cv-salts executive committee meeting - kern river committee meeting...cv-salts executive committee...

One or more Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board members may attend.

CV-SALTS Executive Committee MeetingOctober 21, 2015 – 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Sacramento Regional Sanitation District Offices – Valley Oak Room 10060 Goethe Rd, Sacramento 95827

Teleconference (712) 432-0360 Code: 927571#

Go-To-Meeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/473785997

Posted 10-12-15 – Revised 10-20-15

AGENDA

1) Welcome and Introductions - Chair

a) Committee Roll Call and Membership Roster -5 min.

b) Review/Approve Executive Committee Meeting Notes for September 10, 2015 – 5 min.

2) Preliminary Findings from Nitrate Implementation Measures Study (NIMS) – RichardMeyerhoff and Joe LeClaire, CDM Smith (3 hours)

Presentation and discussion of preliminary findings from NIMS study to support October 22 policy discussions

3) Set next meeting dates

− October 22nd Policy Session− November 6th Admin Meeting 1:00 PM-2:30 PM− November 18th & 19th Policy Sessions

CV-SALTS meetings are held in compliance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act set forth in Government Code sections 11120-11132(§ 11121(d). The public is entitled to have access to the records of the body which are posted at http://www.cvsalinity.org

PACKAGE

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/473785997

http://www.cvsalinity.org/

CV-SALTS Committee Rosters

Voters Category/Stakeholder Group Name 8-Jan 16-Jan 20-Feb 19-Mar 9-Apr 1-May 21-May 17-Jun 18-Jun 10-Jul 15-Jul 16-Jul 7-Aug 13-Aug 10-Sep 21-Oct 22-Oct

1 Central Valley Water Board Pamela Creedon ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Central Valley Water Board Jeanne Chilcott ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 State Water Resources Control Bd. Darrin Polhemus ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔3 Department of Water Resources Jose Faria

Alt Department of Water Resources Ernie Taylor ✔ ✔4 US Bureau of Reclamation Michael Mosley ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 Environmental Justice Jennifer Clary ✔6 Environmental Water Quality TBD

CV Salinity Coalition1 So. San Joaquin WQC Dave Orth

Alt So. San Joaquin WQC Casey Creamer ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 City of Stockton Robert Granberg ✔3 California Cotton Growers Chris McGlothlin ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔4 City of Fresno Steve Hogg5 CA Leaque of Food Processors Trudi Hughes ✔

Alt CA Leaque of Food Processors Rob Neenan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 Wine Institute Tim Schmelzer

Alt Wine Institute Chris Savage7 City of Tracy Erich Delmas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Alt City of Tracy Dale Klever ✔8 Sacramento Regional CSD Lysa Voight ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Alt Sacramento Regional CSD Carolyn Geisler-Balazs ✔ ✔ ✔9 San Joaquin Tributaries Authority Dennis Westcot ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

10 City of Modesto Gary DeJesus11 California Rice Commission Tim Johnson ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔12 City of Manteca Heather Grove ✔ ✔13 Tulare Lake Drainage/Storage District Mike Nordstrom ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔14 Western Plant Health Assoc. Renee Pinel ✔ ✔ ✔15 City of Vacaville Royce Cunningham ✔16 Dairy Cares J.P. Cativiela ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Dairy Cares ALT17 Westlands Water District Jose Guiterrez ✔

Comm. Chairs/Co-chairs 1 Chair Executive Committee Parry Klassen, ESJWQC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 Vice Chair Executive Committee Debbie Webster CVCWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Technical Advisory Committee Roger Reynolds, S Engr. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Technical Advisory Committee Nigel Quinn, LBL ✔ ✔

4 Public Education and Outreach Joe DiGiorgio ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 Economic and Social Cost Committee David Cory, SJVDA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 Lower San Joaquin River Committee Karna Harrigfeld, SEWD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings During 2014-2015Executive Committee Membership

3

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Committee Rosters

Last First Organization 8-Jan 16-Jan 20-Feb 19-Mar 9-Apr 1-May 21-May 17-Jun 18-Jun 10-Jul 15-Jul 16-Jul 7-Aug 13-Aug 10-Sep 21-Oct 22-Oct

