HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - September 21, 2004 SSCITY OF LODI
INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING
"SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday,
September 21, 2004, commencing at 7:00 a.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, Land, and Mayor Hansen
Absent: Council Members — None
Also Present: Interim City Manager Keeter, City Attorney Schwabauer, and Deputy City Clerk Taylor
B. CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR UPDATE
Deputy City Clerk Taylor reviewed the weekly calendar (filed).
C. TOPIC(S)
C-1 "Water supply options"
Public Works Director Prima stated that a report regarding surface water supply options
has been prepared for Council review, along with a PowerPoint presentation by
Schlumberger Water Services (both filed). He stated that the City has been working with
consultants since before the water purchase contract was executed with the Woodbridge
Irrigation District (WID) in late 2003. Mr. Prima stated that, because Lodi has a fully -
developed underground system, there are a number of options available to Lodi that would
not be possible for a number of other cities and agencies and that the presentation is to
provide a broad view of available alternatives for the Lodi water supply. Mr. Prima
introduced Mark Williamson, a consultant with Schlumberger Water Services, formerly
employed by Saracino-Kirby-Snow and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), who
presented a summary of the report.
Mr. Williamson shared that the purpose of the study was to assess the options for use of
the surface water supply, explore the feasibility of using reclaimed water from the White
Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WSWPCF), and to identify mitigations for
increased water demands caused by new development. Projected to the year 2040, both
through independent means and the general plan, looking at population increasing at 1%
and 2% as well as trends in per capita use, the rate of water usage would be 250 gallons
per capita per day. He further shared that the summary did not scrutinize the outline of the
general plan when basing its projections and that an increase in water usage would require
that Lodi review its supply options earlier. One option would be drilling more wells to
increase available groundwater supply, but that will lower the water table, again affecting the
need to implement additional options above and beyond the WID supply.
Mr. Williamson noted that the City currently produces 16,000 to 17,000 acre-feet of water
per year, with evidence that groundwater tables are already declining. The projection is for
a general plan build -out of approximately 33,000 acre feet, which could occur within the
next 20 years. Another consultant report suggested that the sustainable groundwater
supply under the existing City limits is about 12,000 acre-feet per year and the supply
being purchased from WID adds another 6,000 acre-feet. This increment of supply is
necessary, but additional increment supply will be needed as development progresses. In
comparing per capita water demand with other northern California communities, both
metered and un -metered, Lodi's 1990 unit water use is about 257 gallons per capita per
day, about in the middle of comparison range and quite low for an un -metered city.
Continued September 21, 2004
Surface water supply options include water currently being purchased from WID, the
potential to work with the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD),
cooperative efforts with the city of Stockton in its acquisition of new appropriations either
from the Mokelumne River or from the San Joaquin Delta River, water banking opportunities
with EBMUD or others, and water reclamation. There is an overlap between surface supply
options and how that water might be put to use. The WID supply is 6,000 acre-feet per
year with the ability to use additional water if there had been a cutback due to draught
conditions. That 50% cutback provision in dry years, along with a review of historical
hydrology, depicts a cutback will occur approximately 25% of the time, requiring Lodi to
build facilities large enough to accommodate recharging 7,000 acre-feet per year or about
10 million gallons per day.
Mr. Williamson shared that the NSJWCD has a temporary right for 20,000 acre-feet per
year direct diversion at 80 cubic feet per second between December and July of each year.
It also has an agreement with EBMUD for regulation of that supply in normal and wet years
in Camanche Reservoir so that water is available through the summer. Of that 20,000 acre
feet, it currently averages use of about 3,000 acre-feet per year and has never used half of
the 20,000 acre-foot supply, displaying a potential for Lodi to negotiate a joint groundwater
banking activity or cooperative water rights agreement for a portion of that water.
In response to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Williamson shared that the NSJWCD has the ability to
take the water at no cost and then charge its users $50 per acre. He stated he would look
into the matter, but believed that if Lodi were granted a portion of water usage, it would be
restricted to agricultural or recharge use.
Mr. Williamson reported that interim use of the WID water prior to construction of
permanent facilities would offer the possibility of conveying he water through the south
canal into the Stockton East District for irrigation purposes. Stockton East is planning a
groundwater recharge project as part of its San Joaquin Delta Diversion project. Its target
recharge area is in the northeastern part of the city of Stockton, and there are flood control
ponds being considered for interim usage that are within a reasonable distance of the
Woodbridge south canal, again providing potential on an interim basis of selling part of that
Woodbridge water supply b the city of Stockton or Stockton East. Looking at an online
date of 2010 at the earliest, the city of Stockton's Delta Diversion Project has purchased a
site east of Interstate 5 north of Eight Mile Road for the treatment plant, and that has the
potential of being connected to Lodi's water supply and taking Woodbridge water into
storage on a short- or long-term basis. It is looking at an initial treatment capacity of
30,000 acre-feet per year and ultimately 126,000 acre-feet per year.
Mr. Williamson then reviewed options for new appropriation, reporting that San Joaquin
County, through the Mokelumne River Water and Power Authority, is looking at developing
a new water right on the Mokelumne River, for which it has a water right filing, but not a
water right. The Mokelumne is considered fully appropriated; however, there are flood flows
on the river on a regular basis at least half of the year. The draft report for that project
suggests that water can be developed through a diversion of flood flows from Pardee
Reservoir and conveyance to a new off -stream reservoir site at Duck Creek at a cost of
$150 to $210 per acre-foot. This is a preliminary cost which includes developing the water
supply, but not the cost for the provision of recharge and distribution.
Mayor Hansen noted that in the options summary no indication appears regarding Lodi
flood ponds, in which the water eventually goes to the river or canals, and inquired about the
possibility of diverting or capturing that water. Mr. Prima responded that the storm water
does in part go to replenish the underground water table, but the overall amount of water is
too small and infrequent for recharging. He further shared that setting up for that process
would require converting parks to recharge basins causing the City to lose the entire park
site.
W
Continued September 21, 2004
Mr. Williamson provided that another appropriation option would be taking American River
water. Since 1990, San Joaquin County has had a filing on the south fork of the American
River, and in the past six to eight months, it has changed the point of diversion from the
South Fork to the Sacramento River at Freeport where it would be diverted in conjunction
with EBMUD's Freeport Facility. The plan is for the county to pump the water from the
Sacramento River at Freeport and convey it for groundwater recharge into agricultural areas
east of Lodi. The cost to move that water from the Sacramento River to a point along the
Mokelumne Aqueduct within the NSJWCD would be $106 per acre-foot, and the cost that
EBMUD might negotiate for use of the Freeport Facility could be $286 per acre-foot or
higher. Delta Water Supply is another option that might be available to Lodi, working in
conjunction with the city of Stockton Delta Water Supply Project. Again, a major new
facility is being planned with completion of the first phase anticipated in the year 2010.
In response to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Prima related that Lodi fought over water
rights with EBMUD and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in the 1920s and 1930s when
PG&E was building power dams and EBMUD was preparing to build Pardee Reservoir. A
resulting settlement provides Lodi with a backup to take 3,000 to 3,600 per acre-foot if the
City cannot draw that amount of water from the wells in the central area around Lodi. He
further explained that it is a right for a small amount of water, approximately 25% of Lodi's
average use, and that there are several obstacles to clear if the City were to attempt to
exercise access directly.
Mr. Williamson shared that possible interim uses of surface water supply include the
potential sale to the city of Stockton for recharging its ponds on the northeast corner of the
city of Stockton. The Environmental Water Account is a quasi -State organization that
acquires water supplies, either from reservoirs or through storage and extraction from
groundwater basins, for release during critical times with an average supply cost of $75 to
$125 per acre-foot. Another interim option would be to pond water in canals and recharge
it as needed.
NOTE: Council Member Land left the meeting at 7:50 a.m.
Mr. Williamson related that possible long-term water use includes irrigation of parks and
schools, construction of recharge ponds, injection of water into the groundwater system,
construction d a treatment plant to supply a potable drinking water supply to the city
residents, and woperative regional projects. Some of the assumptions applied to the
options per the agreement with WID include water availability of approximately 7.5 months
each year (dictating the size of the recharge pond), raising the issue of shutting down,
starting up, and operating a surface water treatment plant and the concern of personnel,
training, and other issues associated with closing the plant for 4.5 months each year. The
contract is for 6,000 acre-feet per year, but it is recommended that the building capacity be
raised to 7,000 acre-feet per year to make up the water ihat is cut back during drought
years. Another assumption is to apply a conservative, or peaking, factor to most facilities
because there are uncertainties involved with water being ponded and recharged or injected.
There also needs to be some provision for down time or outages, as these facilities will silt
up over time and need to be shut down, dried out, and disked as part of routine
maintenance. The recommendation is that the facility capacity be approximately 14,000
acre-feet or double the necessary capacity.
Mr. Williamson reported that in providing non -potable irrigation supplies to parks and
schools within one mile of the WID south canal, there is the potential to deliver
approximately 1,000 acre-feet of the 0000 acre-feet. Additional potential for using the
water for irrigation of open spaces farther east may be realized if the City is willing to incur
the cost to transport the water.
3
Continued September 21, 2004
On the topic of injection wells, Mr. Williamson shared that they have a potential for using
less land space for recharging water, but possess particular characteristics. The
Department of Health Services requires injection wells to be located at least 2,000 feet
away from the nearest point of extraction or existing wells. The water table within the City
is fairly shallow and would be a major constraint on using injection wells. Careful design
would be necessary to address the potential to draw the water table to ground surface while
utilizing injection wells. He reviewed a map of 2002 water levels throughout the City, which
indicates a very shallow water table, approximately ten feet above sea level adjacent to Lodi
Lake and 25 feet below sea level at the southern boundary of the City. Depth to water is
approximately 30 feet on the northwest part of the City, and 50 to 70 feet on the south and
east part of town. The hydraulics of an injection well is basically the inverse of a production
well; when water is injected, it causes a draw up in the water table. The cumulative drop
from multiple facilities would be added together to show the sum total of water injection.
There is some significant question of feasibility of an injection facility without causing
swamps and flooding basements. Recent analysis of pump test information based on City
pump and recovery tests of production wells indicate that the aquifer property that transmits
water is a bit higher than what was used for report estimates, making injection wells look
better, but pump testing and pilot studies would still be necessary to prove the feasibility of
this option. Injection wells are proposed within the City sphere of influence, clustered to the
south of Lodi where the depth of the water is greater. Injection wells are basically
constructed the same as a production well, a screen with a gravel pack around it. These
wells are subject to plugging or fouling, and a surface water system from a hgh-quality
source like the Mokelumne River will have algae in it that can physically clog the screens or
promote biological growth. In addition to sand filters, chlorinating or some other form of
disinfectant would have to be injected into the water supply to retard biological growth. The
cost of the capital project would be $14.6 million.
Mayor Hansen shared that he would be opposed to chlorinating Lodi's drinking water on a
year-round basis, believing it is some of the best drinking water in the state, and stated
there would have to be very strong reasons for chlorination.
Mr. Williamson next discussed the option of a recharge basin, which would require
approximately 23 acres of dedicated property. As proposed in the summary, the recharge
facility would not be part of a park, but rather is a hole in the ground which would need to be
kept free of plant matter and disked regularly to promote the recharge of water. The
advantage of a recharge pond is that the City would not need to do filtering to get water into
the ground, but Health Services regulations require that the ponds be located at least 500
feet from extraction wells. Two ponds could be built for a cost of $9 million for construction
and pumping transportation.
Mr. Williamson related that potentials for regional alternatives include connecting with the
NSJWCD to tap off its existing pipeline distribution system and conveying it to a recharge
pond on the east side of town. There is also the potential to connect to the city of
Stockton's Delta Water Supply Project by buying or leasing some of its plant capacity or
negotiating with Stockton to expand its plant capacity with a pipeline connection to a
recharge pond on the west side of town. Further, there is the possibility of connecting to
the EBMUD Mokelumne Aqueduct, approximately five or six miles from Lodi, which has
considerable potential. Since 1990, EBMUD has had an interest in discussing water
options with Lodi due to the productive soil in Lodi, which is conducive to storing water, and
the existing production facilities, extraction wells, and Granular Activated Carbon GAC)
treatment facilities in Lodi. The county has a groundwater export ordinance, which would
be a consideration on any regional project such as EBMUD or exporting water from the
area; however, as an incorporated city, Lodi is exempt from the ordinance.
al
Continued September 21, 2004
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman, Mr. Williamson shared that according to
maps dated 1995, approximately one half of Lodi is within the NSJWCD from Lodi Lake and
working its way to the east, running alongside and overlapping the WID.
At the request of Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Williamson explained that the city of
Stockton currently has three water rights strategies: 1) the ability to divert from the San
Joaquin River a quantity of water equal to its wastewater discharge per State Water
Resources Decision 1485; 2) about 50% of Stockton is within the statutory (legally defined)
Delta, which would give it rights to pump certain amounts of water to serve those within
that area; and 3) transfers of water from willing sellers such as Yuba County Water Agency,
an agency that is considered to always have surplus water.
Mr. Williamson stated that if an entirely new facility was built it would cost $32 million, but
using existing extraction wells and GAC facilities would cut the cost by $10 million. The
potential for a zero cost would be if Lodi could negotiate a banking arangement with
EBMUD where it would store water within Lodi's sphere of influence and extract it during
critically dry years. There is also the potential for EBMUD to fully pay for those costs and
still supply water recharge to the aty due to Lodi's attractive characteristics. Another
option would be to supply water to the city of Stockton recharge facilities on an interim or
long-term basis at a cost of zero or up to $11 million dollars, or participating with the
EBMUD groundwater banking projects at a cost of zero or up to $32 million dollars. An
added option would be an interim deal with EBMUD where it would buy an option on the
WID until its Freeport facility is completed, making annual payments to Lodi, and if draught
conditions occurred, it would retain rather than release WID reserves into the Pardee
Reservoir for use by its customers.
Mr. Williamson reported that many cities are resolving water issues by upgrading treatment
facilities for recycled water projects with plans to discharge water to irrigation crops when
necessary. Two options were reviewed for use of reclaimed water usage in Lodi; one would
pipe the water back up from White Slough for irrigation uses in Lodi, and the second would
be to create a scalping facility where the solids would be separated and conveyed to White
Slough and the liquid portion of the sewage would be treated within the City limits and be
used for irrigation purposes. Compared to the existing pipeline route, a second pipeline or
scalping facility would reap a potential for roughly 2,000 per acre-feet per year from recycled
water options. The cost of bringing the treated water back from White Slough in a parallel
pipeline would be $4.7 million dollars, and the addition of the scalping facility would be
$14.5 million.
In reply to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Prima shared that while the recycled water would only be
used for irrigation, the issue of potable and recycled water options still has the potential to
initiate perception issues. The concern of Public Works staff is to ensure open
communication to alleviate misconceptions and encourage public education regarding
recycled water uses. He stated that while the water is very clean and is used only for
irrigation of grounds such as parks and schools, there is a perception to be addressed and
the public needs to understand the importance and priority in keeping both water systems
functioning separately. Protocols outlined and enforced by the Department of Health
Services for implementing a recycled water system are quite strict in terms of annual
system shutdowns and inspections. Mr. Prima shared that the use of recycled water is
quite commonly accepted in communities throughout the state, and that while the City has
not used the WID water yet, it can be banked for the first three years.
Mayor Hansen thanked Public Works Director Prima for his hard work and vision in being
concerned for the long-term needs of the City and the future of its water system. He
commented that he was not interested in supporting the injection process due to the high
cost and limited potential and directed that staff continue reviewing all options and
alternatives and return to Council in the near future for further consideration of this item.
5
Continued September 21, 2004
In response to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Prima stated that in preparing the summary,
little time was spent looking at various growth estimates or fluctuations in water usage, but
rather a range of 1% to 2% as high and low consumption figures was used. He stated that
implementing a City-wide metering program may not reflect a significant decrease in water
usage since Lodi already records lower usage levels than many comparison cities that are
currently metered.
Interim City Manager Keeter commented that the City conducted a water forum
approximately two years ago and suggested Council consider holding a special meeting to
present the different options to the public and receive citizen input. Mr. Prima added that
many of the items received at that public meeting have been made a part of the summary
report and encouraged Council to schedule a public forum. He shared that a similar report,
with less technical dialogue and more time for public comments, could be prepared, one
that would focus more on conclusions and costs.
Mayor Pro Tempore Beckman stated that in reviewing the summary of alternatives, the
surface water irrigation for parks and schools would only use 1,000 acre-feet out of 6,000 or
more acre-feet, and therefore he would not prefer that option. He recommended that
consideration be given to using land where the NSJWCD and WID overlap, what he
considered an ideal location for recharge ponds because both districts would be interested
in having the ponds within their boundaries.
Assistant Water/Wastewater Superintendent Beeler stated that while the irrigation of parks
and schools may appear to be of benefit to the City, the 1,000 acre-feet of water would not
be taken from available groundwater, which makes it a direct benefit. If Lodi puts 6,000
acre-feet in ponds to recharge, it may only get 1,000 acre-feet, therefore creating a direct
benefit in using the water that is not being taken out of the ground for other purposes such
as irrigation. Mr. Prima added that implementing this alternative would represent one sixth
of the solution at a low cost, and a portion of the process may possibly be paid for with
grant funds.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
00 Kathy Grant questioned whether the water purchased from the WID can be sold or re-
sold until a plan can be formed and implemented to get back some of the money
spent.
Public Works Director Prima shared that the water is currently being banked for use in
the future.
D. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None.
E. ADJOURNMENT
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jacqueline L. Taylor
Deputy City Clerk
Con
September 20 -
September 26
Monday. September 20
Tuesday. September 21
7:00am 9:00am Shirtsleeve Session (Carnegie Forum)
Wednesday. September 22
NCPA Annual Conference 9/22-24 in Monterey, Portola Plaza Hotel
7:30am 8:00am Targeted Opportunities to Prevent Pollution IN SJC,
11th Annual Environmental Excellence Awards
(Brookside Country Club)
9:30am Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater
Banking Authority - Board of Directors Meeting -
Delegate, John Beckman (1810 E Hazelton Ave.,
Stockton, CA)
4:00pm 7:00pm Loel Center - Open House / Farewell to Cynthia
Winegarden
Kari Chadwick 1
September 2004
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 1011
1213 1415 16 17 18
19 202122 23 24 25
262728 29 30
October 2004
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 1112 13 14 15 16
17 1819 20 2122 23
2425 26 27 28 29 30
31
Thursday. September 23
NCPA Annual Conference 9/22-24 in Monterey, Portola Plaza Hotel
5:00pm 7:00pm Chamber of Commerce, LUSD, New Teachers
Reception (Amorosa Inn & Gardens, 7889 E. Harney
Ln. (east of Hwy. 99))
Friday. September 24
NCPA Annual Conference 9/22-24 in Monterey, Portola Plaza Hotel
Saturday. September 25
12:00pm 12:30pm Chamber of Commerce, Ribbon Cutting, New Wells
Fargo Bank branch opening (Raley's )
5:30pm 9:00pm Lodi Boys and Girls Club 7th Annual Hall of Fame
Dinner/Ceremony (275 Poplar Street, Lodi)
Sunday. September 26
9/17/2004 3:53 PM
AGENDA ITEM C-1
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Water Supply Options
MEETING DATE: September 21, 2004 (Shirtsleeve Session)
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None; discussion only.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Last year, the City entered into a 40 -year agreement with the
Woodbridge irrigation District for the purchase of a nominal
6,000 acre-feet of water annually. Prior to that agreement, the City
engaged the consulting firm of Saracino-Kirby-Snow to study
long-term water supply options.
The purpose of the water supply options report was to:
• Assess surface supply options, including direct use and groundwater recharge;
• Assess feasibility of using non -potable or reclaimed (recycled) water; and,
• Identify new development mitigation to increased groundwater use.
