervisors. Of special interest is proposed Agriculture Policy 12. It reads, in part: * "Maintain groundwater resources in the county for irrigated cropland uses; expanding urban development should rely primarily on reservoir and imported water sources where available. * Do not approve proposed general plan amendments that result in increased density or urban expansion if subsequent development would adversely affect groundwater supplies or recharge areas needed for existing or expanded agricultural uses on land designated agriculture." It seems to me that this proposed policy, if recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors,will have serious consequences no all cities/uban areas in SLO County. In addition,the SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee in 1990 made some recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on how to accomplish specific groundwater basin objectives. These recommendations are contained in the attached report titled: "Summary and General Recommendations/ Groundwater Basin" I would hope that our negotiators will develop some understanding of the implications of the Page 6 politics of these polices and they continue their work with north county representatives. The influence of the agricultural community is considerable and their concerns are very real. No cheap water sources,no significant agriculture. In my view,the time has come for ground water ajudication. The implications are profound. inc , Kenneth E. Schwartz 201 Buena Vista an Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Related Bio: During my 1969-79 tenure as mayor I represented our city on the County Water Resources Advisory Board and chaired the Whale Rock Commission. I was a member ofthe 1981-82 Grand Jury who took on as a major task a study of the County's Master Plan for Water and made the recommendations that resulted in a comprehensive revision of that plan in 1986. I have served on the County Planning Commission since January 1989 during which time the Planning Commission held hearings and made recommendations which led to the adoption of a Resources Management System of which water is a key component. Water use is an important component on most every development plan issue before the PC. qMM MO Mill 'IMe;0 00F 0M_ WA fpr Summary and General Recommendations / Groundwater Basins The current drought has come at a time when extraction of groundwater in San Luis Obispo County was approaching or exceeding the basins' dependable yield. Where surface water is available, most communities are using 100% of their allotments and are supplementing their supplies with groundwater. When the rains finally come again, it will be tempting to proclaim the end of the drought and to return to consumption-as-usual. However, to do that is to ignore the fact that San Luis Obispo County has passed into an era in which water conservation and reclamation must become the norm and allocation decisions may have unpleasant consequences for some groups of consumers. A serious committment to intensify the discussion of a comprehensive, county-wide water resources management system would seem to be in order at this time. The goals of such a system would be to allocate the available supplies of groundwater, surface water and imported water among agricultural, municipal and industrial consumers throughout the county, in rural areas as well as in communities, and to monitor consumption, ensuring that allocated amounts are not exceeded. Where groundwater basins underlie adjacent counties, intergovernmental agreements of some sort would be necessary. Some specific objectives might include: 1. Rational Allocation. Work toward the achievement of an allocation system in which, under normal conditions, agricultural use has priority for groundwater, with expanded urban uses typically being supplied by surface water. 2 . Balance Acrricultural Consumption and Groundwater Supply. Work toward reducing agricultural consumption to no more than the dependable supply from groundwater sources. This can be accomplished through a combination of appropriate crop selection, employment of conservation methods and phased retirement of some marginal agricultural land from production. 3 . Supplemental Water. Encourage communities to develop supplemental surface water supplies (desalination and Lake Nacimiento water, for example) , and to stabilize or reduce their use of groundwater as alternative supplies become available. 4. Private Wells. Address the issue of the drilling and monitoring of new private wells, particularly in groundwater basins where demand already equals or is greater than dependable supply. 5. Environmental Impacts. Consider the impacts of groundwater extraction on riparian underflow and on the environmental characteristics of coastal streams and other natural watercourses. 6. Regional Cooperation. The groundwater management effort should include incorporated cities, community services districts, private water companies and all others who extract water from the county's groundwater basins. (This report focuses on water use for the unincorporated portions of the county, since the cities have not yet been formally included in the Resource Management System. The Board of Supervisors has authorized the expansion of the RMS Task Force to include the cities and special districts. This expanded committee will participate in the production of the next Annual Resource Summary Report. ) 7. Implementation. Direct the Water Resources Advisory Committee to make recommendations as to how these objectives might be accomplished. The Committee must consider ways of dealing with the legal obstacles to regional water management. The current status of state water law is such that the county as a political jurisdiction does not possess the legal