Alexander John City of DavisArchibald Elaine CUWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Ashby Karen LWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Barclay Diane SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Bell Nicole KRWCA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Boyle Dylan LSCE ✔Buford Pam CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Cady Mark CDFA ✔ ✔ ✔Cehrs David KRCD ✔D'Adamo Dee Dee SWRCB ✔Dickey John Plantierra ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Doduc Tam SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔Dunham Tess Somach Simmons ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Escobar Juan DWR ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Firestone Laurel CWC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Gallock Charolotte WWD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Gonzalez Armando Occidental Oil & Gas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Gowdy Mark SWRCB,Water RightsGrovhoug Tom LWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Herr Joel SystechHoudesheldt Bruce NCWA/Sac Valley WQC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Johnson Jeff ChevronJohnson Michael LSJRC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Kihara Annalisa SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔Kimmelshee Joel LANDIQ ✔Kretsinger Grabert Vicki LSCE ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Laputz Adam CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔LeClaire Joe CDM Smith ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Lilien Jonathan Chevron ✔Longley Karl CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔McGahan Joe SJVDA ✔Meeks Glenn CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Meyerhoff Richard CDM Smith ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Moore Tim Risk-Sciences ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Nasaei Elnaz SWRCBNordberg Mark DWR ✔ O'Brien Conor CDFA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Pirondini Tony City of Vacaville ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Pritchett Gregory Chevron ✔Pulupa Patrick CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Pitcher Jennifer West. States Petroleum ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Quasebarth Tom CDM Smith Rodgers Clay CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Seaton Phoebe CRLA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Segal Daniel Chevron ✔Stamps Alicia Kennedy/Jenks ✔Tellers Josie City of Davis ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Thomas Bill KRCD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Tillman Stephanie LANDIQ ✔Tristao Dennis J.G. Boswell ✔West Doug CDFA ✔Wichert Casey ✔

ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS:

Participant Names CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings During 2014-2015

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meeting - Summary Action Notes For September 10, 2015 – 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM

Attendees are listed on the Membership Roster AGENDA

1) Welcome and Introductions a) Executive Committee Chair Parry Klassen brought the meeting to order, and roll call was completed. b) Casey Creamer moved, and David Cory seconded, and by general acclamation the August 13th, 2015

Meeting Notes were approved. c) An updated SNMP Development Schedule was provided. The October meetings will now focus on

“Permitting Strategy for Nitrate Discharges to Groundwater.”

2) Clarifying Definitions for Key Regulatory Words and Phrases During the morning session the committee discussed “Defining: Infeasible, Impracticable or

Unreasonable”. Based on committee discussion Tim proposed revising the definitions as follows:

1. Have to address burden of proof question. Who has to make these showings? 2. Explicitly talk about the need, when making these findings, to review and reauthorize them

periodically 3. More detail on level of rigor and detail of the analysis expected. 4. For the list of factors to be considered, include citations back to precedential decisions and

other guidance used to derive those factors 5. These questions may result in different answers based on conditions. What's unreasonable,

impractical or unfeasible may change with site specific conditions. 6. Economics and costs are valid considerations in this analysis. "Ability to pay," "Effectiveness of

removal…" 7. The evaluation, especially with regard to "unreasonable" can be influenced by the alternative

being proposed. 8. Layering in risk-based resource allocation. 9. Layer in idea that feasibility/practicability have a time-based element that can affect the

finding. 10. Be very thoughtful about where already have legitimate legal authority to execute and all need

to do is make these findings, vs. where we need new authority. 11. Incorporate the concept of proportionality. The level of demonstration varies with…. 12. Separating the application of all concepts when applying as a WDR consideration, vs. a

restoration to water quality objectives. Separate for clarity. 13. Take compliance schedule off the list, so there is no mistaking we are trying to change anything

regarding compliance schedules. 14. Put in some interpretative rules, specifically when to use simple vs. complex showings. 15. Add some discussion regarding who these things will apply to, and how. Consider all potential

discharge situations where these questions might be asked. 16. Take Tam Doduc’s suggestion and try less to find precise definitions, and focus more on

describing what process to use.

3) Continue Review and Discussion of Key Definitions During the afternoon session the committee discussed the “Naturally Occurring” or “Natural

Background Concentration,” “not unreasonably affected,” and the “BPTC…” proposed definitions.

PACKAGE

− Pamela Creedon and Patrick Pulupa will provide further clarification to Tim on the “naturally occurring” and “natural background concentration” definitions.

− After a long discussion regarding how to best allocate assimilative capacity, Tim suggested to the committee that allocation of assimilative capacity may not be viable for large irrigated lands programs which might be better addressed through the exceptions policy.

4) Set next meeting date The next Admin Meeting will be October 9th. October Policy Sessions will be 10/21 (Afternoon Only),

and 10/22.