The reason for including reclaimed water is that many of the potential uses for non -treated WID water are
also available for reclaimed water, such as park and landscape irrigation. Staff also believes that in the
long run, Lodi, along with more Central Valley cities and water agencies, will be making use of reclaimed
water, as is being done elsewhere in the State. Potential projects are presented as stand-alone City
projects, and opportunities for regional projects are also presented.
The report presents three fundamental types of use of the WID water. The traditional method would be
to build a treatment plant and add the water to the City's distribution system, reducing demand on
groundwater. This is also one of the more costly alternatives and would require chlorinating the City's
water system. Groundwater recharge using injection wells or land application is also presented.
Injection would provide a more direct improvement to groundwater levels in the urban area but at a
relatively high cost. land application offers lower cost, with reduced groundwater level benefits to the
urban area, but could provide some potential benefit in terms of open space. Use of the water for park
and landscape irrigation is also described. While this is relatively cost-effective, only a small portion of
the water would be used in this manner.
At the shirtsleeve session, staff and the consultant will present an overview of the report, engage in
diccmion on the options described, disGusa the puDlic input prmss and plan a timeline for decision
making. Staff proposes to circulate the draft to the various entities with which we collaborate on water
and related issues. Holding a public forum and making specific presentations can also be done. The
draft will also be posted on the City's web site. The report does not make a specific project
recommendation. Staff views this issue as much more than a technical question and hopes that we can
generate public interest and comment which the cil can to to account in making a decision.
&�4
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
Public Works Director
RCPtpmt
cc: Jim Krueger, Finance Director
Frank Beeler, Assistant WlWW Supt,
Rad Bartlam, Community Development Director
Del Kerlin, Asst. WIWW "treatment Supt.
Wally Sandelin, City Engineer
Charlie Swimley, Senior Civil Engineer
CWaterSupplyOptionsSS.doc
9/15/2004
Nil
r'
7—
i
Id
ol'ia ;;
I ,
ggd
Flo
.,. —
I - >w IIE
DRAFT
Surface Water Supply Options
Prepared for the
City of Lodi
LOM
Schlumberger
witer Services
September 2004
Table of Contents
Section1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................. I
WaterSupply and Demand................................................................................................... 1
NewAppropriations.............................................................................................................. 2
Surface Water Supply Options.............................................................................................. 3
RecycledWater Options....................................................................................................... 4
Mitigations for New Development....................................................................................... 5
Section2. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 8
Background........................................................................................................................... 8
Purposeof Report ...............................................................................................................
10
Section 3. Water Supply and Demand Characterization.................................................11
Historical and Projected Population....................................................................................
I I
Historical and Projected Water Demand.............................................................................
12
ConservationPrograms.......................................................................................................
14
AquiferSystem...................................................................................................................
15
San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Overdraft........................................................................
15
Groundwater Within City Limits........................................................................................
16
GroundwaterQuality..........................................................................................................
21
LodiDecree.........................................................................................................................
22
Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Rights.....................................................................
23
WID Purchase Agreement..................................................................................................
25
North San Joaquin Water Conservation District.................................................................
26
Section 4. Feasibility of New Appropriations....................................................................
28
Mokelumne River Water and Power Authority (Middle Bar/Duck Creek) ........................
28
American/Sacramento Rivers.............................................................................................
30
Participation in Stockton Delta Diversion Project..............................................................
32
Water Appropriations Summary.........................................................................................
35
Section 5. Options for Use of Surface Water Supply........................................................
36
Design Assumptions Common to All Alternatives.............................................................
36
Cost Assumptions Common to All Alternatives Evaluated ................................................
37
Surface Water Irrigation to Parks and Schools Using WID South Main Canal .................
38
Injection Well Recharge Alternative..................................................................................
41
Recharge Ponds Utilizing WID South Main Canal Surface Water ....................................
48
Surface Water Treatment Plant and Distribution................................................................
51
Southeast Recharge Utilizing NSJWCD Facilities.............................................................
55
EBMUD Banking and Large Scale Pump Back.................................................................
55
Interim EBMUD Drought Contingency..............................................................................
58
Interim Supply to Stockton Recharge Ponds......................................................................
59
Summary.............................................................................................................................
60
Section6. Recycled Water Options....................................................................................
62
Background.........................................................................................................................
62
Objective.............................................................................................................................
62
RecyclingOptions...............................................................................................................
63
Future Recycled Water Demand.........................................................................................
63
Balance Between Recycled Water Demand and Supply ....................................................
66
RecycledWater Options.....................................................................................................
67
Potential Funding Mechanisms...........................................................................................
71
Water Quality Requirements and Regulations....................................................................
72
Summary.............................................................................................................................
74
Section 7. Mitigations for New Development....................................................................
75
Water Use Efficiency Programs and Metering...................................................................
75
Funding and Construction of Water Supply Infrastructure.................................................
77
Reclamation and dual plumbing requirements...................................................................
79
Building Code and Landscaping Requirements..................................................................
79
Summary.............................................................................................................................
80
Section8. References...........................................................................................................
82
List of Tables
Table 1:
Summary of Alternatives........................................................................................... 7
Table 2:
Historical Population and Water Demand...............................................................
11
Table3:
Population Density...................................................................................................
12
Table 4:
Per Capita Water Demand.......................................................................................
13
Table 5:
Woodbridge Irrigation District Diversion Rights ....................................................
24
Table 6:
Historical WID Mokelumne River Diversions 1978 - 2000 ....................................
25
Table 7:
Current and Projected Unit Cost of WID Water ($/acre-foot) ................................
26
Table 8:
2003 Unit Construction Cost (Capital)....................................................................
37
Table 9:
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs..............................................................
38
Table 10:
Lodi Irrigation Water Demand (acre-ft/acre)........................................................
38
Table 11:
Surface Water Irrigation (Non -Potable) to Parks and Schools ...............................
39
Table 12:
Average Drawdown of Production Wells, 2002 ....................................................
42
Table 13:
Injection Well Alternative.....................................................................................
46
Table 14:
Pond Size Requirements........................................................................................
48
Table 15:
Westside Recharge Pond Alternative....................................................................
49
Table 16:
Eastside Recharge Pond Alternative......................................................................
51
Table 17:
Surface Water Treatment Plant Alternative...........................................................
53
Table 18:
Southeast Recharge Utilizing NSJWCD Facilities ................................................
55
Table 19:
EBMUD In -Lieu and Banking Potential...............................................................
56
Table 20:
Stockton Recharge Pond Alternative.....................................................................
60
Table 21:
Summary of Alternatives.......................................................................................
61
Table 22:
Examples of DHS Minimum Treatment Levels ....................................................
64
Table 23:
Future Potential Recycled Water Demand 2005 - 2020 ........................................
65
Table 24:
Demand Variability of Recycled Water From New Development ........................
66
Table 25:
White Slough Recycled Water Return ...................................................................
68
Table 26:
Scalping Facility Costs..........................................................................................
70
Table 27:
Forecasted Prop 50 Water Recycling Funds for Local Assistance ........................
71
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Well Locations and Average Production Rates ........................................................ 9
Figure 2:
Demand by Sector..................................................................................................
12
Figure 3:
Historical and Projected Water Demand................................................................
14
Figure 4:
Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin...............................................................
15
Figure 5:
Average Standing Water Elevation for Well No. 2 (1962-2002) ...........................
17
Figure 6:
1964 Groundwater Elevation Contours..................................................................
18
Figure 7:
1983 Groundwater Elevation Contours..................................................................
19
Figure 8:
2002 Groundwater Elevation Contours..................................................................
20
Figure 9:
Mokelumne River Water and Power Project..........................................................
28
Figure 10:
Freeport Project....................................................................................................
31
Figure 11:
Irrigation to Parks and Schools............................................................................
40
Figure 12:
Single Injection Well at 800 gpm Steady State Draw -Up ....................................
43
Figure 13:
Multiple Injection Wells at 800 gpm Steady State Draw -Up ...............................
43
Figure 14:
Injection Wells.....................................................................................................
47
Figure 15:
Recharge Ponds Alternatives Utilizing WID South Main Canal .........................
50
Figure 16:
Surface Water Treatment Plant............................................................................
54
Figure 17:
Regional Alternatives...........................................................................................
57
Figure 18:
Recycled Water Options.......................................................................................
69
Flow Rate Conversions
to get: 1 AF/yr gpm cfs mgd
gpm 1.614 1 0.0022 0.0014
multiply cfs by: 724.5 448.8 1 0.6463
mad 1 1121 694.4 1.547 1
Section 1. Executive Summary
This report looks at options for use of the surface water supply, assesses the use of recycled
water from the City's White Slough Water Pollution control facility, and identifies possible
mitigations for increased water demands for new developments.
Water Supply and Demand
Each year the City of Lodi water system delivers about 17,000 acre-feet of water from 24
active wells to approximately 17,000 customers serving about 60,000 people. Assuming
growth within the City's sphere of influence maintains current densities, annual water
demand at buildout would increase to about 22,000 acre-feet. This projection represents an
average growth rate of one percent per year at a per capita use of 225 gallons per day,
approximately 10 percent less than current rates. If growth were to occur at two percent with
the current per capita use of 250 gallons per day, the 2040 population density for the City
would be 70 percent greater than at present and annual water demand would be about 36,000
acre-feet per year. A demand of 22,000 acre-feet is used for this report as a reasonable
estimate of buildout demand within the City's current sphere of influence and is the basis for
evaluating alternatives.
In general, groundwater extractions in the City and surrounding area exceed natural
replenishment and groundwater levels have been declining for many years. Projected growth
will add approximately 5,000 acre-feet of demand on the aquifer system underlying the City.
To reduce this dependence on groundwater, the City has approved a $48 million, 40 -year
contract to buy water from the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). The contract with
WID will allow Lodi to use 6,000 acre-feet per year of WID surface water entitlement from
the Mokelumne River at a nominal initial cost of $200 per acre-foot. The agreement
increases the reliability of the City's water supply while allowing WID to pay for
replacement of its 100 -year-old Woodbridge Dam.
Water quality underlying the City is of very high quality, and is served to customers with
minimal treatment. The most significant water quality concerns are DBCP, arsenic,
TCE/PCE, and radon. Six of the City's wells are equipped with GAC treatment for removal
of DBCP. Additional contaminants could be introduced through injection of surface water
supplies, or through the mixing of treated surface water into the City's distribution system.
Provisions have been made for protection of the water supply in the various alternatives
considered in this report. Nonetheless, a detailed study of water quality, compatibility of
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 1 of 83
surface and groundwaters, and treatment methods should be performed for any recharge
project prior to implementation.
New Appropriations
There are several ongoing efforts in the region to obtain new surface water appropriations.
The City of Lodi has varying degrees of involvement in each of these efforts, which include:
• the Mokelumne River Water and Power ("More Water") Project
• San Joaquin County/GBA diversion from the American/Sacramento Rivers
• the City of Stockton Delta Supply Project
The Mokelumne River Water and Power ("More Water") Project is being developed by a
consortium of San Joaquin County agencies including Lodi. The project would involve a
new diversion from the Mokelumne River and off -stream storage at the Duck Creek site. A
water right application has been submitted. Preliminary engineering is to be completed by
August 2004, and environmental documentation completed in 2005. Cost of this water
supply has not yet been determined.
San Joaquin County has applied for a water right from the South Fork American River and
has recently amended the application to allow diversion from the Sacramento River at the
Freeport site. The County is working with San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking
Authority, of which Lodi is a member, to develop this concept into a groundwater banking
project. Cost to deliver this water to San Joaquin County would be about $290 per acre-foot,
plus the cost of groundwater recharge facilities.
The City of Stockton Delta Supply Project would divert up to 125,900 acre-feet per year
from the San Joaquin River in the Delta by 2050. A water right application was submitted in
1996 and environmental documentation is underway. The preferred option would convey
water along Eight Mile Road to east of Interstate 5, approximately five miles from Lodi. Full
diversion amounts are not expected to be available year-round, and groundwater banking in
north Stockton is planned to bridge this shortfall. A preliminary estimate projects a unit cost
of $350 per acre-foot of treated potable supply. The City of Stockton may be interested in
purchasing a portion of the Lodi WID water as an interim supply until the project is
permitted and constructed. Lodi might participate in development of regional groundwater
recharge facilities.
The City should continue its involvement in and monitoring of the More Water and
GBA/Freeport projects. It is recommended that the City continue discussions and
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 2 of 83
negotiations with the City of Stockton for both short-term and long-term joint water recharge
options using the WID supply.
Surface Water Supply Options
Surface water supply options were evaluated to determine the most cost effective sources of
supply and how to effectively put those sources to use. Surface water supply options
examined include direct surface water treatment and distribution to customers, groundwater
injection wells, pond recharge, direct supply for irrigation use, and regional groundwater
banking projects.
Among the City -only alternatives, and excluding the cost of the WID water purchase, the
most cost-effective means of using the WID supply is through percolation ponds in close
proximity to the WID South Canal (average recharge cost of $100/AF for operations and
capital repayment). Recharging groundwater on the eastern side of town either from the
WID canal or through the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District system is the next
least expensive option ($160/AF), offering the best opportunity for recharge upgradient of
City wells. Using the WID supply to irrigate parks and schools is also a reasonable option
($180/AF), but would be limited to about 1000 acre-feet per year. Use of injection wells,
while feasible, would require a widely dispersed system increasing the cost of the alternative
($280/AF).
Constructing a surface water treatment plant would allow the WID supply to be served to
City customers in lieu of groundwater pumping. The surface water treatment plant is two to
three times more expensive than pond recharge alternatives ($320/AF) and would require
additional facilities to chlorinate the entire City distribution system.
Regional projects with the City of Stockton or the East Bay Municipal Utility District on
either an interim or long-term basis has the potential for mutual benefit. It may be possible to
negotiate agreements that would fully offset Lodi's costs ($0/AF) for a water supply project.
An interim agreement for an in -river transfer of the WID-purchase water to EBMUD has the
potential for mutual benefit to both parties — by providing interim cost offsets to Lodi's WID
purchase, and supplying EBMUD with a drought contingency supply until its Freeport
project is completed. Negotiations with EBMUD should be restarted on both the interim in -
river exchange option, and long-term water banking arrangements. Negotiations with the
City of Stockton should be considered.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 3 of 83
It is recommended that percolation tests be conducted for a period of several months at both
the proposed Westside and Eastside recharge pond sites to establish feasibility of long-term
percolation.
It is further recommended that well pump tests be conducted on wells of known construction
in the southern and eastern portions of the City to provide refined estimates of aquifer
parameters used in the injection well feasibility analysis. At least two of these wells should
be temporarily converted to injection wells for pilot testing.
Recycled Water Options
The recycled water section of this report provides a framework for future decision-making
regarding recycling options for tertiary treated effluent within the City's service area.
Recycling options available to the City are reviewed along with the potential pathways for
financial support associated with capital improvements and the current water quality
regulations for recycled water projects. Use of recycled water is moderately to greatly more
expensive than surface water recharge projects, but may provide offsetting benefits as
regulatory requirements become more restrictive.
Facilities to pump tertiary -treated wastewater from the White Slough Water Pollution
Control Facility for application on irrigated areas within the City would cost about $240 per
acre-foot. Building in -City tertiary treatment facilities would obviate the need for a pump -
back pipeline, but would be significantly more expensive ($920/AF). These estimates
exclude the cost of a new non -potable distribution system and regulating storage. Costs for
the non -potable distribution system to serve new development might be reasonably required
as a fee to mitigate increased water demand.
Recycled water projects are not cost -competitive with other options available to the City
using the WID supply. However, grant funding for study and construction of recycled water
projects under Proposition 50 will soon be available and could make Lodi's use of recycled
water viable. The City should monitor and apply for grant money when it becomes available.
The City staff should also evaluate cost-saving offsets of reduced White Slough operation,
delay of planned White Slough expansions, and plant upgrades required by reasonably
foreseeable regulatory changes.
A summary of the cost of the water recharge options is presented in Table 1. Unit recharge
costs range from $100 per acre-foot for the Westside recharge pond to $3201 per acre-foot for
' Additional costs for chlorination of City distribution system would be necessary.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 4 of 83
a surface water treatment plant. Facilities to pump tertiary -treated wastewater from the
White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility for application on irrigated areas within the
City would cost about $240 per acre-foot. Building in -City tertiary treatment facilities would
obviate the need for a pump -back pipeline, but would be significantly more expensive.
These costs exclude the cost of a new non -potable distribution system and regulating storage.
Costs for the non -potable distribution system to serve new development might be reasonably
required as a fee to mitigate increased water demand.
As context, cost to supply water to San Joaquin County through the planned Freeport Project
facilities could cost as much as $290 per acre-foot plus the cost of groundwater recharge
facilities, and the planned City of Stockton's Delta Water Supply Project is projected to
produce potable water at $350 per acre-foot.
Mitigations for New Development
New developments will add additional demand on the City's water resources and require
construction of additional facilities to accommodate this demand. The developer mitigation
section reviews the practices of northern California municipal utilities that impose
development mitigation requirements and compiles a list of potential requirements that the
City could reasonably enforce to mitigate increased water demand.
As a result of studying various urban water management plans, several potential mitigations
can be proposed for new developments in the City of Lodi. In summary, these mitigations
are:
• Water use efficiency programs and metering
o Meter water usage and charge by volume
o Submetering of apartments, condominiums, and trailer parks
o Establishing an inclining block rate structure
o Require automatic irrigation systems in new development
o Charge developer a water meter installation fee
o Provide detailed and educational billing statements
o Fund water meter retrofit programs for older homes
• Funding and construction of water supply infrastructure
o Charge a connection charge tied to the cost of the existing supply and
distribution system
o Charge fees that cover new water production and transmission facilities and
infrastructure including surface water fee tied to the cost of acquiring and
developing the new supply, or alternately, require developer construction of
such facilities that serve a single development or limited geographic area
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 5 of 83
• Reclamation and dual plumbing requirements
o Require dual distribution systems with dual connections to allow for
reclaimed water landscape irrigation in public and common areas
o Provide incentives for reclaimed water or grey water landscaping at private
facilities
o Require funding of in -city wastewater treatment plants to be used for
reclaimed water supply
o Require use of reclaimed water for construction and dust control uses
• Building code and landscaping requirements
o Require automatic irrigation systems for new single-family homes
o Provide incentives for drought -tolerant landscaping
o Require the installation of low -flow water user fixtures in residential and
commercial developments
o Provide incentives for water -efficient appliances
o Provide incentives for xeriscape landscaping
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 6 of 83
Table 1: Summary of Alternatives
Stockton Interim Recharge $0 to
$0 to
Average
Estimated City
Estimated
Annualized
Unit Cost in
$950,000
Project Category
Alternative
Water Supply
$/AF of Avg.
