Download - Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
Technical Workshop – December 6, 2010
Foothill Municipal Water District
Overview
History Facilities Planning Study Grant Draft Paper Review Recommendations Next Steps
History
John Morris Study Bookman-Edmonston Study RMC Study Water Resources Plan
Facilities Planning Study Grant
Up to $75,000 in matching funds Draft due December 15. Final due February 28, 2011. Outline in grant forms.
Draft Paper ReviewA. Introduction
Draft Paper Review
B. Study Area Characteristics1. Hydrologic Features – Raymond and Verdugo
Basins2. Historic extractions and recharge3. Water quality of groundwater and surface
water4. Land Use 5. Population Projections – Draft UWMP – Retail
agencies (Please see handout)6. Beneficial Uses and effluent discharges
Draft Paper Review
C. Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities
1. Description of all wholesale and retail entities2. Sources of water, facilities, costs, prices3. Capacities of facilities and flows4. Groundwater management, recharge,
overdraft5. Water use trends, projections (see handout)6. Quality of Supplies7. Sources of additional water and plans for new
facilities
Draft Paper Review
D. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities1. Description of wastewater entities2. Description of facilities, flows, etc.3. Water quality of effluent and seasonal
fluctuations4. Additional facilities needed5. Source of industrial or other problems6. Existing recycling7. Existing rights to use of treated effluent8. Wastewater flow variations
Draft Paper Review
E. Treatment requirements1. Potential uses water quality2. Health related water qualities (see
handouts)3. Discharge requirements – no
discharge other than beneficial use4. RWQCB requirements – General
Permit
Draft Paper Review
F. Recycled water market1. Description of assessment procedures
Draft Paper Review
G. Project Alternative Analysis1. Planning and design assumptions2. Alternatives to be evaluated –
By geography:- Arroyo Seco Alternatives- Verdugo Basin Alternatives- Eaton Wash Spreading Ground
Alternatives
Arroyo Seco Alternatives-.25 mgd
Alternative DescriptionCost
(millions)
A-1 Irrigation customers, 48 AF, JPL tanks $1.7
A-2 A-1 plus spreading, 280 AF $1.73
A-3 A-1 plus cooling tower, 160 AF $1.7
A-4 A-2 and A-3, 280 AF $1.73
A-5 A-1 plus injection, 280 AF $1.9
A-6 Injection only, 280 AF $1.21
A-7 A-1 but Pasadena supply, 48 AF $.14*
A-8 A-2 but Pasadena supply, 280 AF $.27*
* Plus purchase cost of Pasadena water - $1,500/AF
Verdugo Basin Alternatives - .25 - .5 mgd
Alternative DescriptionCost
(millions)
V-1Irrigation customers, 97 AF, .25 mgd
MBR plant $1.63
V-2Irrigation customers, 97 AF, Glendale
water, .25 mgd sizing $1.2*
V-3Injection in Raymond Basin, 560 AF, .5
mgd MBR plant $1.51
V-4Injection in Raymond Basin, 560 AF,
Glendale water $1.02*
V-5 Irrigation and injection, 560 AF, MBR $2.2
V-6Irrigation and injection, 560 AF, Glendale
water $2.05*
* Plus purchase cost of Glendale water - $530/AF
Eaton Wash Alternatives - .5 mgd
Alternative DescriptionCost
(millions)
E-1 Spreading, 560 AF, MBR $1.06
E-2 Spreading, 560 AF, Pasadena $1.14*
E-3 Spreading, 560 AF, GRIP $3.75**
* Plus purchase cost of Pasadena water - $1,500/AF
** Plus purchase cost of GRIP water - $1,000/AF
Draft Paper Review
3. Non-recycled water alternatives Debris basins and infiltration galleries Pasadena spreading ponds Devil’s Gate Dam water transfer project
4. Conservation5. No project alternative6. Groundwater impacts –
TDS: 800 mg/l Total nitrogen: 12 mg/l TOC: 10 mg/l Turbidity: 0.5 NTU
MWD Projections
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$/AF $ 701 $ 744 $ 794 $ 833 $ 877 $ 920 $ 970
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
$/AF $ 1,023 $ 1,079 $ 1,146 $ 1,214 $ 1,287 $ 1,364 $ 1,446 $ 1,533
Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
$/AF $ 1,625 $ 1,722 $ 1,825 $ 1,935 $ 2,051 $ 2,174 $ 2,305 $ 2,443
Source: MWD Draft 2010 UWMP, 10/4/2010
Alternatives Present Worth
Alternative A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8
Per AF Present Worth $7,052 $1,429 $2,139 $2,335 $1,354 $855 $2,248 $2,024
Alternative V-1 V-2 V-3 V-4 V-5 V-6
Per AF Present Worth $4,534 $4,686 $665 $822 $985 $1,080
Alternative E-1 E-2 E-3
Per AF Present Worth $690 $2,134 $2,198
Alternative MWD
Per AF Present Worth $1,334
Recommended Alternatives
Alternative Description
A-6 Injection only, 280 AF
V-5 Irrigation and injection, 560 AF, MBR
E-1 Spreading, 560 AF, MBR
Addition of 4rth phase based on CVWD negotiations with Glendale regarding adjudication & extension of Glendale system to Deukmejian Park
Recycled Water Costs
* Based on an interest rate of 4.5%, 30 year financing
Alternative
Reclaimed Water
Sales, AFTotal Capital
Cost $
Annual Capital Cost $
O&M Costs $
Total Annual Costs $
Unit Costs $/AF
A-6 280 $ 1,274,370 $ 78,236 $ 105,081 $ 183,316 $ 655
V-5 560 $ 3,756,420 $ 230,612 $ 211,733 $ 442,345 $ 790
E-1 560 $ 1,404,240 $ 86,208 $ 206,807 $ 293,015 $ 523
Total 1400 $ 6,435,030 $ 395,056 $ 523,620 $ 918,677 $ 656
Energy Savings
Reduced Imported Deliveries (AF) 1,400
Average Power on East Branch (3200 kwh) 4,480,000
Average Power to Pump to FMWD (600 kwh) 840,000
Total kwh saved 5,320,000
1 meter3 = 264 gallons = 1.44 kwh for MBR 2,488,691
570 kwh average to produce groundwater 798,000
Total recycled energy use 3,286,691
Net savings (kwh) 2,033,309
Average annual California home energy use (kwh) 7,044
# of Homes supplied annually from energy savings 289
Next Steps
Submit draft to SWRCB Revise based on comments Decide on phasing Submit final planning study to SWRCB Other funding Engineering/CEQA Construction Operation Continue discussing 4rth phase with
Glendale
Discussion