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

1

October 21, 2015

Executive Committee Policy Meeting

Nitrate Implementation Measures Study (NIMS): Preliminary Findings

Joe LeClaire, PhD

Don Schroeder, PE

Richard Meyerhoff, PhD

Agenda

1. Introduction and scope

2. Project Committee meetings

3. Groundwater prioritization

4. Scope and scale of nitrate contamination in groundwater

- Chino Basin case study: Vadose zone legacy

5. Treatment options

6. Alta Irrigation District pilot study area

7. Summary of preliminary costs and timeframes

2

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

2

Introduction and Scope

Task 1. Project Set-up and Management

Task 2. Summarize Existing or Planned Nitrate Mitigation Programs

Task 3. Develop a Proposed Phased Approach and Nitrate Performance Targets

Task 4. Define a Groundwater Prioritization Methodology

Task 5. Nitrate Implementation Measures

Task 6. Select Nitrate Implementation (Pilot Study Areas)

Task 7. Joint Nitrate and Salt Implementation Measures

Task 8. Prepare a Nitrate Implementation Measures Technical Memorandum

3

Project Committee Meetings

4

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

3

Project Committee Meeting No. 1September 8, 2015

• Potential performance targets for nitrate

– Background. What is background?

– Best reasonable water quality: fraction of the maximum contaminant level (MCL)

– Or some combination of the above

• What area could be used for the pilot study?

5

Project Committee Meeting No. 1Outcome/Direction

• The following nitrate performance targets will be included in the treatment and

economic analysis: 2, 4, 8, and 10 mg/L.

• To the extent that data allow, CDM Smith will estimate nitrate remediation costs for

the Central Valley floor using methodologies and assumptions similar to that used

by UC Davis’s nitrate study. This will provide a concept-level comparison of

treatment costs for the range of nitrate performance targets.

• In addition, a pilot study area will be evaluated in greater detail – a range of nitrate

implementation measures will be reviewed that would be specific to the study area

and more detailed cost estimates will be developed for that area. The area proposed

and later confirmed is the Alta Irrigation District (AID).

6

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

4

Project Committee Meeting No. 1Outcome/Direction

• To the extent that data allow, CDM Smith will evaluate remediation timeframes

within the context of the range of performance targets and determine their

potential impacts to concept-level costs for the pilot study area.

• At this time, CDM Smith will plan to conduct its analyses based on wells that fall

within the production zone, where the beneficial uses occur. This approach will be

re-evaluated if needed given other ongoing CV-SALTS work to define the production

zone.

7

Project Committee Meeting No. 2October 15, 2015

8

• PC Committee members reviewed NIMS presentation

• Input and suggestions were incorporated into this presentation

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

5

IAZ Prioritization

9

Nitrate Prioritization Mapby IAZs

10

• Ambient nitrate concentration

• Nitrate loading

• Nitrate concentration trend

• CASGEM ranking

• Population

Ambient concentration data source: CV-SALTS Database.

Nitrate loading and concentration trend: LWA team

CASGEM ranking: DWR

Population: DWR

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

6

TDS Prioritization Mapby IAZs

11

• Ambient TDS concentration

• TDS loading

• TDS concentration trend

• CASGEM ranking

• Population


TDS loading and concentration trend: LWA team

CASGEM ranking: DWR

Population: DWR

Combined Nitrate & TDS Prioritization Mapby IAZs

12

• Ambient nitrate concentration

• Nitrate loading

• Nitrate concentration trend

• Ambient TDS concentration

• TDS loading

• TDS concentration trend

• CASGEM ranking

• Population


Loading and concentration trend: LWA team

CASGEM ranking: DWR

Population: DWR

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

7

Scope and Scale of Nitrate Contamination

in Groundwater

13

Characterizing the Scope and Scale of

Nitrate Contamination in Groundwater

• What is the estimated number of wells where average nitrate-nitrogen

concentration exceeds 10 mg/L?

– Total (by IAZ)

– % of all wells in the IAZ

• What is the estimated volume of groundwater that exceeds 10 mg/L

nitrate-nitrogen?

– Total acre-feet (by IAZ)

– % of total groundwater storage in the production zone

14

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

8

Nitrate in Shallow Wells2003 - 2014

15Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.

Nitrate in Deep Wells2003 - 2014

Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.

Percentage of Deep Wells where Nitrate Exceeds 5 and 10 mg/L

16

• 2951 of 15,252 deep wells

have exceeded 10 mg/L – 19

percent

• 5310 of 15,252 deep wells

have exceeded 5 mg/L – 35

percent

• In the Southern Kings Basin, 30

percent of wells exceeded 10

mg/L and 51 percent exceeded

5 mg/L


PACKAGE

10/19/2015

9

1 SQ Mile 2 SQ Mile 4 SQ Mile 6 SQ Mile 8 SQ Mile


181 SQ Mile 16 SQ Mile

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

10

Percentage of Groundwater in Storage where

Nitrate Exceeds 5 and 10 mg/L in the Deep Zone

19

• 40 MAF out of 401 MAF in

the deep zone have exceeded

10 mg/L – 10 percent

• 97 MAF out of 401 MAF in

the deep zone have exceeded

5 mg/L – 24 percent

• In the Southern Kings Basin,

17 percent of groundwater

storage in the deep zone

exceeded 10 mg/L and 44

percent exceeded 5 mg/L



Nitrate Contamination in Groundwater

• What is the estimated number of wells where average nitrate-nitrogen

concentration exceeds 10 mg/L?