Comments
$0 to
$0 to
(AF/year)
Capital Cost
O&M Cost
Cost'
Use
$630
water export may be controversial
Surface Water Irrigation of
1,000
$1,400,000
$68,000
$180,000
$180
Does not maximize use of WID supply
Parks and Schools
Small amount of surface area required; provides direct recharge; high
Injection Wells
6,000
$14,600,000
$520,000
$1,660,000
$280
operation and maintenance costs; requires dispersed network of injection
and extraction wells
Westside Recharge Pond
6,000
$6,000,000
$112,000
$580,000
$100
Most economical; land available; suitable infiltration rates
Surface Water
Projects City
with
Cost
Eastside Recharge Pond
6,000
$9,400,000
$191,000
$930,000
$160
Recharge located in area of lowest GW levels; land available; suitable
infiltration rates
Surface Water Treatment
6,000
$13,900,000
$800,000
$1,890,000
$320
Provides in -lieu groundwater recharge; disinfection of entire distribution
Plant
system required; needs base line supply
Recharge Utilizing NSJWCD
6,000
$10,400,000
$150,000
$960,000
$160
Recharge located in area of lowest groundwater levels; land available;
Facilities
additional capacity using NSJWCD supply
Stockton Interim Recharge $0 to
$0 to
$0 to
$0 to
Interim project to offset WID purchase costs; use of flood control facilities
Ponds 6,000
$10,800,000
$110,000
$950,000
$160
could reduce cost
Regional Projects
with Shared or No EBMUD In -Lieu and Banking $0 to
$0 to
$0 to
$0 to
Recharge located in area of lowest GW levels: cost sharing opportunities;
6,000
City Cost2 Potential $31,600,000
$1,300,000
$3,770,000
$630
water export may be controversial
EBMUD In -River Exchange 0 5 $0 $0 $0 net revenue Interim revenue generation option. Average supply to EBMUD 1,000
generator AF/yr, leaving 5,000 AF/yr for local recharge
White Slough Recycled
Recycled Water Water Return
Projects with City
Cost
Scalping Facility 3,4
2,000 $4,700,000 $98,000 $470,000 $240 No new cost for water; funding assistance may be available; public
perception issues;
2,000 $14,600,000 $700,000 $1,840,000 $920 No new cost for water; funding assistance may be available; public
perception issues
1 Capital repayment based on a 25 -year payback period with 6% interest; Table does not include the price of water
2 Range of costs reflects to -be -negotiated cost sharing
3 Excludes non -potable distribution system and regulating storage
4 Excludes offsetting benefit of operation delayed expansion of White Slough WPCF
53,000 AF of WID supply transferred to EBMUD in 1/3 of years
Section 2. Introduction
Background
The City of Lodi Water Utility system incorporates 24 active wells, over 207 miles of water
transmission mains, a water tower, and a one million gallon storage tank. a The current water
supply for the City is pumped entirely from local groundwater. The City delivers water to
approximately 17,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers serving
approximately 60,000 people. In 2001, 16,700 acre-feet of water was pumped to meet water
demands. In general, groundwater extractions in the City and surrounding area exceed
natural replenishment and groundwater levels have been declining for many years.
Wells located throughout the service area deliver water directly to the distribution system.
This supply is delivered untreated, except in certain areas and at certain times. Six wells are
equipped with activated carbon water treatment units, and two have ultraviolet contactors.
The typical capacity of a new water supply well is about 1,600 gallons per minute (gpm).
Approximate well locations along with average production rates of each well are shown in
Figure 1.
A Water Master Plan was prepared in 1962 to design the water system to meet future City
needs. The plan was updated in 1977 and 19903. The City's 1991 General Plano provides
land use, zoning and population figures. Identified issues in the General Plan include water
quality, groundwater basin overdraft, and the "Central Area restriction."
To reduce its dependence on groundwater, the City recently approved a $48 million, 40 -year
contract to buy water from the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). The contract with
WID will allow Lodi to use 6,000 acre-feet per year of WID surface water entitlement from
the Mokelumne River at a nominal initial cost of $200 per acre -foots. The agreement
increases the reliability of the City's water supply while allowing WID to pay to replace
Woodbridge Dam. This new dam will replace the existing structure, which is over 100 years
old and allow Lodi Lake to be full all year long. The existing dam is equipped with flash
boards which must be removed to allow potential Mokelumne River storm flows in the
Mokelumne River to pass unimpeded during winter months, thus draining Lodi Lake each
winter.
2 http://www.lodi.gov
3 Psomas, 1990, City of Lodi Water Master Plan
4 Jones and Stokes Associates, 1991, City of Lodi General Plan
5 Additional provisions of this agreement are presented in Chapter 3, "WID Purchase Agreement"
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 8 of 83
T I r
�tl I
i y ry7
I • 1 r�Y
V
�1
���{�� f i`� i�'7rM �� rF�►','�P �M ' ��{.�I
� mak,
-- � �., ►� ,n� ���- ^R:� "r �, {7M
74
'<`�s" i i �,� s r'x r 3� 4 ., r �a �?,�,A r !'' 1 ;t d r '�r_•I �.
°'�,` J7. 1�<�—, r, 1 w Y � {I �z � J__; i ��, .. aYt� ray �� �i *lP l:..Y � ' {"q.l r���'+�i,♦ � `��. A��Y�� 1..
T1fa'..
1 4�l'� ■e e A — { 7 rs.� r r a■ , u c {� _ur
1 .
p ;
O ._`., '.:Yv - f..3 h ,:i' to ; k,. p '',.,`,. .' 4(� 7l"' *a 3- 1
I'� � )� }r A � F rpt � . 1 � ]. � , -•` Yt�l
i
•) tl �.� li � - t rs'Jt1�p 1r�MY r'�1:
1
7m
p
do
� ar
1
1w KAI
Tit
Purpose of Report
The City of Lodi is proactively addressing water supply alternatives to ensure a sustainable
source for its current and future water demands. SKS was retained by the City to address
three main water supply issues, presented in this report:
1. Assess options for use of surface water supply.
2. Assess feasibility of using recycled water from the White Slough Water Pollution
Control Facility (WPCF)
3. Identify mitigations for increased water demand from new developments.
Surface water supply options were evaluated to determine the most cost effective sources of
supply and how to effectively put those sources to use. Surface water supply options
examined include direct surface water treatment and distribution to customers, groundwater
injection wells, pond recharge, direct supply for irrigation use, and regional groundwater
banking projects.
The recycled water section of this report provides a framework for future decision-making
regarding recycling options for tertiary treated effluent within the City's service area.
Recycling options available to the City are reviewed along with the potential pathways for
financial support associated with capital improvements and the current water quality
regulations for recycled water projects.
New developments will add additional demand on the City's water resources and require
construction of additional facilities to accommodate this demand. The developer mitigation
section reviews the practices of northern California municipal utilities that impose
development mitigation requirements and compiles a list of potential requirements that the
City could reasonably enforce to mitigate increased water demand.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 10 of 83
Section 3. Water Supply and Demand
Characterization
Historical and Projected Population
Historical population figures Table 2: Historical Population and Water Demand
received from the City for the
ears 1970 to 2002 are Year Population a Population
AFNearWater e ti Gallons per
y person per day
summarized in Table 2. The
1970
28,614
11,462
358
population of Lodi grew at an
1971
29,307
2.42%
12,303
375
average rate of 2.8% per year
1972
29,990
2.33%
11,686
348
between 1970 and 1987. Since
1973
30,650
2.20%
12,205
355
1987 the City has limited all
1974
30,960
1.01%
12,002
346
1975
31,350
1.26%
12,294
350
growth to two percent annually by
1976
32,150
2.55%
13,607
378
controlling the allocation of
1977
32,250
0.31%
10,578
293
building permits. Growth from
1978
32,932
2.11%
11,478
311
1987 through 2003 has averaged
1979
33,356
1.29%
12,349
331
1980
34,400
3.13%
12,312
320
1.9% per year.
1981
35,450
3.05%
12,487
314
1982
36,928
4.17%
11,560
279
To estimate future population
1983
38,318
3.76%
11,539
269
growth this study assumes a low
1984
39,679
3.55%
13,997
315
1985
41,323
4.14%
14,814
320
and high estimate of 1% and 2%
1986
43,293
4.77%
15,081
311
growth per year through 2040. At
1987
45,795
5.78%
15,305
298
1% growth, the 2040 population
1988
48,042
4.91%
15,360
285
1989
49,221
2.45%
14,654
266
would reach 86,300 or about a
1990
50,328
2.25%
15,387
273
50% increase. At 2% annual
1991
52,539
4.39%
13,313
226
growth the 2040 population would
1992
53,186
1.23%
13,985
235
reach 127,900. Table 3 compares
1993
53,293
0.20%
14,013
235
1994
53,903
1.14%
14,301
237
historical population and density
1995
54,000
0.18%
14,390
238
to the population projections for
1996
54,473
0.88%
15,102
248
2040. The area of the City is
1997
54,700
0.42%
16,330
267
taken from various sources. The
1998
55,681
1.79%
14,461
232
1999
56,926
2.24%
16,587
260
buildout area of the City is
2000
57,935
1.77%
16,722
258
assumed to be 8,990 acres as
2001
58,600
1.15%
17,106
261
stated in 1991 General Plan.
2002
58,600
1.42%
16,640
250
2003
60,521
1.83%
16,185
239
a Data received from the City of Lodi.
b Total water production for system (all residential,
industrial,
commercial,
landscape,
etc.)
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page I1 of 83
Year
1987
2002
Table 3: Population Density
Population City Area (acres) Density (persons/ acre)
45,794 4,998a
59,431 7,066'
9.2
8.4
2040 - Low (1 % Annual Growth) 86,300 8,990° 9.6
2040 - High (2% Annual Growth) 127,900 8,990° 14.2
a 1987 acreage from 1988 General Plan
b 2002 acreage from personal communication w/Eric Viercamp, City Planning Dept, 4/25/03
c Buildout acreage from 1991 General Plan including Reserve Area
As shown in Table 3, an average annual population growth of 1% would generate a
population density of 9.6 persons per acre in 2040. An average annual population growth of
2% would generate a population density of 14.2 persons per acre in 2040, a 70% increase in
density over current levels. Given the historical population density of 8.4 to 9.2 persons per
acre, it seems more reasonable to assume annual City growth will average 1 % over the next
40 years, even though buildout may be reached sooner. This assumes that the total area
designated for buildout does not increase during the next 40 years.
Historical and Projected Water
Demand
City water demand from 1970 through 2000 is
reported in the 2001 Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP). Water demand grew at a slower rate
relative to population with an average increase in
demand of 1.3% from 1970 to 2000. As illustrated
in Figure 2, residential demand dominates City
water use, amounting to approximately 72 percent
of City water demands.6
Dividing the total water demand by the population,
without correction for changes in commercial and
industrial uses, results in the gross per capita
demand presented in Table 2. This table shows a
steady decreasing trend in per capita use from 358
gallons per capita day (gpcd) in 1970 to 239 gpcd in 2003.
Figure 2: Demand by Sector
6 11/23/98 memorandum to Lodi City Council, "Water Supply Master Plan"
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 12 of 83
For this study, the current 2002 demand of 250 gpcd was assumed as the high estimate of
future demand. However with continued aggressive implementation of conservation
practices, a reduction of an additional 10% in water demand may be possible. A 10%
reduction of the 2002 unit use to 225 gpcd is assumed for a low estimate of future per capita
demand.
Table 4 displays historical and
projected (1990 and 2020) per
capita water use for the Lodi
and water suppliers located
near Lodi. The per capita use
rates for water suppliers near
the City are taken from DWR
Bulletin 160-98. The 2020
forecast is a product of model
runs reflecting the
implementation of water
conservation measures and
socioeconomic change. As
shown in Table 4, the
projected average decrease in
Table 4: Per Capita Water Demand
Percent
a DWR Bulletin 160-98, p.4-15
bAverage of 1988 to 1992 per capita water use taken from historical data to
account for variations in hydrology
°The California Aggie, 5/7/04
d Modesto 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. 1995 per capita use assumed
in UWMP projection. Residential uses taken alone are reported to average 170
gpcd.
water use is roughly 11% between 1990 and 2020 for water suppliers near the City.
Stockton, EBMUD, and Davis are fully metered. Lodi, Fresno, Sacramento, and Modesto
are unmetered. Approximately 22% of Merced is metered .$ The average per capita water use
from 1988-1992 is presented in Table 4 as the 1990 water use for the City to account for
variations in hydrology. As shown in Table 4, a 225 gpcd for the City in 2020 would
represent a 12.5% reduction from average 1990 numbers.
These assumed growth and per capita use rates result in the demand projections shown in
Figure 3. The low demand projection for 2040 estimates an average annual water demand of
21,700 acre-feet, using a 1% population growth rate and a 10% reduction in current per
capita water use. The high demand projection for 2040 estimates an average annual water
demand of 35,800 acre-feet, using a 2% population growth rate and 2002 per capita water
use.
7 City of Manteca reports a 2002 consumption rate of 217 gpcd, and is fully metered
(http://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/eng/water/facts.html)
8 1999 data from http://water-energy.lbl.gov/pubs/CalifomiaWaterMeters.pdf
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 13 of 83
1990 gpcd
2020 gpcd
Change
Cal Water,Stocktona
187
162
-13.4%
EBMUD'
196
171
-12.8%
City of Davis'
230
185
-20.0%
City of Fresnoa
285
262
-8.1%
City of Sacramentoa
290
263
-9.3%
City of Modestod
289
289
0.0%
City of Merceda
336
299
-11.0%
Average
-10.7%
Lodi
2572
225
-12.5%
a DWR Bulletin 160-98, p.4-15
bAverage of 1988 to 1992 per capita water use taken from historical data to
account for variations in hydrology
°The California Aggie, 5/7/04
d Modesto 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. 1995 per capita use assumed
in UWMP projection. Residential uses taken alone are reported to average 170
gpcd.
water use is roughly 11% between 1990 and 2020 for water suppliers near the City.
Stockton, EBMUD, and Davis are fully metered. Lodi, Fresno, Sacramento, and Modesto
are unmetered. Approximately 22% of Merced is metered .$ The average per capita water use
from 1988-1992 is presented in Table 4 as the 1990 water use for the City to account for
variations in hydrology. As shown in Table 4, a 225 gpcd for the City in 2020 would
represent a 12.5% reduction from average 1990 numbers.
These assumed growth and per capita use rates result in the demand projections shown in
Figure 3. The low demand projection for 2040 estimates an average annual water demand of
21,700 acre-feet, using a 1% population growth rate and a 10% reduction in current per
capita water use. The high demand projection for 2040 estimates an average annual water
demand of 35,800 acre-feet, using a 2% population growth rate and 2002 per capita water
use.
7 City of Manteca reports a 2002 consumption rate of 217 gpcd, and is fully metered
(http://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/eng/water/facts.html)
8 1999 data from http://water-energy.lbl.gov/pubs/CalifomiaWaterMeters.pdf
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 13 of 83
The 1991 Lodi General Plan adopted a buildout water demand of 33,000 acre-feet per year
(31.4 mgd) and a build -out population of 96,721 (304 gpcd). 2007 demand was projected as
26,900 acre-feet per year (24.0 mgd) serving a population of 71,665 (335 gpcd).
40,000
35,000
30,000
T 25,000
LL
Q
20,000
CU
E
15,000
10,000
5,000
Historical
—Low (1% growth, 225 gpcd)
—High (2% growth, 250 gpcd)
t Gen. Plan est. for 2007 (335 gpcd)
—Gen. Plan est. for build -out (304 gpcd)
0
1970
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Figure 3: Historical and Projected Water Demand
Conservation Programs
The City's water conservation program was started in 1977 in the midst of a severe two-year
drought. A pilot meter installation program was initiated that same year. The non-residential
retrofit program was discontinued in 1994. The City's conservation efforts include yard
watering restrictions and enforcement, in -school education programs, public information and
education programs, distribution of water conservation kits, and building code enforcement.9
The City Public Works and Electric Utility Departments sponsor a Residential and
Commercial Water Conservation Rebate Program, which will provide up to $44 of the cost
of retrofitting older toilets with a modern Ultra Low -Flow Toilet (ULFT) or up to $100 for
installation of a pressure -assisted ULFT. Additional rebates of 50 percent are offered for
installation of low -flow shower heads, insulated hot water blankets, and hose bib manual
timers through local hardware distributors.
9 Handout material from City of Lodi 7/26/98 public water workshop
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 14 of 83
Aquifer System
The City of Lodi overlies the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin, which is an integral,
interconnected part of the Central Valley Groundwater Basin. As defined in DWR Bulletin
118-80, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin is bounded by the San Joaquin and
Stanislaus rivers to the west and south, the Calaveras County line along the foothills to the
east, and Dry Creek to the north. Figure 4 displays the location of the Eastern San Joaquin
Groundwater Basin in relation to the City.
The 1985 Eastern San Joaquin County
Groundwater Study10 concluded that
the supply of fresh groundwater in the
basin is contained in the Mehrten
formation and overlying younger
aquifer units. The upper aquifer is
considered unconfined to semi -
confined in the central part of San
Joaquin County. Groundwater
contour maps suggest the aquifer
underlying Lodi is largely unconfined.
Figure 4: Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin
San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Overdraft
DWR Bulletin 118-80 characterizes the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin as
"subject to conditions of critical overdraft" and estimates a supplemental supply of 77,000
AF/yr is required to balance inflow and outflow.
DWR studied eastern San Joaquin County as a part of the Stanislaus-Calaveras conjunctive
use project in 1997. This study suggested that the annual overdraft in the eastern County was
about 70,000 acre-feet per year at 1990 levels of development. A later study completed by
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as part of the American River Water Resource Investigation
estimated overdraft at 130,000 acre-feet per year at a 2030 level of development.
10 Brown and Caldwell, 1985
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 15 of 83
The 1998 DWR California Water Plan Update 11 characterizes the long history of overdraft
and declining groundwater levels in Eastern San Joaquin County. Groundwater extraction to
meet agricultural and urban demands has created two pronounced pumping depressions since
the late 1940s and early 1950s. The larger depression is between the Mokelumne and
Stanislaus Rivers. The center of this depression is east of Stockton, where groundwater
levels can be more than 70 feet below sea level following the irrigation season. The other
groundwater depression is between the Cosumnes and Mokelumne rivers, extending north
into Sacramento County. Groundwater levels here are more than 30 feet below sea level.
While not currently an issue in Lodi, the pumping depressions described have allowed for
easterly migration of poor quality saline water underlying the Delta into western Stockton.
Several municipal wells in west Stockton have been abandoned because of the decline in
groundwater quality due to saline water migration.
Saline water at a concentration of 300 ppm of chloride has been mapped in west and
southwest Stockton from the Stockton Ship Channel to the County hospital and as far east as
Airport Way (approximately halfway between Interstate 5 and State Highway 99). Chloride
concentrations above 300 parts per million (ppm) are generally not suitable for most drinking
water and irrigation uses. The 2001 San Joaquin County Water Management Plan 12 reiterates
these findings describing the link between groundwater pumping in the east county region
and the easterly migration of poor quality water underlying the Delta.
Groundwater Within City Limits
Historical groundwater levels measured within the City's service area indicate that the more
groundwater is extracted annually than is replenished. The 2001 UWMP notes an average
annual decrease in groundwater levels from 1927 to 2000 of 0.35 feet per year within the
City. Figure 5 displays the average annual standing water elevation at municipal supply Well
No. 2 from 1962 to 2002. As shown in Figure 5, the average annual groundwater level
fluctuates dependant upon variations in recharge, but the long-term trend has shown a general
decline in groundwater levels.
Figures 6 through 8 display groundwater contours of equal elevation relative to mean sea
level (MSL) for the years 1964, 1983, and 2002. The average ground surface elevation of
Lodi is approximately 51 feet above MSL. Average annual standing water elevations of
11 California Department of Water Resources, November 1998, The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin
160-98
12 Camp Dresser & McKee, October 2001, San Joaquin Count Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Water Management Plan Phase 1 — Planning Analysis and Strategy.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 16 of 83
municipal supply wells were used to develop the elevation contours for the aforementioned
years. As shown in the three figures, groundwater elevations have declined between 10 and
15 feet throughout the City from 1964 to 2002. Depth to groundwater ranges between 30 and
75 feet. The shallowest groundwater is found in the northern portion of the City near the
Mokelumne River.
20
15
-5 1 1
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Figure 5: Average Standing Water Elevation for Well No. 2 (1962-2002)
The declining groundwater levels within the City service area indicate that the sustainable
groundwater extraction rate is less than current annual pumping rates. To date, the safe yield
of the groundwater basin underlying the City has not been determined. The 2001 UWMP
estimated sustainable groundwater pumping at 12,000 AF/yr, approximately equivalent to the
pumping rate in 1980.
Quantifying safe yield of a basin is inherently complex and is beyond the scope of this study.
Conservative estimates of safe yield on a unit area basis for the region are typically on the
order of one acre-foot of water extracted per acre per year. The current sphere of influence
for the City is approximately 8,990 acres, which would give a conservative estimate of safe
yield of roughly 9,000 acre-feet per year. Given the close proximity of the Mokelumne River
to Lodi, the safe yield of the City's service area is probably slightly higher than this estimate.
