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