– Total (by IAZ): 2951 of 15,252 deep wells; 1927 of 6579 shallow wells

– Percent of all wells in the IAZ: 19 percent of deep wells; 29 percent of shallow wells

• What is the estimated volume of groundwater that exceeds 10 mg/L nitrate-

nitrogen?

– Total acre-feet (by IAZ): 40 MAF out of 401 MAF in the deep zone; 54 MAF out of 235

MAF in the shallow zone

– Percent of total groundwater storage in the production zone: 10 percent of the deep

zone; 23 percent of the shallow zone

20

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

11

Concept-Level Nitrate Remediation Costs

• Minimum Central Valley-wide costs for nitrate mitigation – treatment only

• Using methodologies and assumptions similar to that used by UC Davis’s nitrate study

– Doesn’t account for vadose zone nitrate

– Treatment costs only (no pumping/brine disposal, etc.)

21

Scenario > 10 mg/L > 5 mg/L > 10 mg/L > 5 mg/L

Volume Treated 94 MAF 202 MAF 94 MAF 202 MAF

Annualized Cost per Unit 1.18 $/kgal 1.18 $/kgal 2.63 $kgal 2.63 $kgal

Total Annualized Cost $ 36B $ 78B $ 81B $ 173B

Biological

DenitrificationCombined RO/IX

Source of annualized cost: King et al., 2012. Groundwater

Remediation and Management for Nitrate

Chino Desalter Authority: Vadose Zone LegacyChino Basin, CA

22

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

12


Nitrate Contamination in Groundwater – Vadose Zone Legacy

• Vadose-zone nitrate

– What is the estimated nitrate-nitrogen load moving through the vadose zone (by

IAZ)?

– What is the estimated number of years required to purge vadose zone of excess

nitrate?

23

Case Study

Chino Desalter Authority: Vadose Zone Legacy

• Began operation in 2001

• 306,000 AF extracted

• Average nitrate-N extracted is 18 to 50 mg/L

• Total nitrate-N removed is 15,300 tons

24

• Provides hydraulic control to protect downgradient beneficial uses, which

is a requirement of the 2004 Region 8 basin plan amendment

• Serves water to several local agencies for potable supply

Source: Chino Basin Desalter Authority. Pers. Comm.

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

13

Case Study: Chino Desalter

Authority

• Chino Basin is about 238 square miles

• Alta Irrigation District pilot study area is about 209 square miles

• Confined animal feeding operations near the downgradient portion of the basin/area

25

Source of AID Shapefile: LWA Team

Source of Chino Basin Shapefile: Chino Basin Watermaster.

Case Study: Chino Desalter Authority

26

(AF) (mg/L) (mg/L) (tons) (AF) (mg/L) (mg/L) (tons) (AF) (tons)

2001 8,723 50 4.5 589 8,723 589

2002 9,948 50 4.5 672 9,948 672

2003 10,522 50 4.5 711 10,522 711

2004 10,230 50 4.5 691 10,230 691

2005 11,821 50 4.5 799 11,821 799

2006 13,673 50 4.5 924 8,987 18.1 5.0 221 22,660 1,145

2007 14,335 50 4.5 969 15,251 18.1 5.0 375 29,586 1,343

2008 15,421 50 4.5 1,042 14,600 18.1 5.0 359 30,021 1,401

2009 14,719 50 4.5 995 12,914 18.1 5.0 317 27,633 1,312

2010 14,492 50 4.5 979 14,828 18.1 5.0 364 29,320 1,344

2011 14,768 50 4.5 998 14,337 18.1 5.0 352 29,105 1,350

2012 14,887 50 4.5 1,006 13,584 18.1 5.0 334 28,471 1,340

2013 13,832 50 4.5 935 13,988 18.1 5.0 344 27,820 1,278

2014 13,759 50 4.5 930 16,173 18.1 5.0 397 29,932 1,327

Totals 181,130 12,239 124,662 3,063 305,792 15,302

Chino Desalters

Groundwater

Extracted

Chino 1 Chino 2

Year Production ProductionNitrate-N

Influent

Nitrate-N

Effluent

Nitrate-N

Extracted

Nitrate-N

Influent

Nitrate-N

Effluent

Nitrate-N

Extracted

Nitrate-N

Extracted

Source: Chino Basin Desalter Authority. Pers. Comm.