But given the decline in groundwater elevation over the past two decades the safe yield is
likely less than the previous 20 -year extraction rates of 14,000 acre-feet or more.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 17 of 83
J
•i' � Yu qq f � __
� 3 �!•. � & t m '^; � �t v�'°;.aJ��Fl� ,=. •���� �?¢ eA�R•� lei �'. �
r
ST
�. � �j �'!�W �.,...w: ts�F•r.,, f. �"'rMry, '.ii ,� r §a Y.. Mn t ��.. .w-"�{s"�JJ�-��1
4LA+
Ai. ! ay PC, �l� � S
Jd
i y 5r �7 71
'
1tip
r �r�r w, :.e t tl x A t', 1 : �, a• •l. V•i,f � 4`. .'C rr 1r'I , INC:
�P:,41
!.�
71"1 w` �;l�y t .p'�� ►�,,: ¢
Fit -
I
�II �l
j:1A11 �•� l4- i�.
J .t �,", ++ 4..i'�I a y``. • • i b t� fit. R a.� __
■a •' rl ��...
8[111!
r PCry _IF' ',' A
• _a'il�i ' � � �- i { i � j � IP a�,��y �, �.al' � � � �°^+•�'�,� -�I.yF '• � �i 'Ri -
` For^�,'1W' ro � III. �dr� ! Iii-' . �r-a�'� � �� - _9 .yam •,
1 p i
do 7;
s
v
_ -
.Ip r
I
'-Y # ` � • �
4r. 1i r � �
�#I
MUM �.
_ U M
3 GC J. � A �.. f �' �• l � ,1
.
�p
� � %�3 � �'' �tsaY'` { j � � rMry, ,,i6 ,�,r•�§a�Ln"'j.� _..a",F{,•'°�—.
_ •-d ' r " . SiY� �::.2.: ' _ 1r �f �� � , '14
Al
�•�+�+�, AtW wx#! r e�� r K _ _:. � ,
-
sa'tAj r r" i� 3►-7iL� r � ' L. ' i i # �', I i'�. �. � '�a"�.
Ala
re,
�, �„ � y��.� .y ,1N,�, • � � . � � :; +f��. ��+' . FBF
osi
'.'vr #�+`. � y,�1 7 �' i � � p''!'�.9� A I•t '.L ' .�M;T��,.r �. 4r A.: �_�''}-,.
13,
R
OWN
WIN
It
. '� • �. !1. ti v r � ,.,• .! ,' �� •sir ] � `�F�; }'_ -L .
lkis �,,�..t ""•�: Cyt rr 13�, -its-' ,I
A� 1 ;�o ':I .�•.. - nJ'+ r _ , i:: #•„ r}'i 1R
rFL7I1� �•{,
Ml
' , _,i"�� i . • �'�' � `�- i ' i F tP ' � �y ' �� sya �� �+. { ] ' �,,.°"e'."� �f t � � -' � I i. •Ri -
{:�dt:lL,.
v
- -
r
r �
s � , . - � � �r .,, � � �+, � a: a��1q � +".ai,� �I"�'s�6 •� R' " irk _��
Y �� � �..-�T e � t� v �h'!I ,q�.' A s f � �.,7 7� Ys , AF 4'' �Y�'►'... .� � :: ' � @,@"� .:o Y � „_ i
�• s r rs t � f dd //�� ` a `,fit,
..� - '�`Y ? .. ni0. .�I�■�"tea-� WAL
IMP
all
Lot '52M
Ala
w MIA
.. •�-''.JI, -M � :� •�>. ����''F rl.� � ..pt.� ,yf:..t+,U,,�¢sa'.,Ri�7 � l�M,., I'{
, u.
.31
4 F, ♦ q: r•� z'r� ' - r ��'fill
I r � :'
Aft
I6
rt � xLd�-�-
V� „"yl� �r � •Itq�j 't� a� � ( _w' i 1. •�
' ,.�i"�I�' �• ' �'�' � `�-i 1 is � j �tP'Y,�>ly � � s�a� � {]' �^'a'"'b.�f t � ��i. Ri -
�,��'
9
971;
s
v
Groundwater Quality
The most significant water quality concerns in the City's service area is DBCP
(dibromochloropropane), arsenic, TCE/PCE, and radon.
DBCP (dibromochloropropane)
Six of the City's municipal supply wells are equipped with granular activated carbon (GAC)
treatment systems for removal of DBCP (dibromochloropropane). The pesticide DBCP was
used in vineyards up until 1979 for nematode control, and is extremely persistent in
groundwater. DBCP has contaminated tap water in 38 water systems in nine counties. Lodi,
Fresno, Riverside, Clovis, and Madera are the largest communities with a serious problem.
DBCP has been shown to cause cancer in lab animals when exposed to very high levels over
their lifetimes.
The U.S. EPA and State of California drinking water standard for DBCP has been set at 0.2
parts per billion (ppb). Drinking water standards are set to include a safety factor for the
general population and take into account the cost and practicality of removing the particular
contaminant. Lodi water served through the distribution system is below the DBCP level
deemed safe by the U.S. EPA and the State of California. 13 In 1996 the City settled a lawsuit
against DBCP manufacturers, who have paid and will continue to pay a large portion of
Lodi's costs related to DBCP treatment over a 40 -year settlement.
Arsenic
Arsenic is a mineral known to cause cancer in humans at high concentrations and is linked to
other health effects such as skin damage and circulatory problems. The EPA is currently
lowering the drinking water standard for arsenic from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. The average in
Lodi's wells is 3.5 ppb and the highest well is 7.7 ppb.
TCE/PCE (Trichloroethylene/Perchloroethylene)
Low concentrations of the chemicals TCE and PCE (trichloroethylene and
perchloroethylene) have been found in Lodi groundwater, mainly in the downtown area
bounded by Mills Avenue, Kettleman Lane, and Highway 99. The MCL for PCE and TCE
in drinking water is 5 ppb. The average concentration of Lodi wells in 2002 was 0.04 and
0.12 ppb for PCE and TCE, respectively. The source of these chemicals is thought to be
13 http://www.lodi.gov
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 21 of 83
discharges from dry cleaning and other industrial businesses. The City is pursuing a
resolution to the contamination problem and continues to retain legal and engineering
assistance for future remediation efforts.
PCE is a manufactured chemical that is widely used for dry cleaning of fabrics and for metal -
degreasing. TCE is used mainly as a solvent to remove grease from metal parts, but it is also
an ingredient in adhesives, paint removers, typewriter correction fluids, and spot removers.
Radon
Radon is a radioactive byproduct of uranium that occurs naturally in groundwater. It has a
short half-life of just 3.8 days, and readily volatizes when exposed to air. Breathing radon in
the indoor air of homes is the primary public health risk from radon. The 1996 Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments required EPA to establish several new, health -based drinking water
regulations, including a multimedia approach to address the public health risks from radon.
States can choose to develop enhanced programs to address the health risks from radon in
indoor air -- known as Multimedia Mitigation (MMM) programs — in conjunction with water
systems reducing radon levels in drinking water to 4,000 pCi/L (picoCuries per liter, a
standard unit of radiation) or lower. EPA is encouraging states to adopt this option because it
is the most cost-effective way to achieve the greatest radon risk reduction.
If a state chooses not to develop an MMM program, individual water systems in that state
would be required to either reduce radon in their system's drinking water to 300 pCi/L or
develop individual local MMM programs and reduce levels in drinking water to 4,000 pCi/L.
Water systems already at or below 300 pCi/L standard would not be required to treat their
water for radon. In 2002, the City's wells averaged 378 pCi/L and range from 268-568.14
Lodi Decree
When EBMUD was planning and constructing Pardee Dam in the 1920s, there was
considerable concern in Lodi that the dam would interfere with the seepage from the natural
flow of the Mokelumne River that replenished the City's water supply. In January 1929,
Lodi filed suit in San Joaquin Superior Court to enjoin EBMUD from diverting water from
the Mokelumne. The case, Lodi v. EBMUD et al. reached the state Supreme Court and was
ultimately settled in March 1938. The court -approved negotiated settlement, known as the
Lodi Decree, provided that if EBMUD operations caused water levels in a six -square mile
area (adjacent to the Mokelumne River in central Lodi) to drop below sea level in two
14 City of Lodi Annual Water Quality Report for 2002
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 22 of 83
consecutive Januarys and the City is unable to pump 3,600 acre-feet from this area, EBMUD
would supply the City with any deficiency up to 3,600 acre-feet per year. This condition has
never been triggered.
Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Rights
Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) provides irrigation water to a net area of 19,370 acres
within a gross area of 40,442 acres, including portions of western Lodi15. WID takes
delivery of its water through a set of gates located near the southwest corner of Lodi Lake, an
impoundment created by Woodbridge Dam on the Mokelumne River. WID also pumps
relatively small quantities of water from Beaver Slough, a tidal arm of the South Mokelumne
River in the northwest portion of the district.
There are approximately 90
miles of canals and laterals in
the Woodbridge System. Only
about 20 percent are concrete
lined. The 72 miles of unlined
canals lose significant amounts
of water and are an important
source of local groundwater
recharge. In 1991 J.M. Lord
Incorporated 16 conducted
seepage tests of approximately
11,000 feet of WID laterals,
including:
• Thompson lateral, three
miles northwest of
(Old) Woodbridge Dam
Woodbridge Dam;
• Spenker-Jones lateral, two miles west of Woodbridge Dam, and;
• State Farm lateral, seven miles south of Kettleman Lane.
Measured canal losses ranged from 0.89 to 3.49 acre-feet per day per mile, and averaged 2.48
acre-feet per day per mile. The study concluded that total WID losses could be more than
24,000 acre-feet per year based on a 60,000 acre-foot per year delivery — a loss of at least 40
percent.
15 Agreement for Purchase of Water from the Woodbridge Irrigation District by the City of Lodi, April 2003, p.1
16 J.M. Lord, Incorporated, July 1991, The Lower Mokelumne River Area Crop, Soil, and Water Use
Assessment for a Ground Water Storage/Conjunctive Use Study, Final Draft
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 23 of 83
J.M. Lord reports that at least 90 percent of the soils in the Lodi -Woodbridge area have
moderate (1.25-2.5 in/hr) to high (>2.5 in/hr) soil infiltration rates. The report concludes that
area soils should not be a constraining factor in a conjunctive use program.
The generally accepted capacity of the WID canal system is about 400 cubic feet per second
(cfs). Of this amount, about half can be conveyed through the South Main Canal traversing
Lodi, with the Northwest and West Mains splitting the other half in roughly equal portions.
The Northwest Main may also receive water pumped into the system from Beaver Slough to
a maximum of about 18,000 acre-feet per year. 17
WID holds two major water rights on the Mokelumne River. The first water right is a pre -
1914 water right for 300 cfs of diversion from the Mokelumne River from February 1 to
October 31 each year. This water right is overlapped — i.e. claims the same water — by
License 5945 obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The
District's second Mokelumne River water right is a post -1914 water right License 8214 with
a diversion rate of 114.4 cfs from May 1 to August 31 of each year. The combined rights
under the two licenses together with the District's -1914 rights are limited to a maximum
diversion of 414.4 cfs as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Woodbridge Irrigation District Diversion Rights
Water Rights License Priority Source Rate Period of Diversion
License 5945
License 8215
Pre -1914 Mokelumne River 300 cfs
Appropriative Mokelumne River 114.4 cfs
Pre -1914 Beaver Slough --
Feb 1 - Oct 31
May 1 - Aug 31
By agreement with EBMUD, a part of the WID right is regulated by EBMUD's Pardee and
Camanche reservoirs to provide a Regulated Base Supply during the irrigation season. This
regulated supply provides 60,000 acre-feet per year, with a 35 percent reduction to 39,000
acre-feet per year in dry years. At an average consumptive use of 3 acre-feet per acre, this
regulated supply is adequate for about 20,000 acres (13,000 acres in dry years). By
agreement with EBMUD, WID must take half its regulated supply before July 1. Since
approximately 24 percent of demand occurs in July, sustained diversions of about 234 cfs
would be required in that month assuming a 60,000 AF supply.
17 J.M. Lord, Incorporated, July 1991, The Lower Mokelumne River Area Crop, Soil, and Water Use
Assessment for a Ground Water Storage/Conjunctive Use Study, Final Draft
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 24 of 83
Information on WID diversions under its Mokelumne water rights was obtained from the
files of the SWRCB, and is presented in Table 6. Over the 23 -year period from 1978 through
2000, WID diverted an average of 64,563 AF/yr to irrigate an average 12,545 acres. Average
unit water use over this period was 5.15 AF/ac, but this varied widely from 3.22 to 6.91
AF/ac.
WID Purchase Agreement
Water provided to the City will be 6,000
acre-feet per year of the Regulated Base
Supply that is surplus to WID's needs due
to irrigation efficiency improvements.
Supply to the City will be reduced by 50
percent in years when WID's Regulated
Base Supply is reduced. Water will be
delivered during the period from March
1St through October 15th." At least 3,000
acre-feet must be taken before July 1.
If taken uniformly over the seven -and -
one -half -month period, a minimum City
diversion capacity of 13.2 cfs (5930 gpm)
would be required. Water not taken in the
first three years of the agreement can be
taken later in the 40 year term of the
agreement. Water not taken due to
Regulated Base Supply reductions may be
diverted within an eight-year period
following the reduction. Such reductions
happened three times in the four-year
period from 1991 through 1994. To allow
full utilization of the City contract, a
minimum capacity of about 15.4 cfs (6920
gpm, 7000 AF/yr) is required.
Table 6:
Historical WID Mokelumne River
Diversions
1978 - 2000
Acres
Diversion
Unit Use
Year
Irrigated
(AF)
(AF/ac)
1978
10,084
65,738
6.52
1979
12,557
75,830
6.04
1980
13,052
75,080
5.75
1981
15,550
79,434
5.11
1982
14,730
70,456
4.78
1983
11,698
58,460
5.00
1984
15,083
88,680
5.88
1985
14,790
76,021
5.14
1986
11,584
60,238
5.20
1987
13,802
74,630
5.41
1988
12,134
54,831
4.52
1989
13,801
56,524
4.10
1990
12,907
53,420
4.14
1991
10,293
38,344
3.73
1992
10,852
39,010
3.59
1993
12,317
85,080
6.91
1994
12,223
39,353
3.22
1995
11,492
72,051
6.27
1996
12,770
71,666
5.61
1997
12,726
58,484
4.60
1998
10,213
57,427
5.62
1999
12,135
66,436
5.47
2000
11,744
67,750
5.77
Minimum
10,084
38,344
3.22
Maximum
15,550
88,680
6.91
Average
12,545
64,563
5.15
Source: Annual SWRCB Report of Licensee
18 Agreement for Purchase of Water from the Woodbridge Irrigation District by the City of Lodi, May 13, 2003.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 25 of 83
If additional water is available outside the March — October diversion period, or if additional
water above 6,000 acre-feet is available during this period, additional deliveries can be made
at $100 per acre-foot upon mutual agreement of the parties. The City has first right of refusal
for such water. Non-WID water can be wheeled through WID facilities at a cost of $20 per
acre-foot. Beginning in the seventh year of the agreement, all water sales costs will increase
in proportion to the Consumer Price Index, or at a minimum two percent per year and a
maximum of five percent per year. Table 7 displays the minimum and maximum prices
expected for base supply, extra supply, and wheeling over the life of the contract.
Table
7: Current and Projected Unit Cost of WID Water (Vacre-foot)
Base
Supply
Extra WID
Supply
Wheeling
Year
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
2003
$200
$200
$100
$100
$20
$20
2009
$200
$200
$100
$100
$20
$20
2010
$204
$210
$102
$105
$20
$21
2020
$249
$342
$124
$171
$25
$34
2030
$303
$557
$152
$279
$30
$56
2040
$370
$908
$185
$454
$37
$91
2043
$392
$1,051
$196
$525
$39
$105
The City will pay WID $1.2 million, in quarterly installments for the life of the contract,
whether or not the City takes delivery of the contracted supply. The contract underwent a
validation process 19 to confirm the validity of the contract and provide security for the
bonding of dam replacement costs.
North San Joaquin Water Conservation District
The North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD) encompasses approximately
47,000 acres both north and south of the Mokelumne River including portions of eastern
Lodi. Two diversion works were installed and a pipeline delivery system partially
constructed for NSJWCD to obtain water from the planned extension of the Folsom South
Canal into San Joaquin County. The Folsom South Canal was not completed, leaving
NSJWCD without a long-term reliable supply of surface water.
The NSJWCD system is a combination of buried pipelines, open canal, and natural
waterways (creeks and sloughs). The system has two main pipelines, one north of the
Mokelumne River that is almost seven miles long, and one south of the river that is over
eight miles long. The south pumping plant has five pumps with a combined 315 horsepower,
19 Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 26 of 83
which could provide over 50 cfs if not constrained by other elements of the distribution
system. Of the 47,000 acres of farmland within NSJWCD boundaries, fewer than 5,500 are
currently connected to the distribution system.20
NSJWCD has a temporary water right for Mokelumne River water. This right expired in
2002 and the District is in the process of renewing it. The District has an agreement with
EBMUD to regulate up to 20,000 acre-feet per year upstream in Camanche Reservoir. Direct
diversions of up to 80 cfs are permitted from December 1 through July 1.21 During drought
periods no regulated surface supply is available and growers rely on groundwater. Multi-
year electrical power contracts have reduced growers' pumping costs increasing their
reliance on groundwater to the detriment of using surface water supplies. NSJWCD has
never used more than 9,500 acre-feet in any year, and recent years have averaged about 3,000
acre-feet per year. Water users are currently charged a flat rate of $50 per acre. 22
In an effort to increase conjunctive use opportunities NSJWCD recently passed a land use
assessment of $1 per acre to pay for a pilot groundwater recharge project. Using these initial
funds NSJWCD has begun percolation of Mokelumne River water on 25 acres of vacant
farmland near Highway 12 and Locust Tree Road. The project uses one of the district's
water pumps to divert river water to demonstrate the benefits of groundwater recharge.
If the initial recharge projects are deemed successful the annual land use assessment fee
could increase to a maximum of $5 per acre to percolate a minimum of 12,000 acre-feet of
Mokelumne River water into the NSJWCD service area 23
20 J.M. Lord, Incorporated, July 1991, The Lower Mokelumne River Area Crop, Soil, and Water Use
Assessment for a Ground Water Storage/Conjunctive Use Study, Final Draft
21 Water Right Application A12842, Permit 10477
22 Personal communication, E. Steffani, May 28, 2003. Rate was reported as $35/acre in J.M. Lord, 1991
23 California Water Code, Section 75480 et seq.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 27 of 83
Section 4. Feasibility of New
Appropriations
A number of water right applications are currently filed on water bodies near the City. They
include San Joaquin County conjunctive use projects from the Mokelumne and American
Rivers, EBMUD diversion to the Mokelumne Aqueduct via the Sacramento River near
Freeport, and diversions from the Delta for the City of Stockton. The city could potentially
partner with any of these interests to increase surface water supply.
Mokelumne River Water and Power Authority (Middle
Bar/Duck Creek)
The Mokelumne River Water and Power Authority (an entity administered entirely by San
Joaquin County with support from the cities of Lodi and Stockton) filed Application 29835 to
appropriate from the Mokelumne River up
to 620 cfs by direct diversion and 434,000
AF to storage with the total not to exceed
544,000 AF/yr.