authority to implement measures which would achieve the desired objectives. For example, the county cannot enact or enforce a mandatory allocation formula or modify the rights of property owners whose land overlies an aquifer. The legal situation probably means that the first efforts toward comprehensive water management will be voluntary. These are not new ideas. For example, the 1986 San Luis Obispo Master Water Plan Update included, among others, the following conclusions and recommendations: "The ground water resources of the county usually offer the most economical option among alternative supplies. They should be protected and used. " "overdrafting of the basins needs to be managed and controlled by local agencies in such a way that the economic value of the resources is not impaired. " "Develop specific ground water management plans for the Paso Robles, Edna Valley, Los Osos, Arroyo Grande, San Simeon and Santa Rosa groundwater basins. " "Overdraft in (the Paso Robles) basin does not pose critical problems at this time. However, future management plans must recognize and address the overdrafting. " "Create a Water Management Advisory committee. . .to assist in the implementation and periodic updating of the Master Water Plan. " Additionally, the county's Water Conservation Policy, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March, 1990 contains the following recommendation: "It is recommended that the County pursue groundwater allocation and management agreements within each impacted basin, as an alternative either to adjudication or to the 'business as usual ' practices that result in overdrafting and continued, one-sided competition between urban, rural residential, and agricultural users. " I TING " �� AGENDA _x - DA t E.���ITEM # f ff�OACD D IR ARE CHIEFTO: San Luis ObispoCity Council P PWDIRJohn Moss, Utilities Director POUCECHIP❑ EIEC DfRGary Henderson, Water Division Manager pUTILDIRRon Munds, Water Conservation ' PERSDIR FROM: Pat Veesart DATE: 2 October, 1995 SUBJECT: Water Supply Study Session/Urban Water Management Plan I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but if staff can re-open the discussion on State Water, I can re-open the discussion on the planning use rate the city has adopted. Staff indicates that we need 3861 acre feet (of) of additional water to meet our build-out needs based on a planning figure of 145 gallons per person per day (gppd). If we were to adopt a planning rate based on reality instead of conjecture, we could significantly reduce our need for additional water. These are actual use figures for some Central Coast cities for 1993: San Luis Obispo - 103 gppd Morro Bay - 125 gppd Monterey - 117 gppd Santa Cruz - 105 gppd Santa Barbara - 104 gppd I understand that San Luis Obispo's use for 1994 was around 103 or 104 gppd. If the council instead chose to use 115 gppd as a planning figure, the city's need to service the water needs of the population at build-out would be as follows: 115 gppd x 365 days x 56,000 pop _ 325,829 gal/af = 7,214 of Projected Water Demand 7,214 of Reliability Reserve 2,000 of Total Water Requirement (at build-out) 9,214 of Safe Annual Yield 7,735 of Siltation Reserve -500 of Safe Annual Yield (at build-out) 7,235 of Potential Water Through Reclamation 1 ,000 of New Water Supply Requirements 979 of 2 979 of is a lot different than 3861 of and still includes a reliability reserve for safety. 115 gppd is not an unreasonable or unreachable number. It is significantly more than what our current per capita usage is and reflects the conservation habits learned during the drought. Conservation is by far the cheapest way to address our water needs and has the least environmental impacts. I urge you to take another look at the 145 gppd planning figure and lower it to a more reasonable level. The environmental and fiscal benefits to city residents should be obvious. As I mentioned earlier, staff has re-opened the discussion on State Water by including it in the October 3rd Council Report as an " alternative project not currently being pursued" (italics mine). Simply stated, State Water is not an option. Not now. Not in the future. I'm not sure exactly what it takes to get that through some people's thick skulls. City voters have rejected State Water twice. It is insulting that State Water is included in this discussion and that city revenues are being spent to pursue something so clearly rejected. The people of San Luis Obispo want local control of their water sources and they do not trust the State to follow through on, what have been in the past, hollow promises. There is much interest from the North County in our water supply these days. Suddenly every "rancher", "farmer", and developer in the North County is an environmentalist. They do a credible job of singing the song when it suits their interests, but just what are those interests? As usual, the "bottom line" is really money and not birds and trees. The good people from the North County are worried that if San Luis Obispo develops additional water from the Salinas Dam expansion, our participation in the Nacimiento Project will be greatly reduced or, maybe (shudder), even cancelled. This will leave North County residents footing the entire bill for a project that will mostly benefit development interests. And speaking of development interests, it's obvious that having a regional treatment facility near Lake Nacimiento and shipping treated water will benefit every developer, large and small, between there and San Luis Obispo. Why not get the ratepayers from the entire region to foot the bill for treatment so that every yahoo with 40 acres to develop has to do nothing more than turn, on the tap? Talk about encouraging urban sprawl... And of course San Luis Obispo residents can subsidize