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

14

Case Study: Chino Desalter Authority

• Reverse Osmosis/Ion exchange

• Capital costs over 15 years for Chino I and II are approximately $160M

• The Phase 3 Expansion Project will add about $145M in capital costs

• Recent O&M budgets have been approximately $21M

27Source: Chino Basin Desalter Authority. Pers. Comm.

Nitrate in

Chino Basin

1998 to 2002

28

Source: Chino Basin Watermaster.

State of the Basin Report

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

15

Nitrate in

Chino Basin

2009 to 2014

29

Source: Chino Basin Watermaster.

State of the Basin Report

Treatment Options

30

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

16

Remediation Technologies Matrix

31

Technology Technology Description

Technology Comparison

(Unfavorable (-), Uncertain (+/-), Favorable (+) or Very Favorable (++)) Technology Applicability

Costs Time Permitting Waste GW ImpactsNitrate Concentration

System Size Contaminant Depth TDS

Aquifer

Permeability Reuse

Total Cost Capital Cost O&M Cost

Remediation

Timeframe

Ease of

Permitting

Amount Waste

Generated

Potential for

Secondary

Impacts to

Groundwater

Low (<10

mg-N/L)

High (>10 mg-

N/L)

Very Small and

Small Systems

(< 0.25 MGD)

Medium

Systems (0.25

to 1 MGD)

Large Systems

(>1 MGD)

Shallow

(<30 ft bgs)

Deep

(> 30 ft bgs)

Very Deep

(> 100 ft bgs) High TDS Water

Low Permeability/

Heterogeneous

Aquifers Nutrient Reuse

Non-Potable Water

Reuse

Potable Water

Reuse

Reverse Osmosis with Brine

Disposal to Brine Line

Pump water to surface, through RO

membranes; pipe brine to brine line- - - - + - + - + - - + + + + + NA - + +

Reverse Osmosis with Brine

Concentration and Evaporation

Pump water to surface, through RO

membranes; pipe brine to evaporation

pond

- - - - + - + - + - - + + + + + NA - + +

Disposable Ion ExchangePump water to surface, through IX resin;

Landfill or incinerate resin when exhausted+/- +/- +/- - ++ - + + - + +/- - + + + - NA - + +

Regenerable Ion Exchange with

Brine Discharge to Brine Line

Pump water to surface, through IX resin;

Regenerate resin, pipe waste to brine line+/- - +/- - + - + + + - + + + + + - NA - + +

Regenerable Ion Exchange with

Brine Concentration and

Evaporation

Pump water to surface, through IX resin;

Regenerate resin, pipe waste to

evaporation pond+/- +/- +/- - ++ - + + + - + +/- + + + - NA - + +

Anoxic Fluidized Bed Bioreactor

Pump water to surface and treat using an

anoxic fluidized bed bioreactor that uses

bacteria to reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas.

Treated water can be re-injected to

promote in situ biodegradation.

+ + + + +/- + + - + + + +/- + + + - NA - + +

Anoxic Fixed Bed Bioreactor

Pump water to surface and treat using an

anoxic fixed bed bioreactor that uses

bacteria to reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas.

Treated water can be re-injected to

promote in situ biodegradation.

+ + + + +/- + + - + + + +/- + + + - NA - + +

Extraction without Treatment

Followed Crop Irrigation

Pump water to surface, surface spread onto

crops++ ++ ++ +/- +/- ++ ++ + + + +/- - + + + - NA + + -

Electrodialysis Reversal with Brine

Disposal to Brine Line

Pump water to surface, through EDR

system, pipe concentrate to brine line- - - - + - + - + - - + + + + + NA - + -

Electrodialysis Reversal with Brine

Concentration and Evaporation

Pump water to surface, through EDR

system, send brine to evap ponds- - - - ++ - + - + - - + + + + + NA - + -

Phytoremediation

Install plants or trees (e.g., poplars) for

nitrate uptake from soil and shallow

groundwater+ + ++ +/- ++ ++ ++ + + + - - + +/- - - + + - -

Permeable Reactive Mulch

Biobarrier

Dig a trench transverse to groundwater

flow and fill with sand and mulch. Anoxic

conditions develop resulting in reduction of

nitrate to nitrogen gas.