Two alternative points of diversion are
proposed in Application 29835:24
Alternative A: Construction of Middle
Bar Reservoir on the Mokelumne River
upstream of Pardee Dam, a diversion
works and tunnel from Pardee Reservoir
and conveyance to a new 150,000 AF
Figure 9: Mokelumne River Water and
Power Project
reservoir at the Duck Creek site for release to the Calaveras River. A second water right
application (29855) would divert up to 3000 cfs for power generation purposes at the
24 Figure adapted from http://www.co.san-joaquin.ca.us/TopLevelDocs/BOS—WMP Adoption 051302.pdf
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 28 of 83
Middle Bar Dam site.25 The Middle Bar option has been dropped ftom further
consideration.26
Alternative B: Same as Alternative A, but without Middle Bar Reservoir.
The Authority is in the process of developing this water right. The SWRCB is authorized to
declare a stream fully appropriated. If a stream is declared fully appropriated, SWRCB may
reject any water right application filed on that stream. If a stream has been declared fully
appropriated for part of a year, the Board may modify the application. The SWRCB has
declared the Mokelumne River system fully appropriated for the period from March through
November. The Board modified this in November 199827 to allow applications for
conjunctive use projects on the Mokelumne River from March through June. Evidence of
water availability for conjunctive use projects will be evaluated in the course of processing
the applications.
The County retained engineering consultant HDR for the first phase of work, which was
initiated in April 2003. A draft Reconnaissance Study report was completed in January 2004.
Of the 21 alternatives considered in this study, five are recommended for further study:
• On -stream alternatives
o Mokelumne River storage system reoperation
• Off -Stream storage alternatives
o Duck Creek Reservoir with diversion from Pardee Reservoir
o Duck Creek Reservoir with diversion from Camanche Reservoir, and
• Direct diversion alternatives
o new Lower Mokelumne diversions
o Lower Mokelumne River diversions using existing facilities
Of these alternatives, Mokelumne River reoperation and Lower Mokelumne River diversions
using existing facilities direct diversion were ranked "low" for benefits that would be
achieved. New Lower American River were estimated to yield an average of 49,000 acre-
feet per year at a cost of $150 per acre foot. The Duck Creek alternatives were estimated to
25 The proposed project would consist of: (1) a proposed 190 -foot -high, 800 -foot -long Concrete Arch dam; (2) a
proposed reservoir having a storage capacity of 40,000 acre-feet with normal water surface elevation of 684 feet
msl; (3) a proposed intake structure; (4) a proposed 200 -foot -long 15 -foot -diameter steel penstock; (5) a
proposed powerhouse containing one generating unit with an installed capacity of 31 -MW; (6) a proposed outlet
works; (7) a proposed 3 -mile -long, 230 -kV transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The project would
have an annual generation of 80 GWH and would be sold to a local utility. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-
IMPACT/I 998/October/Day-08/i26959.htm
26 Mokelumne River Water & Power Authority, June 2004, MORE WATER Project Phase I Report,
Mokelumne River Water Storage and Conjunctive Use Project
27 Water Rights Order 98-08, November 19, 1998
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 29 of 83
yield between 82,000 to 90,000 acre-feet per year (depending on hydropower impacts) at a
cost of between $150 and $210 per acre-foot. It should be noted that these costs are for
development only of the water supply — additional facilities would be required to convey,
treat, or recharge this water at additional cost.
The workplan calls for environmental documentation to be completed in 2005, and water
rights and power generation permits issued by June 2006. Construction would start in 2009
and the project would be on line in 2012.
American/Sacramento Rivers
San Joaquin County has a pending application to appropriate water from the South Fork
American River. The State Water Resources Control Board designated this Application
29657 and assigned it a priority date of February 9, 1990.
Application 29657 seeks the right to divert for direct use up to 620 cubic feet per second (cfs)
from December 1 through June 30 each year, up to 105,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr).
Diversion to storage of up to 190,000 AF/yr is also proposed. Including losses of 27,000
AF/yr, up to 322,000 would be taken by direct diversion and diversion to storage during any
one year.
Two alternative points of diversion are proposed in Application 29657:
Alternative A: Diversion from Nimbus Dam to the Folsom South Canal to storage in a
new reservoir at the Clay Station site. This alternative would require extension of the
Folsom South Canal into San Joaquin County and construction of Clay Station Reservoir.
Alternative B: Diversion from the South Fork American River upstream of Folsom
Reservoir29 to new reservoirs at the County Line and Clay Station sites. This alternative
would require construction of a South Fork diversion structure and tunnel, County Line
and Clay Station reservoirs, and conveyance between the reservoirs and into San Joaquin
County.
28 Water Rights Order 98-08, November 19, 1998
29 Diversion would be from the South Fork in the SE corner of the NE quadrant of Section 31, Township 11N,
Range 9E, Mt. Diablo BM in El Dorado County.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 30 of 83
The SWRCB has declared the American River
system fully appropriated for the period from July 1
through October 31. If diverted continuously at the
diversion rate of 620 cubic feet per second over the
December 1 through June 30 period of diversion,
there is capacity to divert up to 260,700 acre-feet,
though the application limits direct diversions to
190,000 acre-feet per year.
The County is in the process of revising
Application 29657 to move the point of diversion to
the Freeport diversion site on the Sacramento
River. 30 The Sacramento County Water Agency
and East Bay Municipal Utility District are in the
process of developing a 286 cfs diversion at the
Freeport site. Of this capacity, 131 cfs would be
used in most years to meet needs within Sacramento
County. The other 155 cfs would be conveyed to a
connection point with EBMUD's Mokelumne
Figure 10: Freeport Project
Aqueduct in San Joaquin County. EBMUD only needs this capacity in approximately one-
third of the driest years. The capacity could be made available to San Joaquin County or
other users about two-thirds of the time in average and wetter years.
If diverted at a maximum rate of 155 cfs, the average annual diversion to San Joaquin County
under the revised application would be about 44,000 AF/yr.31 Operations costs to pump water
from Freeport to a connection point on the Mokelumne Aqueduct is estimated by EBMUD as
about $106/AF.32 Capital repayment, based on potential San Joaquin County use of the
Freeport facilities, could be as high as $180/AF.33
30 Maximum diversion of 350 cfs, 147 KAF/yr specified in amendment filed August 12, 2003.
31 Saracino-Kirby-Snow, May 2003, South Fork American River Water Availability Study San Joaquin County
Water Right Application 29657 Progress Report
32 Without treatment or pumping into the Mokelumne Aqueduct. Excludes possible capital repayment costs that
might be negotiated with EBMUD.
33 Facilities necessary for San Joaquin County delivery (e.g. without treatment) total about $280M of $627M
total. Capital recovery at 6% and 25 years.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 31 of 83
Participation in Stockton Delta Diversion Project
The City of Stockton is pursuing development of a new surface water supply from the Delta,
together with associated treatment and distribution works. A new surface water supply will
assist the City of Stockton in mitigating the problems of overdraft, saline migration,
declining surface water supply, and future water supply needs.
The City of Stockton Delta Water Supply Project would divert up to 125,900 AF/yr from the
San Joaquin River in the Delta by 2050. Water would come from the City's rights under
SWRCB Decision 1485 which is tied to its wastewater discharges, area of origin filings, and
new appropriations or transfers. A water rights application was submitted to the SWRCB on
January 6, 1996, which was publicly noticed December 1997. The application requests an
increasing amount of surface water starting from 20,000 AF/yr in 2002 to 125,900 AF/yr in
2050. The application specifies a place of use coincident with Stockton's General Plan
Boundary. The application includes up to four possible points of diversion from the Delta.
The preferred site is on the San Joaquin River at the southwestern end of Empire Tract.
Water would be conveyed along Eight Mile Road to a new water treatment plant in the
vicinity of Eight Mile Road and Interstate 5, approximately 5 miles from Lodi .34 As of May
2003, neither detailed design nor environmental documentation had been initiated.
It is anticipated that full diversion amounts will not be available from the Delta year-round.
Stockton plans to treat surface water in times of surplus for injection into the groundwater
basin. This water could be withdrawn during times of shortage within the Delta. Injection in
Stockton would help retard salinity intrusion, meet City obligation for groundwater recharge,
and provide operational storage and drought supply.
The first 30 MGD phase of Stockton's Delta Water Supply Project has an estimated capital
cost of $121 million. Capital repayment plus operating costs are estimated to translate into a
treated water cost of approximately $350 per acre-foot. 35
Three factors that must be considered in any Delta Diversion project are the Ca1Fed Bay -
Delta process, Area of Origin water rights, and State Water Resources Control Board Term
91. Each of these is discussed briefly below.
Bay -Delta Process
In 1994, state and federal water agencies developed a collaborative management structure to
provide the regulators and the public a forum to develop a comprehensive Bay -Delta plan.
34 Environmental Sciences Associates, January 2003, Feasibility Report City of Stockton Delta Water Supply
Project
35 Earth Sciences Associates, 2003, Feasibility Report City of Stockton Delta Water Supply Project, p.25
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 32 of 83
The 1992 Governor's Water Policy, the 1993 Federal Ecosystem Directorate, the June 1994
Framework Agreement, and the December 1994 Bay -Delta Accord grounded the new
approach to California water planning and management that evolved into the collaborative
called CALFED, now called the California Bay -Delta Authority.
The signatories to the agreements became responsible for managing and overseeing various
activities to implement the agreements. They agreed to work together to set water quality
standards, coordinate State Water Project and Central Valley Project operations, and develop
long-term solutions to problems in the Bay -Delta Estuary.
CALFED has brought divided interests together to discuss their differences and it seeks to
move projects and programs forward despite legal, institutional, and financial challenges.
CALFED's mission is "to develop and implement a long-term, comprehensive plan that will
restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay -Delta
system."
Area of Origin
The area of origin statutes in California water law apply to the appropriation of water and
address the relative priority of water rights held for uses within the area of origin to the water
rights held for uses outside an area of origin.
There are three statutes that cover what are referred to as area of origin water rights. Under
these statutes, water right applicants within the area of origin are assured that new water right
applications filed for the development of water within the area of origin will not be rejected
by the State Water Resources Control Board on the basis that no water is available for
appropriation by virtue of a senior water right to export the water from the watershed. The
three statutes are as follows:
• Watershed Protection Act WC 11460 (State and Federal projects)
• County of Origin WC 10505 (1927 State filings include 180 KAF on the Mokelumne
River)
• Delta Protection Act WC12204
The Watershed Protection Act contained in California Water Code § 11460 states that "in the
construction and operation by the department of any project under the provisions of this part
a watershed or area wherein water originates, or an area immediately adjacent thereto which
can conveniently be supplied with water there from, shall not be deprived by the department
directly or indirectly of the prior right to all of the water reasonably required to adequately
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 33 of 83
supply the beneficial needs of the watershed, area, or any of the inhabitants or property
owners therein."
The County of Origin Statutes, at Water Code § 10505 and 10505.5, state "no priority under
this part shall be released nor assignment made of any application that will, in the judgment
of the board, deprive the county in which the water covered by the application originates of
any such water necessary for the development of the county."
The Delta Protection Act incorporates by reference the county of origin and watershed
protection statutes, and declares the policy of the state "that no person, corporation or public
or private agency or the state or the United States should divert water from the channels of
the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta to which the users within said Delta are entitled." Id. §
12203. See id. § 12220
Term 91
Term 91 is a condition that the State Water Control Board (SWRCB) can attach when issuing
water rights. Term 91 prohibits diversion of water when flows into the Sacramento -San
Joaquin Delta and its tributaries are insufficient to meet water quality objectives in the Delta.
The specific regulations of Term 91 are the following:
No diversion is authorized by this license when satisfaction of inbasin entitlements
requires release of supplemental Project water by the Central Valley Project or the State
Water Project.
A. Inbasin entitlements are defined as all rights to divert water from streams tributary
to the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta or the Delta for use within the respective
basins of origin or the Legal Delta, unavoidable natural requirements for riparian
habitat and conveyance losses, and flows required by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) for maintenance of water quality and fish and wildlife.
B. Supplemental Project water is defined as water imported to the basin by the
projects, and water released from Project storage, which is in excess of export
diversions, Project carriage water, and Project inbasin deliveries.
The SWRCB shall notify the licensee of curtailment of diversion under this term after it
finds that supplemental Project water has been released or will be released. The SWRCB
will advise the licensee of the probability of imminent curtailment of diversion as far in
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 34 of 83
advance as practicable based on anticipated requirements for supplemental Project water
provided by the Project operators."
Water Appropriations Summary
There are several ongoing efforts in the region to obtain new surface water appropriations.
The City of Lodi has varying degrees of involvement in each of these efforts, which include:
• the Mokelumne River Water and Power ("More Water") Project
• San Joaquin County/GBA diversion from the American/Sacramento rivers
• the City of Stockton Delta Supply Project
The Mokelumne River Water and Power ("More Water") Project being developed by a
consortium of San Joaquin County agencies including Lodi. The project would involve a
new diversion from the Mokelumne River and off -stream storage at the Duck Creek site, and
potentially a new reservoir on the Mokelumne River at the Middle Bar site. A water right
application has been submitted. A draft reconnaissance study was completed in January
2004. Environmental documentation is scheduled to be completed in 2005. Cost of this
water supply is estimated at between $150 to $210 per acre-foot, plus the cost to convey,
treat, and recharge this water.
San Joaquin County has applied for a water right from the South Fork American River and
has recently amended the application to allow diversion from the Sacramento River at the
Freeport site. The County is working with San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking
Authority, of which Lodi is a member, to develop this concept into a groundwater banking
project. Cost to deliver this water to San Joaquin County would be about $290 per acre-foot,
plus the cost of groundwater recharge facilities.
The City of Stockton Delta Supply Project would divert up to 125,900 acre-feet per year
from the San Joaquin River in the Delta by 2050. A water right application was submitted in
1996 and environmental documentation is underway. The preferred option would convey
water along Eight Mile Road to east of Interstate 5, approximately five miles from Lodi. Full
diversion amounts are not expected to be available year-round, and groundwater banking in
north Stockton is planned to bridge this shortfall. Lodi might participate in development of
regional groundwater recharge facilities. A preliminary estimate projects a unit cost of $350
per acre-foot of treated potable supply. The City of Stockton has informally expressed
interest in purchasing of a portion of the Lodi WID water as an interim supply until the
project is permitted and constructed.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 35 of 83
Section 5. Options for Use of Surface
Water Supply
The following section evaluates various surface water supply options available to the City.
In light of the recent contract for 6,000 acre-feet on annual supply from WID, the majority of
alternatives in the above list are proposed to utilize water supply from the WID South Main
Canal. Regional alternatives with water sources other than WID include the NSJWCD and
EBMUD alternatives. The alternatives evaluated include surface water irrigation of parks
and schools using a portion of the WID supply, injection of surface water, percolation of
surface water, and direct surface water treatment and supply. The following are alternatives
reviewed for this study:
• Surface Water Irrigation to Parks and Schools Using WID South Main Canal
• Injection Well Recharge Alternative
• Recharge Ponds Utilizing WID South Main Canal
o Westside Recharge Pond
o Eastside Recharge Pond
• Surface Water Treatment Plant and Distribution
• Southeast Recharge Utilizing NSJWCD Facilities
• EBMUD Banking and Large Scale Pump Back
• Interim Supply to Stockton Recharge Ponds
Design Assumptions Common to All Alternatives
Certain common design assumptions were used in the majority of alternatives. If a common
design assumption mentioned in this section is modified based upon an alternative it is
explicitly stated in the section describing that particular alternative.
Alternatives in this assessment have the following common design assumptions:
• Surface water supply is available for eight months of every year.
• 7,000 acre-feet of water is the design capacity.
• Pipelines have a design velocity of five feet/second.
• Land cost $30,000/acre outside Lodi's "General Plan boundary with Reserve" and
$100,000/acre inside this boundary.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 36 of 83
• Average power cost is $0.15 per kWh
• Recharge basin alternatives assume a percolation rate of 1.0 foot/day
• Recharge basin alternatives assume a peaking factor of 2.036
Cost Assumptions Common to All Alternatives Evaluated
To compare the relative cost of each alternative for utilizing the surface water supply a unit
cost methodology was developed to estimate capital, operating and maintenance costs. Unit
cost for the majority of components evaluated including pipelines, pumping stations,
injection facilities, and recharge basins were adapted from the Mokelumne Aquifer Recharge
and Storage Project, March 1996 (MARS).37 To update the 1996 unit cost in the MARS
study the Engineering News -Record Construction Cost Index was referenced. The
evaluation of the index found that construction costs have increased approximately 22% from
January 1996 to June 2000. This factor was used to adjust 1996 unit cost to the 2003 unit
cost numbers presented in Table 8.
Table 8: 2003 Unit Construction Cost
(Capital)
Type of Facility
Unit
Unit Cost
Pump Stations < 2000 HP
HP
$1,710.00
Pipelines < 90" diameter'
dia-in-ft
$6.10
Bore and Jack Crossings, Tunneling
dia-in-ft
$24.50
Recharge Basin Construction
acre
$42,820.00
Fish Screen
cfs
$6,120.00
Injection Wells2
each
$305,890.00
Extraction Wells
each
$208,000.00
Surface Water Treatment Planta
gpd
$1.00
Assume pipelines in Lodi will not need shoring
2Assumes dedicated well pump for backflushing and development
3Reference: Alternatives for Water Supply from the California Aqueduct (Parsons - February, 2001)
Annual operating and maintenance costs were also taken from the MARS study. The costs
are based on a project life of 50 years with replacement of electrical/mechanical equipment
after 25 years. Table 9 presents the values used to calculate annual O&M costs. Where
applicable, power costs were added to annual O&M assuming an average rate of $0.15 per
kWh.3s
36 A "peaking factor of 2.0" means that twice as much capacity is provided than would be necessary if the facilities were operated
continuously at a constant rate. This conservative factor provides an allowance for taking facilities off-line for maintenance, to account for
variance in water availability and canal flow (e.g. during irrigation season), and to offset uncertainties in estimated design parameters (e.g.
sustainable percolation rate). The annual period when water is not available may be adequate for pond maintenance.
37 Montgomery Watson Americas, 1996
38 High-end 2001 California Energy Commission numbers from http://www.energy.ca.aov/electricity/current_ electricity rates.html
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 37 of 83
Table 9: Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Type of Facility
Unit
Unit Cost
Pump Station
capital cost
4.0%
Pipelines
capital cost
0.5%
Injection Wells
capital cost
5.0%
Extraction Wells
capital cost
4.0%
Recharge Basins
capital cost
4.0%
Water Treatment Plant
capital cost
6.0%
Tertiary Treatment Plant
capital cost
6.0%
Miscellaneous Concrete Structures, i.e. canal turnouts
capital cost
2.0%
Filter Plant
capital cost
1.0%
Surface Water Irrigation to Parks and Schools Using WID
South Main Canal
All parks and schools within one mile of the WID South Main Canal with an area greater
than five acres were included in this analysis to estimate the cost of delivering surface water
via the WID South Main Canal in -lieu of Table 10• Lodi Irrigation Water
utilizing groundwater for irrigation. Metered Demand (acre-ft/acre)
data for parks in Lodi was available for the 2000 2001 2002
years 2000-2002. Table 10 displays the Schools 1.93 2.08 2.08
average use for each of these years. The Parks 2.22 2.61 3.03
average use of water at Lodi parks during 2002 Average use 2.07 2.33 2.56
Source: Lodi Metered Water Data
was three acre-feet per acre. The average use
of water at Lodi schools during 2002 was two acre-feet per acre. These values were used to
size the necessary distribution facilities from the WID South Main Canal.
Facility sizes were estimated based on a 36 -week irrigation season per year. Assuming
irrigation is evenly spaced during the 36 weeks, every park and school would receive 1/36 of
the total irrigation demand each week during the irrigation period. It is assumed that each
park and school would be irrigated in six 8 -hour time periods each week. Therefore, each
park is assumed to receive one inch of water each week from 6 separate 8 -hour irrigation
periods. While each school is assumed to receive 0.67 inches of water each week from 6
separate 8 -hour irrigation periods.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 38 of 83
Cost estimates are based on this demand analysis for pipeline diameters, pipeline lengths, and
pumping station capacities required to deliver surface water to the existing distribution
systems for parks and schools. The analysis found that parks and schools within one mile 39
of WID South Main Canal could utilize approximately 1,030 acre-feet of water each year.