rural growth in the North County on top of paying for their own treatment plant that already has the capacity (because we planned for it) to treat Nacimiento water. Regional cooperation indeed. San Luis Obispo should insist that each agency participating in the project be responsible for treating their own water. This will cut out some of the "paper water companies", encourage growth to occur in a planned fashion, and cut costs for city residents. If the Council is really going to move ahead with its extravagant plan for new water sources instead of pursuing conservation, then care should be taken to insure that new water is 3 procured in the least environmentally damaging way. At this time, and without having a completed EIR for Nacimiento, it appears that Nacimiento would be the least damaging way for the city to meet its future water needs. Really, you should be waiting to see the EIR for Nacimiento before any final decisions are made and great care should be taken by all the participating agencies to design the most environmentally sound project possible. The way to make this project sail through with the least friction would be to address the concerns of the environmental community from the outset. I am worried about the trees and birds. The wetland/willow habitat that will be flooded by the Salinas Dam expansion is a jewel that needs to be preserved. The diversity of wildlife that depends on that habitat is amazing. I don't know if any councilmembers have actually hiked the back way into Margarita Lake and seen this county park, but they should before they make any decisions concerning it. It can be argued that this wetland is man-made and that a new one will be created when the water rises, but how long will that take and where will all the wildlife go in the interim? Since the Salinas Dam was built in the forties, we have seen tremendous loss of natural wetland habitat in this state. We can ill afford to lose more, man- made or not. If, as seems likely, San Luis Obispo is going to participate in the Nacimiento project, let's get all the water we need from that project and not destroy mature oaks and Digger Pines or wetlands. Just a final comment on this North vs South "water war" that the press and North County developers seem intent on creating. Everybody in the county comes to San Luis Obispo to work, shop, for entertainment, for business, or for government services. Our daytime population is almost double our nighttime population. All those people use water when they are here and the city supplies that water from whatever source it can. If the North County truly wants to claim that all the water north of the grade is theirs, then I suggest that they bring drinking water the next time they come to town and that they wait to pee until they get home. Thank you for your time, P t Veesart 1446 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, 93,401 cc: Geof Land, ECOSLO MNG AGENDA At � r N�� DATE ' ' ITEM #_1-- WATER RESOURCES .� SOUP B. SWANK TERRIE BARLOW 619/360.5286 619/346-0696 619M 5-0121 909/204287? October 3 , 1995_ pUNCIL ❑ CD!ulR p ❑ FIN DIA VRERKJOnIc AD ❑ FIRE CHIEF[IHon. Alan K. Settle, Mayor pANEY PWDIR City of San Luis Obispo [3 POLICE CHF 990 Palm Street ❑ MGMT;EAM ❑ C DIR San Luis Obispo, Ca . 93401 [3CR F;x �dUTILD!R Re: Water ResoUrCeFz_L� f "Resources" ) Proposal Dear Mayor Settle: we are pleased to advise you that Resources is now prepared to open conceptual negotiations to supply potable water to the City of San Luis Obispo (the "City") on the fallowing terms and conditions: 1 . Parties to Agreement - ( a) Purchaser - the City. i (b) Seller - Resources . 2 . Term of Agreement - in perpetuity. 3 . Subject of Agreement - potable water. 4 . Quantity - initially 51000 acre feet per annum with the capacity to increase volume over time to 20,000 acre feet per annum. 5. Price - between $600 and $800 per acre foot (together with cost of living index increases) subject to the volume of water purchased and the location of the delivery point or points . 6. Payment Terms - monthly on an "as delivered" basis (measured gallonage times gallonage rate) subject to quarterly adjustment and settlement. 7 . Delivery - through the Chevron and other rights of way tO a mutually agreeable delivery point or points with Resources bearing all costs to the point or points of. delivery. 8 . Quality - no leas than state Health Department Standards . P.O. Br)x 11379 0 PA(M p;Sf RT, CA • 9?255 9. Source engineering - Resource will provide to the City the geological information and legal opinion supporting Rosource's approprative rights and ability to sustain deliverability of a minimum of 5 ,000 acre feet per annum of potable water without negative effect on surrounding or adjacent landowners or negative environmental impact. lo. Commencement of Delivery - within 180 days following receipt by Resources of all permits, easements and rights of way and the execution of a definitive agreement with the City upon the terms and conditions set forth above or such other terms and conditions as shall be acceptable to both the City and Resources . we look forward to meeting with your staff at their earliest convenience to pursue the implementation of the within proposal . It would be our intention to leave the meeting with a letter from the City indicating the City's interest in, support for and intention to go forward with the project. This letter would be a non-binding letter of interest and would enable Resources to proceed with the finalization of information needed by the City in order to enter into good faith negotiations with Resources for a definitive sales agreement. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please communicate with the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, John .B. Swank JBS:tt