+ + ++ +/- + ++ - + + + +/- - + - - - + - - -

Permeable Reactive Biobarrier with

Injected Slow-Release Electron

Donor

Inject substrate into aquifer downgradient

of nitrate, allow groundwater to flow across+ + ++ +/- + ++ - + + + +/- - + + - - +/- - - -

Permeable Reactive Biobarrier with

Continuously Injected and

Recirculated Electron Donor

Install groundwater extraction and injection

wells to create capture zone, add substrate

to water prior to injection- - - +/- + ++ - + + + +/- - + + - - +/- - - -

Groundwater Diversion Using

Impermeable Cut-Off Walls

Excavate and install impermeable barriers,

directing groundwater flow around nitrate

plume+/- - + +/- + ++ + + + + +/- - + +/- - + + - - -

Groundwater Diversion Using

French Drains

Excavate and install trenches with french

drains thus directing clean water around

nitrate-impacted groundwater zones+/- - + - + ++ + + + + +/- - + +/- - + + - - -

Source Treatment and Monitored

Natural Attenuation

Remove high concentration sources of

nitrate contamination using in situ

bioremediation and then allow residual

nitrate to be biodegraded naturally.

+ - ++ +/- + ++ - + +/- + +/- - + + + - +/- - - -

Groundwater Diversion and

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Install impermeable barriers such as sheet

pile or soldier piles thus directing clean

groundwater flow around nitrate-

contaminated groundwater. Allow nitrate

within contained area to biodegrade

naturally

+ - + +/- + ++ +/- +/- +/- + +/- - + +/- - - + - - -

Source Bioremediation Using Slow-

Release Electron Donor Injection

Periodically inject slowly biodegradable

organic compound (such as emulsified

vegetable oil) into aquifer at or up-gradient

of contamination to stimulate

denitrification of nitrate to nitrogen gas

+ +/- ++ ++ + ++ - + + + +/- - + + + - - - - -

Source Bioremediation Using Fast-

Release Electron Donor Injection

and Recirculation

Continuously inject quickly biodegradable

organic compound (such as molasses) into

aquifer at or up-gradient of contamination

to stimulate denitrification of nitrate to

nitrogen gas

+ +/- + ++ + ++ - + + + +/- - + + + - - - - -

LJP1

Technology Summary

• Ion Exchange (IX)

– Pro: Good for drinking water

– Con: Expensive at high nitrate

concentrations, creates waste

• Reverse Osmosis (RO)

– Pro: Good for drinking water

– Con: High energy costs, creates waste

• Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR)

– Pro: Good for high nitrate water

– Con: High energy and capital costs,

creates waste

• Biological Vessels

– Pro: Good for high nitrate water

– Con: Less accepted for drinking water

treatment

• Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs)

– Pro: Low cost, good for high nitrate

concentrations

– Con: Cannot be used for deep

contamination, slow

32

PACKAGE

LJP1 LeClaire, Joseph P., 10/15/2015

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

17

Alta Irrigation District Pilot Study Area

33


• Current Conditions

• Remediation

– Scenario 1. Pump, Treat, and Reinject on MZ-Scale

– Scenario 2. Pump, Treat, and Serve to Meet Potable Demands

• Subscenarios 2a, 2b, and 2c

– Scenario 3. Point Source-Scale (POTW): Pump, Treat, and Reinject

– Scenario 4. Pump and Fertilize

• Timeframe, Costs, and Protection of Public Health

34

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

18


Current Conditions

35


36

• AID is about 209 square miles – about the size of Chino Basin the Santa Ana Watershed (238 square miles).

• Located in Tulare, Fresno and a portion of Kings Counties.

• AID serves surface water from the Kings River via releases from Pine Flat Dam.

• The AID lies entirely within the Southern Kings IAZ.

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

19

Groundwater

Elevation Map

37

Source: Kings River Conservation District. 2014. Kings River

Service Area. Annual Groundwater Report.

• Groundwater flow direction is to the southeast.

• Mountain front recharge occurs along the Sierra foothills.

• Recharge from deep percolation of applied irrigation water and from streambed recharge.

Depth to Water Map

38

Source: Kings River Conservation District. 2014. Kings River


Source of groundwater data: CV-SALTS database.

• Depth to water ranges from 20 to 120 feet bgs

• Deeper depth to first-encountered groundwater to the southeastern portion of the basin, following alluvial fill.

• East Orosi may be a candidate for PRBs, because the depth to water is relatively shallow (40 to 60 feet bgs) and the groundwater concentrations are relatively high (in some cases, greater than 40 mg/L).

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

20

39

Land use data source: LWA Team

AID: Irrigated and

Non-Irrigated Lands

Irrigated Vs. Non-

Irrigated

Total Area

(Acre)% Area

Irrigated 4,313,994 82.2%

Non-Irrigated 937,616 17.8%

Total 5,251,611

Agriculture – 66.6%

Deciduous Fruits & Nuts – 25.1%

Grain and Hay – 11%

Field Crops – 9.1%

Vineyards – 8.6%

Native – 23.3%

Urban – 6.6%

Semi Agricultural – 3.5%

40

Land use data source: LWA Team

AID: Land Use

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

21

Wells by Type/Use

41

• Well type/use information from the CV-

SALTS database.