The total cost of distributing water to parks and schools is estimated to be approximately $1.8
million.
The least economical facilities are small parks and schools served by a long pipeline from the
canal. Excluding these facilities yielded a utilization of 1,000 acre-feet of water each year
with a capital cost of approximately $1.4 million. Table 11 shows the project level cost
estimate with the least economical facilities removed. Costs to pump this water may be
offset by savings from curtailing current well pumping, though this has not been explicitly
evaluated. Figure 11 shows the location of parks and schools included in the $1.4 million
dollar estimate.
Table 11: Surface Water Irrigation (Non -Potable) to Parks and Schools
Facility Quantity Units Unit Capital Annual O&M Annual
Cost Cost Rate O&M Cost
3" Pipeline
8,000
feet
$18
$146,000
0.5% of capital
$700
6" Pipeline
8,500
feet
$37
$311,000
0.5% of capital
$1,600
10" Pipeline
4,000
feet
$55
$220,000
0.5% of capital
$1,000
Pump 10 HP
8
each
$17,100
$137,000
4% of capital + power
$25,000
Pump 20 HP
3
each
$34,200
$103,000
4% of capital + power
$19,000
Pump 30 HP
1
each
$51,300
$51,000
4% of capital + power
$8,000
Pump 50 HP
1
each
$85,500
$86,000
4% of capital + power
$13,000
30% Contingency
$316,000
n/a
Total:
$1,400,000
$68,000
39 One mile distance to capture the band of irrigated areas roughly following the South Main Canal on Lodi's west side. An additional 120
acres of future parks might also be served.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 39 of 83
.r
- r
._. 911. Ai i.' y'���fe3 w•y ��-Er�� �'
j ` �� � ��' � . � ,lir r= -'•a.
' '., I h sA ',r ti r•
■
i .ar
Ji
.:. Ali r� - ("j �.: ` 1 , � :•� r
low _a k ti r
Jr
qt �1 i
La
NEI
!3 „x yr.•T���� �
• •! ' � '. w 47 t Nj...
E
���gg 1
` 1 16 I
a 9
yds «e i` �•
_�i s J I}.• � %1 y
sj F 1
wl N, I 4F'
1 •w 1"'
i
r� fy �
a :.•�_` �
aFP +, .
71z
r���ii,R�y, _`r�$"�J
11, 5.}�
v r
1111;1' 'elm
` 1 16 I
a 9
yds «e i` �•
_�i s J I}.• � %1 y
sj F 1
wl N, I 4F'
1 •w 1"'
Injection Well Recharge Alternative
Injection wells are a logical alternative for recharging groundwater where available land is
limited or costly, or where near -surface soils restrict conductance to deeper aquifers. The
alternative evaluated assumes that surface water supplied from the WID South Main Canal
would be pretreated and injected into the aquifer underlying Lodi for storage and subsequent
removal using the City's water supply wells.
As a rule of thumb, water can generally be injected at about half the rate of extraction. City
wells range in production from 700 to 2,000 gpm, and average 1,350 gpm. New production
wells average about 1,600 gpm. Assuming an average injection rate of 800 gpm, and a
peaking factor of 2.040, Lodi would need 16 injection wells to recharge 7,000 acre-feet/year
over an eight month time period. The Beckman test injection/extraction pilot project41
demonstrated that injection of Mokelumne Aqueduct water was feasible in
the San Joaquin County aquifer system. The test report concluded that capacities of 500 to
1000 gpm were feasible.
Feasibility
A notable concern with injection wells is the amount of draw -up during injection operation.
Injection draw -up in an aquifer system is analogous to the inverse of pumping draw -down
and is typically modeled in the same fashion. Water levels underlying the City are typically
between 30 and 75 feet below the ground surface. Injection draw -up greater than this range
could limit injection feasibility. The aquifer underlying the City is assumed to be
unconfined.
To predict the change in the water table from injection well operation a FORTRAN computer
program was used to simulate groundwater flow in a 2-D unconfined, heterogeneous,
isotropic aquifer. The aquifer properties are based on the Beckman Test42 and a review of
previous groundwater studies 43 and are considered reasonable for the aquifer underlying
Lodi. The model used is based on the Boussinesq equation, which has the assumption of no
40 A "peaking factor of 2.0" means that twice as much capacity is provided than would be necessary if the
facilities were operated continuously at a constant rate. This conservative factor provides an allowance for
taking facilities off-line for maintenance, to account for variance in water availability and canal flow (e.g.
during irrigation season), and to offset uncertainties in estimated design parameters such as aquifer
transmissivity. Pumping tests might be conducted to refine the estimate of aquifer transmissivity and
storativity. Well recovery tests on City wells analyzed for this analysis show transmissivity in the range of
74,000-89,000 gpd/ft, about 6-20 percent greater than those found in the Boyle tests.
41 Boyle, 1999
42 Boyle, 1999
43 Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Study (1985); J.M. Lord, Incorporated, July 1991
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 41 of 83
vertical flow, and is approximated using a finite difference discretization. The model
generates output containing the hydraulic head (water table) at each grid node of the defined
model for each time step. For conservative analysis, the model was run to steady state to
predict the maximum rise in groundwater elevation from injection operations.
Table 12 was used to calibrate aquifer
parameters for model input based on the Table 12: Average Drawdown of Production Wells,
average drawdown from current Lodi
production wells. Only wells with
average production rates greater than
1,000 gpm were used for calibration.
The model was then validated using
pump test data from Well 24.
Figure 12 shows the modeled
groundwater elevation of a single
injection well at steady state with an
injection rate of 800 gpm. It is
important to note that the steady state
assumption uses continuous injection at
800 gpm while actual conditions would
2002
Well
Static
Average
Pumping
Number
Water Level Production
Water
Drawdown
Level
1R
66.5
1,151
95.9
29.5
4R
70.0
2,044
110.4
40.4
5
45.6
1,230
61.9
16.2
6R
64.6
1,403
89.2
24.6
7
35.6
1,100
85.8
50.3
11R
56.3
1,313
103.7
47.5
14
46.2
1,586
72.2
26.0
15
41.2
1,585
91.6
50.4
16
57.8
1,038
116.8
59.0
17
51.1
1,789
102.4
51.3
18
65.1
1,779
110.0
44.9
19
66.1
1,130
96.0
29.9
22
75.0
1,418
141.3
66.3
23
69.0
1,469
115.0
46.0
vary with less than constant injection 24 57.2 1,429 147.6 90.4
subject to water supply availability and 25 45.4 15624 97.2 51.7
well maintenance. Thus, this analysis would be considered conservative and represent the
upper limit of draw -up at an injection rate of 800 gpm. As shown in Figure 12 the water
level near a single injection well reaches a maximum draw -up of 24 feet.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 42 of 83
25
a�
15
Cu
L
10
0
U
c 5
119
Horizontal Tick Marks are Spaced 1,000 Feet Apart
Figure 12: Single Injection Well at 800 gpm Steady State Draw -Up
To achieve 7,000 acre-feet of recharge per year by injection with a peaking factor of 2.0 it is
estimated that 16 injection wells are needed. Placing multiple injection wells in close
proximity to each other can increase water levels based on the principle of superposition. To
predict the change in water levels from multiple injection wells the model was run utilizing
five injection wells spaced 2000 feet apart along a line. Figure 13 shows the draw -up for this
analysis. As shown on Figure 13, the maximum draw -up at the center injection well is 40
feet during steady state simulation at 800 gpm.
457----
36
5T----
36
27
3
L
Q
18
9
0
Horizontal Tick Marks are Spaced 2,000 Feet Apart
Figure 13: Multiple Injection Wells at 800 gpm Steady State Draw -Up
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 43 of 83
Given the current depth to groundwater within City limits this analysis leads to a few
conclusions. As shown in the groundwater elevation contours, Figure 8, the depth to
groundwater increases from 30 to 75 feet within City limits as one moves south from the
Mokelumne River. Wells spaced nominally 2,000 feet apart injecting at a rate of 800 gpm
are feasible in the southern portions of the City where the depth to groundwater is greatest.
Injection near the Mokelumne River may be problematic because of the higher groundwater
elevations. Wells injecting at a lower rate spaced further apart than 2,000 feet may be
possible for recharge nearer the Mokelumne River.
To determine if injection wells could be spaced closer than 2,000 feet apart within the City
service area, the model was re -run using scenarios of 1,000 foot spacing as well as 500 foot
spacing. The aquifer parameters, injection rate, and number of injection wells were kept
constant as in the 2,000 foot simulation. The model runs simulated maximum injection
draw -ups of 53 feet and 65 feet for the 1,000 foot and 500 foot spacing, respectively.
Given the observed standing water elevations of Lodi municipal supply wells44 the maximum
simulated level of draw -up from the 500 and 1,000 foot spacing is too great for current
groundwater elevations. An injection well spacing of 1,000 feet or greater might be feasible
in the southern portion the City's service area, depth to groundwater of the five southernmost
wells (16, 18, 19, 22, and 23) show a range between 57 to 75 feet in 2002, but for a
conservative analysis the spacing of the injection wells was kept at a nominal 2,000 feet as
shown in Figure 14.
It is recommended that the City conduct additional pumping tests to provide a better estimate
of aquifer parameters, and to conduct a full scale injection pilot test to confirm whether well
draw -up will be a constraining factor. Isolating coarse, high -permeable soils for receiving
injection water might allow recharge goals to be met with fewer wells. 45
Water Quality Requirements
In general, water to be injected down wells must be free from suspended solids and other
matter that could clog aquifer pore spaces. An injection test performed by the East San
Joaquin Parties Water Authority46 in 1998 successfully used Mokelumne River water from
Pardee Reservoir by limiting injection to water with less than 2 nephelometric turbidity
44 Data from City of Lodi, Public Works Department: Standing Water Level for years 1992-2002
45 Summer 2004 well recovery tests on City wells analyzed for this analysis show transmissivity in the range of
74,000-89,000 gpd/ft, about 6-20 percent greater than those found in the Boyle analysis.
46 Boyle, 1999 Beckman Test Injection/Extraction Project
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 44 of 83
units47 (NTU). Water diverted from the lower Mokelumne River through the unlined WID
canals is expected to be considerably more laden with suspended solids and will require
treatment before injection. Typical treatment methods include sand or membrane filtration.
The groundwater underlying the City is primarily seepage from the Mokelumne River, so
injection of River water is not expected to have adverse geochemical reactions. Incompatible
waters may cause precipitation of various compounds on the well screen, filter pack, or
aquifer materials, which can substantially decrease the capacity of the well over time.
Incompatible waters may also cause swelling of aquifer clays that may cause clogging of the
aquifer pore structure. A water quality compatibility analysis48 should be performed to
determine the potential for such reactions as part of an injection feasibility investigation.
It is desirable to disinfect injected water to ensure a disinfectant residual within the well and
gravel pack to control bacterial activity and prevent bacterial plugging. If soil materials or
native water would result in formation of disinfection byproducts, dechlorination may be
required prior to injection.
Cost Estimate
Cost estimates are based on 16 injection wells equipped with pre-treatment and chlorination
facilities. Figure 14 displays a possible layout of the injection wells throughout the City.
Injection wells in Figure 14 are spaced nominally 2,000 feet apart and no closer than 2,000
feet from any point of extraction. As shown in Table 13, the estimated capital cost of
facilities is $14.6 million with an average O&M of $520,000.
47 A measure of the light -scattering properties, or `cloudiness' of turbid water
48 This is a relatively straightforward assessment of the potential of mixed waters to generate gasses or
precipitating minerals that can clog aquifer materials which is performed with conventional hydrogeochemical
modeling software with measured water constituents as input
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 45 of 83
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 46 of 83
Table 13:
Injection Well Alternative
Facility
Quantity Units Unit Cost
Capital
Annual O&M
Annual O&M
Cost
Rate
Cost
12" Pipeline
17,500 feet
$73
$1,281,000
0.5% of capital
$6,000
15" Pipeline
8,100 feet
$92
$741,000
0.5% of capital
$4,000
18" Pipeline
6,400 feet
$110
$703,000
0.5% of capital
$4,000
24" Pipeline
14,000 feet
$146
$2,050,000
0.5% of capital
$10,000
30" Pipeline
1,000 feet
$183
$183,000
0.5% of capital
$1,000
Injection Wells
16 each
$306,000
$4,896,000
5% of capital
$245,000
Pump 50 HP
1 each
$85,500
$86,000
4% of cap + power
$17,000
Pump 80 HP
1 each
$136,800
$137,000
4% of cap + power
$32,000
Pump 110 HP
1 each
$188,100
$188,000
4% of cap + power
$80,000
Pump 200 HP
1 each
$342,000
$342,000
4% of cap + power
$79,000
Filtration Unit (2200 gpm)
6 each
$50,000
$300,000
6% of capital
$18,000
Disinfection Unit (CI)
16 each
$20,000
$320,000
6% of capital
$19,000
30% Contingency
$3,370,000
n/a
Total:
$14,600,000
$520,000
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 46 of 83
Recharge Ponds Utilizing WID South Main Canal Surface
Water
Conjunctively using surface water from the WID South Main Canal to recharge the
groundwater basin via percolation ponds for subsequent extraction is evaluated using
recharge basins on the east and west sides of the City. For descriptive purposes the basins
are referred to as Westside and Eastside recharge pond alternatives. Both basins would be
located just outside the City's sphere of influence because the 57 acres of land necessary for
recharge is considerably cheaper outside the sphere of influence relative to developable land
within future city limits.
Table 14 displays design factors used for recharge
ponds. A conservative estimate of 1.0 ft/day for
pond infiltration has been assumed over the 8 -
month period of water availability. 49 This yields a
land requirement of 57 acres to recharge 7,000 acre-
feet per year. These estimates assume a
conservative 2.0 peaking (capacity) factor.
Table 14: Pond Size Requirements
Quantity
Unit
Recharge Capacity
7,000
AF/yr
Water Availability
8
mo/yr
Peaking Factor
2.0
Peak Recharge
1750
AF/mo
Percolation Rate
1.0
ft/day
Pond Acres Required
57
acres
Water Quality Requirements
Water quality requirements for conjunctive use projects are regulated through the RWQCB's
non -degradation policy. The policy requires that recharge projects using a surface water
supply shall not cause underlying groundwater to contain waste constituents in
concentrations greater than background water quality.
The RWQCB will most likely not require water treatment measures (i.e. filtration or
disinfection) for a recharge pond project using Mokelumne River water. Data 50,51 reviewed
for the WID system suggests the Mokelumne River water is of relatively high quality, and
when used conjunctively through a groundwater recharge project, will not impair the
beneficial uses of groundwater within the basin.
49 Compare to 2.5 ft/day estimate by J.M. Lord, referenced in Section 3, WID Water Rights
so J.M. Lord, Incorporated, July 1991, The Lower Mokelumne River Area Crop, Soil, and Water Use
Assessment for a Ground Water Storage/Conjunctive Use Study, Final Draft
51 http://www.lodi.gov/Storm°/a20Drain%20Detectives/body_monthly_data.httn#MAY%202003
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 48 of 83
Westside Recharge Pond Cost Estimate
A recharge pond on the west side of the City due south of Sargent Road is shown on Figure
15. The recharge facilities would require 57 acres of land. Based on the assumptions of a
percolation rate of a 1.0 foot/day with a total capacity of 7,000 acre-feet over eight months
and a peaking factor of 2.0.
The facility as shown would receive source water from the WID South Main Canal at the
westernmost extent of the canal near Applewood Drive. The close proximity to the canal
minimizes capital and O&M costs for pipelines and pumping facilities. Table 15 shows the
project level cost estimate for the Westside Recharge Pond Alternative.
Table 15: Westside Recharge Pond Alternative
Facility Quantity Units Unit Cost Capital Annual O&M Annual O&M
Cost Rate Cost
36" Pipeline
2,000 feet $220 $439,000
0.5% of capital
$2,000
Recharge Basin
57 acre $42,820 $2,440,000
4% of capital
$98,000
Land
57 acre $30,000 $1,710,000
n/a
Pump
30 HP $1,710 $51,000 4% of cap + power
$12,000
30% Contingency
$1,390,000
n/a
Total: $6,000,000
$112,000
Eastside Recharge Pond Cost Estimate
A recharge pond on the east side of the City just east of Highway 99 is shown on Figure 15.
An east side location may be advantageous for recharging water upgradient of City extraction
wells. Based on the assumptions of a percolation rate of a 1.0 foot/day with a total capacity
of 7,000 acre-feet over eight months and a peaking factor of 2.0, the recharge facilities would
require 57 acres of land.
The facility as shown would receive source water from the WID South Canal at the canal's
intersection with Harney Lane. The conveyance pipeline would travel along Harney Lane
eastward past Highway 99 before heading north. Table 16 shows the project level cost
estimate for the Eastside Recharge Pond Alternative. The distance and upgradient location of
this recharge pond relative to the WID South Main Canal makes this alternative more
expensive relative to the Westside Recharge Alternative. The capital costs for pipelines and
pumping facilities are approximately $3.4 million greater than the Westside Recharge
Alternative.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 49 of 83
MO 2 Tr
Alo
r F
�• j, �-"-, -a Y.{; f gig.-�.! •'T:' 1
WjA
r.+
IL
a �.y 3: 7 �..'��'+� �[d 7+f'y iJ ■ X,� -la
5y E 4 ( yy
''JW
F;'Altofi
rr
U.1-Mr
IIS 1`�
i ��iYl 6 . • I �� ; r�I
Westside 3 «-°� �j,I` : r, �i4��:
Recharge Basin pw'
vi
I wil
T � �� �• l�yl'"-� li.�—�- 'a ` -���' is j; i 1.�:�y,j f�..�' i §� �� '.� _ _ .�apr� '�. � r.,•
s
ti
tom. h r. e _a�sin�
l Y I.X A. In.,
{1 Aff
Pf
' S l
Surface Water Treatment Plant and Distribution
A possible alternative of use for the WID water is to treat the water for potable uses and
direct supply. The water would be available on a seasonal basis, for approximately eight
months of the year. The water treatment facility is designed for a 9.5 MGD capacity, given
the facility the capability to provide roughly 7,000 acre-feet of water over an eight month
time period. It is assumed that the treatment plant would be run as a base loaded supply at
full capacity — no peaking factor is used in this sizing. As such, only nominally sized on-site
wet wells are assumed — no regulatory storage is assumed. Peak City demands would be met
from groundwater.
The surface water treatment plant alternative is unique relative to all other alternatives
evaluated because it would directly supply the City's distribution system with potable water.
This represents in -lieu recharge by supplementing groundwater pumping with surface water
supply and allowing the curtailment of groundwater use.
The majority of design assumptions for this alternative are taken from Alternatives for Water
Supply from the California Aqueduct (Parsons 2001). The reference study evaluated
numerous treatment methods for supplying California Aqueduct water directly to
municipalities in the Mojave Desert. The study recommended treating the surface water
utilizing a duel process of Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) and Ultrafiltration. This process is
used as an estimate for the cost of designing a similar facility in Lodi. Several other recently
designed or constructed treatment plants using a variety of treatment methods were found to
have similar unit construction costs.
The generalized process consists of low lift pumping from the intake location on the WID
South Main Canal to prescreening facilities followed by the DAF unit. The DAF unit will
remove algae, suspended solids, and protozoan pathogens such as cryptosporidium and
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 51 of 83
Table 16: Eastside Recharge Pond Alternative
Facility
Quantity Units
Unit Cost
Capital
Annual O&M
Annual O&M
Cost
Rate
Cost
36" Pipeline
12,500 feet
$220
$2,745,000
0.5% of capital
$14,000
Recharge Basin
57 acre
$42,820
$2,440,000
4% of capital
$98,000
Land
57 acre
$30,000
$1,710,000
n/a
Pump
200 HP
$1,710
$342,0004% of cap + power
$79,000
30% Contingency
$2,170,000
n/a
Total:
$9,400,000
$191,000
Surface Water Treatment Plant and Distribution
A possible alternative of use for the WID water is to treat the water for potable uses and
direct supply. The water would be available on a seasonal basis, for approximately eight
months of the year. The water treatment facility is designed for a 9.5 MGD capacity, given
the facility the capability to provide roughly 7,000 acre-feet of water over an eight month
time period. It is assumed that the treatment plant would be run as a base loaded supply at
full capacity — no peaking factor is used in this sizing. As such, only nominally sized on-site
wet wells are assumed — no regulatory storage is assumed. Peak City demands would be met
from groundwater.
The surface water treatment plant alternative is unique relative to all other alternatives
evaluated because it would directly supply the City's distribution system with potable water.
This represents in -lieu recharge by supplementing groundwater pumping with surface water
supply and allowing the curtailment of groundwater use.
The majority of design assumptions for this alternative are taken from Alternatives for Water
Supply from the California Aqueduct (Parsons 2001). The reference study evaluated
numerous treatment methods for supplying California Aqueduct water directly to
municipalities in the Mojave Desert. The study recommended treating the surface water
utilizing a duel process of Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) and Ultrafiltration. This process is
used as an estimate for the cost of designing a similar facility in Lodi. Several other recently
designed or constructed treatment plants using a variety of treatment methods were found to
have similar unit construction costs.
The generalized process consists of low lift pumping from the intake location on the WID
South Main Canal to prescreening facilities followed by the DAF unit. The DAF unit will
remove algae, suspended solids, and protozoan pathogens such as cryptosporidium and
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 51 of 83
giardia. Effluent from the DAF process would then be pumped to the Ultrafiltration
membrane treatment system to remove microbial pathogens and viruses. After Ultrafiltration
a disinfectant residual would be added to the treated water pursuant to California Code of
Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 17, Section 64654. The treated and disinfected water would
then be pumped directly in the distribution system at a pressure of 50 psi.
Water Quality Regulations
As discussed previously, the City currently relies on nondisinfected groundwater for all
municipal water supply. Presently, only surface water systems and systems using
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water are required to disinfect their water
supplies. If the City integrates surface water into the current distribution system this would
trigger regulations requiring the disinfection of all water within the system.
The City potentially could design a partially integrated or completely separate distribution
system for the treated surface water, avoiding the requirement to chlorinate its groundwater
supply. The limitation of the WID supply to seven -and -one-half months would add the
complications of start-up At this time, the City has decided not to pursue this option and it is
not evaluated further within this report.
Distribution System Disinfection
Chlorine disinfection is the most commonly practiced disinfection technology for microbial
contamination of groundwater. The most common methods of chlorine disinfection include
chlorine gas, sodium or calcium hypochlorite, chloramines, chlorine dioxide, or some
combination of the aforementioned. Many groundwater systems that practice chlorine
disinfection do so by providing a free chlorine residual at the entry point to the distribution
system. The City of Sacramento uses surface water and groundwater in their distribution
system. As a preventive measure the City of Sacramento disinfects groundwater at the
wellhead with gas chlorine and maintains a chlorine residual in the distribution system of
approximately 0.5 ppm. 52 Other less common means of disinfection include pasteurization,
ozone treatment, and ultra violet light — these methods do not provide a disinfectant residual.
Proposed Groundwater Rule
The EPA is proposing a Groundwater Rule (GWR) that specifies when corrective action
(including disinfection) is required to protect consumers from bacteria and viruses found in
groundwater distribution systems.
52 Personal communication, Ron Meyers, June 23, 2000
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 52 of 83
The GWR lists disinfection as a corrective action for groundwater systems that detect
contamination. Through its GWR, EPA considered requiring systems to apply a disinfectant
residual at the entry point to the distribution system and maintain a detectable disinfectant
residual throughout the distribution system. However, EPA decided against including it in the
proposed GWR since a disinfectant residual is more accepted as a distribution system tool
than for controlling source water contamination. Under the proposed GWR, groundwater
systems that detect microbial contamination would be required to provide 4 -log (99.99%)
disinfection and conduct compliance monitoring to demonstrate treatment effectiveness.
The GWR defines disinfection as the inactivation or removal of fecal microbial
contamination. Chemical disinfection of viruses involves providing a dosage of a
disinfectant for a period of time (the "CT") for the purposes of inactivating the viruses. For
most treatment strategies, the level of inactivation achieved varies depending on the target
microorganism, residual disinfectant concentration, groundwater temperature and pH, water
quality and the contact time. A system compares the CT value achieved to the published CT
value for a given level of treatment (e.g., 4 -log inactivation of viruses) to determine the level
of treatment attained. As long as the CT value achieved by the system meets or exceeds the
CT value needed to inactivate viruses to 4 -log, the system meets the treatment technique
requirement. The City program to provide ultraviolet disinfection would meet these
standards.
Cost Estimate
The cost estimate for this surface water treatment and distribution is presented in Table 17.
The facility as sized would require a constant flow of 9.5 MGD over eight months every year
to treat and deliver approximately 7,000 acre-feet of water with an estimated capital cost of
$14 million and an estimated O&M cost of $800,000.
Table 17: Surface Water Treatment Plant Alternative
Facility Quantity Units Unit Cost Capital Annual O&M Annual O&M
Cost Rate Cost
9.5 MGD Treatment Facility
9,500,000 gal/day
$1.00
$9,500,000
6% of capital
$570,000
Intake Pump
30
HP
$1,710
$51,0004% of cap + power
$12,000
24" Intake Pipeline
1,500
feet
$146
$220,000
0.5% of capital
$1,000
Distribution Pump Station
300
HP
$1,710
$513,0004% of cap + power
$217,000
24" Distribution Pipeline
1,500
feet
$146
$220,000
0.5% of capital
$1,000
Land
2
acre
$100,000
$200,000
n/a
30% Contingency
$3,210,000
n/a
Total:
$13,900,000
$800,000
*Excludes clear well
*Excludes chlorination for entire distribution system
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 53 of 83
L-
. 3
r
I' 1 c
Southeast Recharge Utilizing NSJWCD Facilities
The southern NSJWCD pipeline extends south from the Mokelumne River parallel to eastern
boundary of City Limits approximately 2-3 miles away. The NSJWCD south pumping plant
has five pumps with a combined 315 horsepower, which could provide over 50 cfs of
conveyance in the southern pipeline. This flow rate is more than adequate to supply the
current users of the canal while providing recharge of up to 7,000 acre-feet/year to the
eastern area of Lodi. Figure 17 shows the project location, existing NSJWCD facilities, and
proposed facilities to deliver recharge.
The recharge pond location used in the Eastside Recharge Pond Alternative is proposed for
this alternative with a total area of 57 acres. The pipeline length from the NSJWCD south
canal is approximately 13,000 feet with a 70 HP booster pump required. The capital cost of
the project is $10.4 million. No estimate was made for the cost of the water, although current
users are charged a flat rate of $50/acre (about $17/AF). The supply of water will be less
reliable than supply from the WID South Main Canal. No regulated water supply is available
from the NSJWCD canal in dry years.
Table 18: Southeast Recharge
Utilizing
NSJWCD Facilities
Unit Cost
Capital
Annual O&M
Facility
Quantity Units
Cost
Annual OSTM Rate
Cost
36" Pipeline
17,000 feet
$220
$3,733,000
0.5% of capital
$19,000
Recharge Basin
57 acre
$42,820
$2,441,000
4% of capital
$98,000
Land
57 acre
$30,000
$1,710,000
n/a
Pump
70 HP
$1,710
$120,000
4% of cap + power
$28,000
30% Contingency
$2,401,000
n/a
Total:
$10,400,000
$150,000
EBMUD Banking and Large Scale Pump Back
A potential water banking agreement with EBMUD is evaluated in this alternative. As
shown on Figure 17, EBMUD's Mokelumne Aqueduct would be the source of supply.
Assuming operations similar to those proposed by EBMUD in the 1990s, there would be a to
a two-for-one exchange between EBMUD and the City with EBMUD extracting no more
than half of the water it stores at the proposed recharge basin south of the City's sphere of
influence. This analysis assumes recharge of water from EBMUD's rights, but could
incorporate the City's WID water. A County permit to export groundwater may be required
to return water to EBMUD from outside the City's sphere of influence. Figure 17 shows a
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 55 of 83
potential pipeline route for delivering water from the Mokelumne River Aqueduct to the
recharge basin.
The project is sized for an average annual recharge of 6,000 acre-feet of water. The sizing is
dependent on the assumption that EBMUD would only need to extract water in one out of
every three years for dry -year supply with the remaining two years dedicated to recharge. To
arrive at an average annual recharge of 6,000 acre-feet the project would need to recharge
18,000 acre-feet in two out of three years to allow for 18,000 acre-feet to be extracted by
EBMUD for use in one year out of three. A net 18,000 acre-feet would remain in storage in
the Lodi area over the three year period.
Table 19 shows the project level estimate of costs for the 18,000 acre-feet recharge and
extraction facility. Unlike most alternatives evaluated, the facility is assumed to have the
capability to operate during the entire year. To account for periods of maintenance and
unavailable supply a peaking factor of 1.5 was included in this analysis and represented in
the sizing of facilities shown in Table 19.
Table 19: EBMUD In -Lieu and Banking Potential
Unit Cost Capital Annual O&M Annual O&M
Facility
Quantity
Units
Cost
Rate
Cost
36" Pipeline
21,000
feet
$220
$4,610,000
0.5% of capital
$23,000
Recharge Basin
111
acre
$42,820
$4,740,000
4% of capital
$190,000
Land
111
acre
$30,000
$3,320,000
n/a
Extraction Wells
10
each
$208,000
$2,080,000 4% of cap + power
$278,000
GAC Units'
10
each
$600,000
$6,000,000
$36,000
$360,000
Booster Pump
2,100
HP
$1,710
$3,590,000 4% of cap + power
$448,000
30% Contingency
$7,300,000
n/a
Total:
$31,600,0002
$1,300,000
'Cost estimates from City of Lodi Water Storage Tank Study
2New extraction wells and GAC units may not be required if existing City facilities are used, lowering Total
Capital Cost to $21,100,000
The pressure supplied by the Mokelumne Aqueduct will be more than sufficient to convey
flow to the recharge ponds. To pump water back to the Mokelumne Aqueduct 10 extraction
wells are necessary to provide for peak conveyance of 37 cfs. It is assumed that EBMUD
would require granular activated carbon facilities on all extraction wells. The extraction
wells can return water to the Mokelumne Aqueduct with roughly 70 feet of head, based on an
initial pressure of 50 psi minus friction losses during conveyance back to the Mokelumne
Aqueduct. It is assumed that the pressure in the Mokelumne Aqueduct during pump back
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 56 of 83
r
I .
im
IL
_ MONK` ;
� I ,
+
I
T� r yI R
I� ►�
yy
ii111yy666 1•I��__
{p' 3
JIJ m
+ a
jjL
I, �. � 1 _.,i1�7`tt—. gni 81 ut ..P "•e' � I ,_ � _ �,
J _
4 ,
hiar, e I
u« 1
_ �' • r —�, �.,�: ' �. �'B;a '_`� 1. l �� I 'i:
_ L ,j,l
•W
Lv
I
"
r6 1
argeF sin v` ,
tocktoAk—
ILI
�
-Ir"sFil; It
Iny
17, 1.I_; .. � ,_...�... ,u .�. .. .� ..�, 3 4� .:Y ''.'� �k �t:�• �`.a ' ,. '�4dP'l��s:� I '
operations will be roughly 180 psi or 415 feet of head.53 To supply the additional 345 feet of
head required to return water to the Mokelumne Aqueduct a booster pump with roughly
2,100 HP would be necessary.
The cost of the facility is substantial relative to the alternatives previously evaluated. A
project of this nature might be negotiated for EMBUD to pay most, if not all the capital and
operating costs. Costs could be reduced if existing City extraction wells and GAC units are
used.
Interim EBMUD Drought Contingency
The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sacramento County Water
Agency are in the process of developing the 286 cfs Freeport Regional Water Project on the
Sacramento River. EBMUD's 155 cfs capacity will be conveyed to a connection point with
the Mokelumne Aqueduct in San Joaquin County. The August 2003 Draft EIR/EIS
anticipates project completion in 2010. For this option, Lodi would enter into a water supply
contingency arrangement with EBMUD that would allow use of the WID contract supply
until the Freeport supply facilities are completed. Lodi's water purchase costs could be
offset, and additional proceeds from this arrangement used to construct recharge or other
facilities. Water would be exchanged in -river, and EBMUD would take delivery through its
existing diversion system. No capital facilities would be required.
EBMUD's average annual Freeport diversion is estimated as 23,200 acre-feet per year, with
all diversion occurring in the one-third driest years. EBMUD's share of the Freeport capital
construction cost is estimated at $439 million. EBMUD estimates unit operation and
maintenance costs at $460 per acre-foot 54. Unit capital repayment 55 would be about $1,480
per acre-foot of supply.
Years when EBMUD would require a supplemental supply would likely be years that WID
supplies would be reduced by 35 percent, and supplies to Lodi reduced to 3,000 AF/yr.
Based on EBMUD's need in the one-third driest years, the transfer to EBMUD would
average 1000 AF/yr. Ways a deal might be structured include:
0o If EBMUD were to pay at Lodi's cost of $200/AF, one-sixth of the WID payment
would be offset for the period of the interim agreement.
53 Boyle, 1999 Beckman Test Injection/Extraction Project
54 March 2003 personal communication with David Bruzzone, EBMUD. Estimate based on average energy cost
of $0.10/kWh
55 Assumes 6% interest for 25 years and average annual supply of 23,200 AF/yr
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 58 of 83
• If EBMUD were to pay at the $460/AF cost of Freeport operation, 38% of the WID
payment would be offset.
• If EBMUD were to pay all of the WID purchase costs on an interim basis, the unit
cost of water to EBMUD would be approximately $1,200/AF, which is still in the
range of EBMUD's total (O&M plus capital repayment) Freeport unit cost.
Under each of these scenarios, the WID water would be available for Lodi's use in two out of
three years.
Transfer of the WID supply to an out -of -County entity would be controversial. San Joaquin
County's Groundwater Export Ordinance requires a permit for transferring groundwater out
of county "through direct or indirect means." It is not clear whether the Export Ordinance
could be construed to apply to transfer of surface water entitlements. In any event,
incorporated cities such as Lodi are not required to obtain permits under the Export
Ordinance.
A variety of other projects with EBMUD might be possible. Elements could include
EBMUD supplying extra wet year water in exchange for Lodi's dry year entitlements, or
storage of Lodi's supply in EBMUD's reservoirs to allow year-round recharge requiring
smaller capital facilities. Defining the possible permutations of such elements is beyond the
scope of this study.
Interim Supply to Stockton Recharge Ponds
An interim supply of surface water to the City of Stockton is evaluated in this alternative.
The WID South Main Canal terminates just north of the City of Stockton. The canal can
deliver water to Bear Creek at the northern end of Stockton. Delivering water to Bear Creek
via the WID canal could supply a recharge basin in northern Stockton, as shown in Figure 17.
The water supply to the City of Stockton from the City of Lodi would be a temporary
agreement until the City develops recharge facilities for the WID surface water. It is
assumed that the capital and operating costs of the project would be funded by the City of
Stockton. As shown in Table 20, the estimated capital cost of the project is approximately
$11 million. The high cost of this alternative compared to similar pond recharge alternatives
can be attributed to the estimated cost of land in Stockton. The proposed recharge basin is
currently located in northern Stockton with an estimated land cost of $100,000/acre. Moving
the recharge basin further from City limits would reduce the total project cost to
approximately $7 million if the cost of land was reduced to $30,000/acre. Utilization of
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 59 of 83
existing flood detention facilities along Bear Creek might allow recharge at minimal to no
cost, and could allow recovery of WID water purchase costs. Agreement with the San
Joaquin County Area Flood Control Agency would be required.
Table 20: Stockton Recharge Pond Alternative
Facility Quantity Units Unit Cost Capital Annual O&M Annual O&M
Cost Rate Cost
36" Pipeline
500 feet $220
$110,000
0.5% of capital
$1,000
Recharge Basin
57 acre $42,820
$2,440,000
4% of capital
$98,000
Land
57 acre $100,000
$5,700,000
n/a
Pump
30 HP $1,710
$51,000
4% of cap + power
$12,000
30% Contingency
$2,490,000
n/a
Total:
$10,800,000
$110,000
Summary
The alternatives evaluated include surface water irrigation of parks and schools, injection of
surface water, percolation of surface water, and direct surface water treatment and supply.
To compare the relative cost of each alternative for utilizing a surface water supply a unit
cost methodology was developed to estimate capital, operating and maintenance costs. Table
21 presents the projects sorted by the source of surface water supply. The majority of
projects are designed to supply roughly 6,000-7,000 acre-feet/year of water. Projects
designed to meet smaller demands include the irrigation of existing schools and parks from
the WID South Main Canal and both recycled water supply options (discussed in the
subsequent section). The relatively inexpensive irrigation alternatives do not have the
capacity to utilize the entire WID supply, but could be combined with other alternatives to
bring overall costs down.
As shown in Table 21, the most economical City -only project is the Westside Recharge
Ponds. The project is located next to the source of water, the WID South Main Canal, and
substantial savings are introduced by minimizing the cost of transport facilities. The most
expensive projects using WID water are the injection well and surface water treatment plant
options. Both projects have an estimated capital cost of roughly $14 million, although the
injection well option is roughly half the cost to operate and maintain on an annual basis
relative to the surface water treatment plant. Cooperative projects with the City of Stockton
or EBMUD might be implemented at little or no cost to Lodi, subject to the outcome of
negotiations with these entities.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 60 of 83
Table 21: Summary of Alternatives
Stockton Interim Recharge $0 to
$0 to
Average
Estimated City
Estimated
Annualized
Unit Cost in
$950,000
Project Category
Alternative
Water Supply
$/AF of Avg.
Comments
$0 to
$0 to
(AF/year)
Capital Cost
O&M Cost
Cost'
Use
$630
water export may be controversial
Surface Water Irrigation of
1,000
$1,400,000
$68,000
$180,000
$180
Does not maximize use of WID supply
Parks and Schools
Small amount of surface area required; provides direct recharge; high
Injection Wells
6,000
$14,600,000
$520,000
$1,660,000
$280
operation and maintenance costs; requires dispersed network of injection
and extraction wells
Westside Recharge Pond
6,000
$6,000,000
$112,000
$580,000
$100
Most economical; land available; suitable infiltration rates
Surface Water
Projects City
with
Cost
Eastside Recharge Pond
6,000
$9,400,000
$191,000
$930,000
$160
Recharge located in area of lowest GW levels; land available; suitable
infiltration rates
Surface Water Treatment
6,000
$13,900,000
$800,000
$1,890,000
$320
Provides in -lieu groundwater recharge; disinfection of entire distribution
Plant
system required; needs base line supply
Recharge Utilizing NSJWCD
6,000
$10,400,000
$150,000
$960,000
$160
Recharge located in area of lowest groundwater levels; land available;
Facilities
additional capacity using NSJWCD supply
Stockton Interim Recharge $0 to
$0 to
$0 to
$0 to
Interim project to offset WID purchase costs; use of flood control facilities
Ponds 6,000
$10,800,000
$110,000
$950,000
$160
could reduce cost
Regional Projects
with Shared or No EBMUD In -Lieu and Banking $0 to
$0 to
$0 to
$0 to
Recharge located in area of lowest GW levels: cost sharing opportunities;
6,000
City Cost2 Potential $31,600,000
$1,300,000
$3,770,000
$630
water export may be controversial
EBMUD In -River Exchange 0 5 $0 $0 $0 net revenue Interim revenue generation option. Average supply to EBMUD 1,000
generator AF/yr, leaving 5,000 AF/yr for local recharge
White Slough Recycled
Recycled Water Water Return
Projects with City
Cost
Scalping Facility 3,4
2,000 $4,700,000 $98,000 $470,000 $240 No new cost for water; funding assistance may be available; public
perception issues;
2,000 $14,600,000 $700,000 $1,840,000 $920 No new cost for water; funding assistance may be available; public
perception issues
1 Capital repayment based on a 25 -year payback period with 6% interest; Table does not include the price of water
2 Range of costs reflects to -be -negotiated cost sharing
3 Excludes non -potable distribution system and regulating storage
4 Excludes offsetting benefit of operation delayed expansion of White Slough WPCF
53,000 AF of WID supply transferred to EBMUD in 1/3 of years
Section 6. Recycled Water Options
Background
The City of Lodi Public Works Department operates the White Slough Water Pollution
Control Facility (White Slough WPCF), located six miles to the southwest of the Lodi
service area. The facility has the capacity to treat up to 8.5 MGD (9,500 acre-feet/year) of
wastewater. White Slough WPCF currently treats an average of 6.6 MGD (7,400 acre-
feet/year)56
The current level of treatment at White Slough WPCF is conventional activated sludge
secondary treatment and chlorine gas disinfection. Primary and secondary solids are further
treated in anaerobic digesters and a biosolids lagoon. The majority of secondary treated
effluent is discharged either to surface water (Dredger Cut) or used for agricultural irrigation
of animal feed crops on adjacent City land. Tertiary treatment facilities to treat water to Title
22 standards are currently under construction. Surface waters currently receive disinfected
secondary effluent and animal feed crops receive a mixture of non -disinfected secondary
effluent, digested biosolids, and industrial wastewater. A small amount of treated effluent is
used adjacent to the treatment plant for the Mosquito Abatement District fish ponds and the
NCPA Power Plant.