• “CDPH” wells are community water

system wells.

• “Water Supply” and “Agricultural” wells

are likely irrigation wells.

• Need to better identify private domestic

wells – public health concern.

Nitrate in Shallow Wells2003 - 2014

42


• Few wells designated shallow in the CV-SALTS

database.

• Groundwater nitrate concentrations are high

along the southern portion of the AID where

there are a number of CAFOs.

• Highest wells have concentrations greater than

80 mg/L.

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

22


43

Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.Source: Kings River Conservation District. 2014. Kings River


• Similar to the shallow zone, wells in the deeper

zone exhibit greater concentrations of nitrate

near in the southern portion of the study area

where there are higher concentrations of CAFOs.

• Larger communities, e.g., Reedley and Dinuba

have been able to manage water supply nitrate

by drilling deeper wells.

Remediation Scenarios

44

• Scenario 1. Pump, Treat, and Reinject on MZ-Scale

• Scenario 2. Pump, Treat, and Serve to Meet Potable Demands

• Subscenarios 2a, 2b, 2c

• Scenario 3. Point Source-Scale (POTW) Pump, Treat, and Reinject

• Scenario 4. Pump and Fertilize (under development)

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

23

Remediation Scenario 1.

Pump, Treat, and Reinject on MZ-Scale

45

• Description• Groundwater at ambient concentrations

• Remediation pumping at twice the current production rate to meet potable

demands.

• Water treated to 1 mg/L and reinjected.

• Assumptions• No subsurface inflows or outflows.

• No contribution from vadose zone.



PACKAGE

10/19/2015

24


Volume -Weighted Average Nitrate Concentration

47

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Av

era

ge

NO

3-N

(m

g/L

)

Grid Size

Alta Irrigation District

Average Nitrate

Scenario 1: Pump, Treat, and Reinject at MZ-Scale

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100 150 200

Nit

rate

as

N (

mg

/L)

Years

Pump, Treat, and Re-Inject - MZ Scale

48

• Outcome• Below 10 mg/L – 38 years

• Below 8 mg/L – 83 years

• Below 5 mg/L – 195 years

• Below 4 mg/L > 200 years

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

25

Remediation Scenario 2.

Pump, Treat, and Serve Water to Meet Potable Demands

49

• Description• Groundwater at ambient concentrations

• Pump and treat and serve to communities within the Alta Irrigation District

• Pump in areas of high nitrate concentrations

• Subscenario 3a. Three regional systems.

• Subscenario 3b. One central system, one regional system

• Subscenario 3c. Two regional systems. Wellhead treatment for small

communities.

• Permeable reactive barriers near East Orosi and deep well injection/in situ

remediation south of Dinuba also analyzed.

Communities within AID

50

Area Elevation DensityWater

Demand

(square

miles)feet MSL

Persons/

Square MileAF

Reedley Fresno 5.156 348 24,194 Large 4,692 4,839

Dinuba Tulare 6.47 335 21,453 Large 3,316 4,291

Orosi Tulare 2.446 374 8,770 Medium 3,585 1,754

Cutler Tulare 0.807 361 5,000 Medium 6,196 1,000

London Tulare 0.629 299 1,869 Small 2,971 374

Sultana Tulare 0.444 364 775 Small 1,745 155

Traver Tulare 0.843 289 713 Small 846 143

East Orosi Tulare 0.248 394 495 V. Small 1,996 99

Seville Tulare 0.636 354 480 V. Small 755 96

Delft Colony Tulare 0.066 312 454 V. Small 6,879 91

Yettem Tulare 0.153 348 211 V. Small 1,379 42

Monson Tulare 0.492 325 188 V. Small 382 38

Totals/Avg 18.39 64,602 3,513 12,920

Community County PopulationEPA System

Classification

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

26


51

Water Quality Data Source: CV-SALTS Database.

Land Use Data Source: LWA Team

Scenario 2a: Pump, Treat,

and Serve for Potable Supply

52

• Three regional systems

– Traver, London, Delft Colony: 800 AFY

– Monson, Yettum, Seville: 250 AFY

• Add Dinuba: 4500 AFY

– East Orosi, Orosi, Sultana, Cutler: 4000

AFY

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

27

53

• One central system

– Traver, London, Delft Colony, Monson,

Yettum, Seville, Dinuba: 5550 AFY

• One regional system


AFY

Scenario 2b: Pump, Treat,


54

• Two regional systems:


AFY)

– Dinuba: 4500 AFY

• Well head treatment/small IX units

– Traver, London, Delft Colony, Monson,

Yettum, Seville

Scenario 2c: Pump, Treat,


PACKAGE

10/19/2015

28

Remediation Scenario 3.Point Source-Scale (POTW) Pump, Treat, and Reinject

55

• Description• Pump and treat high nitrate water from a plume.

• Assume historical discharges – 2 mgd at 25 mg/L nitrate

• Analyze reducing nitrate in discharge to 10 mg/L

• Analyze pumping an irrigated off-site

• Analyze pumping and reinjecting

Scenario 3: Pump, Treat, Reinject

at POTW Scale

56

• Current discharge about 2 mgd

• 88 acres of discharge ponds

• In the past, nitrate in effluent as

high as 50 mg/L.

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

29

Nitrate Time-Series

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2014

NO

3-N

(m

g/L

)

Year

City of Dinuba Wells

Nitrate Concenration Time Series

57

0

5

10

15

20

25

-100 -50 0 50 100

Nit

rate

as

N (

mg

/L)

Years

0

5

10

15

20

25

-100 -50 0 50 100

Nit

rate

as

N (

mg

/L)

Years

0

5

10

15

20

25

-100 -50 0 50 100

Nit

rate

as

N (

mg

/L)

Years

Nitrate-N POTW: Source Control

58

A B

C D

A – Two mgd of POTW discharge at 25 mg/L. No inflow, outflow = 25 mgd.

B – Same as A, with inflow at 2 mg/L, then 6 mg/L

C – Same as A, but nitrate in discharge reduced from 25 to 10 mg/L

D- Same as C, with inflow

Inflow – subsurface inflow of groundwater

Outflow – subsurface outflow of groundwater

0

5

10

15

20

25

-100 -50 0 50 100

Nit

rate

as

N (

mg

/L)

Years

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

-100 -50 0 50 100

Nit

rate

as

N (

mg

/L)

Years

POTW - Reduce N Discharge

Extraction + Additional Groundwater Inflow

Extraction + Injection

Nitrate-N POTW: Source Control and

Active Aquifer Restoration

59

DE

F

D – Same as D on the previous

slide

E – Same as D, with

groundwater extraction at

1500 gpm, beginning in year

0. Water use off-site

(irrigation)

F – Same as E, but re-injecting

the treated water with a

nitrate concentration of 1

mg/L.

Remediation Scenario 4.Point Source-Scale (POTW) Pump, Treat, and Reinject

60

• Description• Pump and fertilize – targeting groundwater with high nitrate concentrations.

• Pump and fertilize is more a source control measure than a remediation

option.

• Reduces nitrate flux to groundwater, but does not ultimately remove (net)

mass of nitrate from groundwater.

• This scenario is still in development and analysis.

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

31

Timeframe, Costs, and Protection of Public Health

• In development

61

Next Steps

• Complete technical work/analyses

– Consider other scenarios

• Stormwater recharge

• Fallowing

• Translate findings into implementation measures for the SNMP

• Integration with SSALTS implementation measures

• The goal is to discuss salt and nitrate implementation measures at the

November policy meeting

• Prepare draft technical memorandum (mid-December to project

committee)

62

PACKAGE

10/19/2015

32

63

Questions?

64

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Meeting Calendar

1 2 3 Light Red conflicts

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

1 1 2 3 2nd or 3rd Thursdays

2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dark Green Exec Comm Policy

3 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 8 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Fridays at 1:00 pm

5 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 9 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Lt. Green Hatch Exec Comm Admin

14 29 30 31

Yellow Salty 5

4 5 6 Lower SJ River Committee

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat TAC Meeting

14 1 2 3 4 18 1 2 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 1-May

15 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 24 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 25 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Regional Board Presents 4-16/17

17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State Board Presentation 1/20/15

18 26 27 28 29 30 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 27 28 29 30

23 31 Wednesday Meetings are DRAFT

May be held by Webinar or

7 8 9 in person in Sacramento

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat June 17th Held at Farm Bureau

27 1 2 3 4 31 1 36 1 2 3 4 5

28 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 37 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

29 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 33 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 38 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

30 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 39 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

31 26 27 28 29 30 31 35 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 40 27 28 29 30

36 30 31

10 11 12

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

40 1 2 3 49 1 2 3 4 5

41 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

42 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 46 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 51 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

43 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 47 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 52 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

44 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 48 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53 27 28 29 30 31

49 29 30

Notes

January February March

April May June

September

October November December

2015

July August

PACKAGE

cv-salts executive committee meeting - kern river committee meeting...cv-salts executive committee...

Documents