Objective
The objective of this report section is to provide a framework for future decision-making
regarding recycling options for tertiary treated effluent within the City's service area. After
completion of the tertiary treatment facilities, the City is planning to discharge tertiary
effluent to surface waters when necessary, while continuing to irrigate animal feed crops with
non -disinfected secondary effluent. This operation may be the most economical use of
treated effluent in the near-term, but increasing demands on groundwater and increasing
surface water discharge regulations may provide future incentive for water recycling within
the City's service area. This section reviews the recycling options available to the City, the
potential pathways for financial support associated with capital improvements, and the
current water quality regulations for recycled water projects.
56 Lodi Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), 2001
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 62 of 83
Recycling Options
Recycling treated municipal wastewater has been practiced since the early 1900s as one
option to efficiently manage water resources. The Water Recycling Task Force 2003
(WRTF), created by Assembly Bill 331 to identify opportunities for increasing the use of
recycled water, estimated that California currently recycles between 450,000 to 580,000 acre-
feet per year. The WRTF determined that California has the potential to recycle up to 1.5
million acre-feet/year of water by the year 2030. The most common recycling options
include the following:
• Landscape irrigation of highway medians, golf courses, parks, schoolyards and
residential homes
• Agricultural uses such as irrigation of produce, pastures for animal feed, and nursery
plant products
• Industrial uses such as power station cooling towers, oil refinery boiler feed water,
carpet dying, and recycled newspaper processing
• Groundwater percolation
While the City currently recycles secondary treated effluent for agricultural irrigation of
animal feed crops, tertiary treated effluent has a much broader set of uses, including
applications within the City's service area. Table 22 displays the minimum level of
treatment for various recycling options as determined by the California Department of Health
Services (DHS).
Future Recycled Water Demand
Irrigating residential and commercial landscapes with recycled water can decrease new
demands for potable water. Typical uses for tertiary treated recycled water include irrigation
of residential landscapes, street medians, golf courses, parks, and schoolyards. In most cases
using recycled water in residential and commercial areas will require dual plumbing.
This analysis assumes that only future facilities and residences would receive dual plumbing
for recycled water use. It is assumed that retrofitting existing facilities with dual plumbing
would be prohibitively expensive and would lack an adequate funding source. The marginal
cost of such a system would be substantially less if installed together with a potable water
system in newly developed areas. Cost sharing options for installing dual plumbing during
the construction of future facilities is discussed in a subsequent section.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 63 of 83
Table 22: Examples of DHS Minimum Treatment Levels
Adapted from Water Recycling 2030, Recycled Water Task Force
Minimum Treatment Level
Disinfected Disinfected Non -disinfected
Types of Use Tertiary Secondary Secondary
Urban Uses and Landscape Irrigation
Fire protection X
Toilet & Urinal Flushing X
Irrigation of Parks, Schoolyards, Residential Landscaping X
Irrigation of Cemeteries, Highway Landscaping X
Irrigation of Nurseries X
Landscape Impoundment X X*
Agricultural Irrigation
Pasture for milk animals X
Fodder and Fiber Crops X
Orchards (no contact between fruit and recycled water) X
Vineyards (no contact between fruit and recycled water) X
Non -Food Bearing Trees X
Food Crops Eaten After Processing X
Food Crops Eaten Raw X
Commercial/Industrial
Cooling & Air Conditioning - w/cooling towers X X*
Structural Fire Fighting X
Commercial Car Washes X
Commercial Laundries X
Artificial Snow Making X
Soil Compaction, Concrete Mixing X
Environmental and other Uses
Recreational Ponds with Body Contact (Swimming) X
Wildlife Habitat/Wetland X
Aquaculture X X*
Groundwater Recharge
Seawater intrusion Barrier
X*
Replenishment of potable aquifers X*
* Restrictions may apply
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 64 of 83
Table 23 displays an estimation of future water demand within the City's service area that
could be satisfied with recycled water. To estimate future demand supported by recycled
water it is assumed that all new single family residential households constructed between
2005 and 2020 would use recycled water for landscape irrigation of front and back yards.
Table 3-1 of the City's 2001 UWMP estimates approximately 4,000 residential households
will be constructed between 2005 and 2020. Total residential recycled water demand was
estimated based on the 4,000 residential households and a recycled water unit use rate based
on El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) data.
Table 23: Future Potential Recycled Water Demand 2005 - 2020
Land Use Quantity Recycled Water Use Annual Recycled Water
Factor Demand (AF/yr)
Residential Households
4,000 dwelling units
0.32 acre-feet/yr/du
1,280
Parks
42 acres
3.0 acre-feet/yr/acre
130
Greenbelt Corridors
120 acres
3.0 acre-feet/yr/acre
360
Schools
30 acres
2.0 acre-feet/yr/acre
60
Public/Quasi Public'
34 acres
2.0 acre-feet/yr/acre
70
Total
1,900
' Includes government owned facilities,
public and private schools, hospitals, and churches
The EID currently has 1,300 dual plumbed residential connections that irrigate front and back
yards with recycled water. The average lot size of these residences is roughly 0.2 acres.57
Based on historic metering data, the Recycled Water Master Plan for the El Dorado
Irrigation District, 2002 concluded that the average annual use of recycled water for their
dual plumbed residential dwelling units is 0.42 acre-feet/year. The City of Lodi's Westside
Facilities Master Plan, 2001 estimates the average lot size of planned residential units is 0.15
acres, roughly 75% of the average lot size of dual plumbed EID residences. EID's recycled
water use rate of 0.42 acre-feet/year/residence was adjusted to 75% to reflect the difference
in average lot size. Applying a rate of 0.32 acre-feet/year/residence to Lodi yields
approximately 1,280 acre-feet/year of potential residential water demand that could be
satisfied with recycled water.
The City's Westside Facilities Master Plan, 2001 was consulted to estimate potential
recycled water demand from new parks, greenbelt corridors, schools, and public/quasi public
areas. The Westside Plan proposes a development of 1,331 residential units, which is
approximately one-third of the 4,000 residential households assumed to be constructed
between 2005 and 2020 in the UWMP. Assuming that the ratio of land uses to residential
households found in the Westside Plan is typical for all new development within the City, the
57 Personal Communication with EID engineer Cindy Megerdigian (September, 2003)
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 65 of 83
areas of land capable of receiving recycled water in the Westside Plan were tripled to
calculate total acreages of new parks, schools, etc. Average water demands for parks and
schools was calculated from 2001 water meter data provided by the City. Water demand for
public/quasi public land and greenbelt corridors is estimated at 2.0 and 3.0 acre-feet/year,
respectively.
Estimates displayed in Table 23 show that the City could potentially use 1,900 acre-feet of
recycled water for various landscaping irrigation purposes. Recycled water use potential is
thus about a third of the WID supply. Recycled water options included in this report have
been sized to accommodate a nominal 2,000 acre-feet of demand to provide flexibility in
implementation.
Balance Between Recycled Water Demand and Supply
The recycled water demand estimate is based primarily on landscape irrigation needs for new
development. Typical demands for landscape irrigation in California occur during the fall,
spring, and summer. Table 24 displays an estimate of monthly recycled water demand58 as a
percentage of annual demand. The monthly volume of recycled water demand shown in
Table 24 is based on the estimated annual demand of 2,000 acre-feet. As shown in the table,
the highest demands occur during the summer months to satisfy irrigation needs. The peak
monthly demand for potential recycled water occurs in July, with an estimated demand of
408 acre-feet.
Table 24:
Demand Variability of Recycled Water From New Development
Percent of
Monthly
Daily
Daily
Hourly Demand
Month
Annual
Demand (AF)
Demand
Demand
9 hour irrigation
Demand'
(AF)
(MG)
(MG)
January
2.0%
41
1.3
0.43
0.05
February
3.0%
60
2.2
0.70
0.08
March
5.1%
103
3.3
1.08
0.12
April
7.2%
144
4.8
1.56
0.17
May
10.2%
204
6.6
2.15
0.24
June
15.1%
302
10.1
3.28
0.36
July
20.4%
408
13.2
4.29
0.48
August
17.4%
348
11.2
3.66
0.41
September
10.2%
204
6.8
2.22
0.25
October
5.1%
103
3.3
1.08
0.12
November
2.0%
41
1.4
0.44
0.05
December
2.0%
41
1.3
0.43
0.05
'EID Recycled Water Master Plan
58 El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) Recycled Water Master Plan (2002)
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 66 of 83
Table 24 also displays estimates for potential daily and hourly recycled water demand.
Current recommendations for recycled water suggest that all spray irrigation occur during the
hours with the minimum opportunity for public contact. EID requires dual -plumbed
residential customers to irrigate with recycled water between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 6:30
a.m.59 This analysis assumes that all recycled water demand occurs during a similar 9 -hour
period.
While irrigating with recycled water at night provides an additional level of safety for the
public it creates a discrepancy between supply and demand. Wastewater treatment plants
typically receive the highest flows during the day and the lowest flows during the night.
Consequently, to satisfy all recycled water demand occurring at night some level of
distribution storage is needed. Approximately 2-3 million gallons of storage for recycled
water would be needed to satisfy peak demands, based on the rough estimate described
below.
The 2001 UWMP estimates an average annual wastewater flow in 2020 of 8.5 MGD 60, which
includes industrial flows. It is assumed that all industrial flows, which are predominantly
cannery waste containing high levels of solids and organics, would not be treated for in -city
use. Subtracting out maximum industrial flows of roughly 450 MG 61 to the 2020 UWMP
estimate yields an average annual wastewater flow of 7.25 MGD. Assuming this flow is
constant throughout the year equates to an average hourly inflow of .30 MG. Assuming
nighttime flow rates equal two thirds of daytime rates62, an estimated 1.8 MG of inflow
would occur during the 9 -hour period between 9:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. As shown in the
Table 24, the peak hourly demand of 0.48 MG/hour occurs in July. Extending this over 9
hours equates to 4.3 MG. Based on these estimates, a 2.5 MG discrepancy exists between
supply and demand and would need to be made up from distribution storage.
Recycled Water Options
Two options are considered in this report to use recycled water within the City's service area:
(1) a return pipeline constructed from White Slough WPCF to convey tertiary treated effluent
back to the City; and (2) a "scalping facility" constructed near the City limits to treat a
portion of the flow headed to White Slough WPCF while returning solids and some liquid to
the White Slough pipeline for final treatment and disposal.
59 Personal Communication with EID engineer Cindy Megerdigian (September, 2003)
60 Excludes cannery flows
61 West Yost & Associates, Wastewater Master Plan (2001)
62 Based on the Master Plan peaking factor of 1.5
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 67 of 83
The cost of recycled water distribution and diurnal storage within the City's service area is
not evaluated because it is assumed the cost would be similar for both alternatives. For
comparison purposes both options are evaluated based on each providing tertiary treated
recycled water in the southwest corner of the City with a distribution pressure of 50 psi.
Recycled Water Return from White Slough WPCF
Unit costs described previously in this report was applied to the White Slough return pipeline
to evaluate the current capital cost of constructing the project. The analysis assumes a
pipeline length of 27,500 feet with a diameter of 18 inches based on an average annual
demand of 2,000 acre-feet. A pumping station with 350 horsepower is included to return
flow to the City's service area with a distribution pressure of 50 psi. Figure 18 displays the
pipeline route from White Slough to the City service area. The analysis estimates a capital
cost for returning recycled water to the City service area of $4.7 million. In addition to
capital cost an annual O&M cost of approximately $98,000 would be incurred to return the
recycled water from White Slough WPCF.
*Excludes distribution system and regulating storage
West Yost & Associates (WYA) provided the City with a project level cost estimate in 2000
for a return pipeline for recycled water from White Slough WPCF. WYA provided two
estimates based on 27,500 feet of pipe conveying (1) the full treatment capacity of White
Slough; and (2) approximately half of the treatment capacity of White Slough. The WYA
cost estimate for the facility conveying approximately half of the treatment capacity of White
Slough WPCF would approximately 4.25 MGD of conveyance, or the approximate peak
month (July) demand for recycled water. WYA estimates a total capital cost of $5.4 million
for installing pumping facilities and pipeline.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 68 of 83
Table 25:
White Slough Recycled Water Return
Facility
Quantity
Units Unit Cost Capital Annual O&M Rate
Cost
Annual
O&M Cost
18" Pipeline
27,500
feet $110 $3,020,000 0.5% of capital
$15,000
Pump Station
350
HP $1,710 $599,000 4% of cap + power
$83,000
30% Contingency
$1,086,000
Total: $4,700,000"
$98,000
*Excludes distribution system and regulating storage
West Yost & Associates (WYA) provided the City with a project level cost estimate in 2000
for a return pipeline for recycled water from White Slough WPCF. WYA provided two
estimates based on 27,500 feet of pipe conveying (1) the full treatment capacity of White
Slough; and (2) approximately half of the treatment capacity of White Slough. The WYA
cost estimate for the facility conveying approximately half of the treatment capacity of White
Slough WPCF would approximately 4.25 MGD of conveyance, or the approximate peak
month (July) demand for recycled water. WYA estimates a total capital cost of $5.4 million
for installing pumping facilities and pipeline.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 68 of 83
L-
. 3
r
I' 1 c
Scalping Facility Treatment
A scalping facility near the City limits would negate the need to return recycled water from
White Slough via a pipeline and pumping station. Figure 18 shows the location of a potential
scalping facility constructed near the City limits to treat a portion of the flow headed to
White Slough WPCF. The scalping facility would intercept wastewater flow headed to
White Slough WPCF and treat the majority of liquid water while returning solids and some
liquid to the White Slough pipeline for final treatment and disposal. The scalping facility
would be designed to treat to tertiary standards for landscape irrigation purposes.
Table 26 displays the project level cost estimate for the scalping facility. Based on peak July
demand, the scalping facility would need a capacity of 4.3 MGD. The unit cost for such a
scalping facility is approximately $2.50 per gallon/day of capacity for capital construction. 63
Typical wastewater treatment plants cost approximately $5.00 per gallon/day of capacity, but
scalping the liquids and avoiding the need for a sludge treatment process reduces the capital
cost by half. The distribution pump station includes a 140 horsepower pumping facility to
provide 50 psi to the receiving distribution system.
As shown in Table 26, a scalping facility would cost approximately $14.6 million to
construct with an annual O&M cost of $700,000. This cost estimate does not take into
account the cost savings from decreased use of White Slough WPCF for wastewater
treatment nor does it consider the benefits of expanding the overall treatment capacity of the
City's wastewater treatment system — both of these factors are significant and will require
additional analysis beyond the scope of this study.
aUnit cost estimate developed from phone conversation with Brown and Caldwell (Tom Mingee)
bDoes not account for cost savings of White Slough WPCF operation nor capacity increase benefits
*Excludes distribution system and regulating storage
63 Phone conversations with Brown and Caldwell, Tom Mingee, August 2003
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 70 of 83
Table 26: Scalping
Facility
Costs
Capital
Annual O&M
Annual
Facility
Quantity Units
Unit Cost
Cost
Rate
O&M
Cost
4.5 MGD Scalping Facility'
4,300,000 gal/day
$2.50
$10,750,000
6% of capital
$645,000
Distribution Pump Station
140 HP
$1,710
$239,000 4%
of cap + power
$55,000
15" Distribution Pipeline
1,500 feet
$92
$137,000
0.5% of capital
$1,000
Land
3 acre
$30,000
$90,000
n/a
30% Contingency
$3,360,000
Total:
$14,600,000 *
$700,000
aUnit cost estimate developed from phone conversation with Brown and Caldwell (Tom Mingee)
bDoes not account for cost savings of White Slough WPCF operation nor capacity increase benefits
*Excludes distribution system and regulating storage
63 Phone conversations with Brown and Caldwell, Tom Mingee, August 2003
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 70 of 83
Potential Funding Mechanisms
State and Federal Sources
Water recycling projects are typically more expensive compared to alternative local water
supplies and state and federal agencies are more willing to provide subsidies for capital costs.
The Water Recycling Task Force (WTRF) 2003 noted a precedent for state or federal subsidy
of water projects when a particular project has financial difficulties and there are social,
economic, and/or environmental goals included within the project. State funding is typically
in the form of low interest loans or partial grants for planning, design, and construction of
projects. Federal funding is typically in the form of partial grants for design and construction.
Historically the sources of state funding have been bond
issues, the most recent of which is Proposition 50, which
includes $180 million for water use efficiency projects,
Table 27: Forecasted Prop
50 Water Recycling Funds
for Local Assistance
including water recycling.64 Table 27 displays the forecasted Fiscal Year Dollars (millions)
funding available for local assistance 65 with water recycling 2002-2003 $10.0
projects as administered under the following SWRCB 2003-2004 $25.52004-2005 $16.5
programs: Total $52.0
Water Recycling Facilities Planning Grant Program — The program provides
grants up to $75,000 to local public agencies to investigate the feasibility of water
recycling and to prepare a facilities plan. The planning grant requires a 50% local
match.
Water Recycling Construction Program - The program provides low-interest loans
and grants to local public agencies for the design and construction of water recycling
facilities. The types of facilities include wastewater treatment, recycled water storage
facilities, pump stations, and recycled water distribution pipelines. A funding
application must include a facilities plan to document the need for the project, the
alternatives that were analyzed, and the engineering, economic, financial, and
institutional feasibility of the proposed facilities.
64 Proposition 50 Section 79550 (g)
65 March 2003 Presentation by Diana Robles, Chief, Office of Water Recycling, SWRCB
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 71 of 83
Private Sources
An option besides funding from state and federal agencies is private investment. The El
Dorado Irrigation District (EID) recently partnered with the El Dorado Hills Development
Company (EDHDC) in an effort to minimize EID's potable water demand. To maximize the
use of recycled water the EDHDC dual -plumbed the Serrano development in El Dorado Hills
with potable and recycled water lines. The recycled water lines are used for golf course
irrigation, street median landscaping, park landscaping, and residential landscaping.
EDHDC paid for all capital costs associated with upgrading EID's treatment and delivery
facilities to tertiary standards in lieu of facility capacity charges. Additionally, EDHDC pays
for all O&M and power costs in lieu of paying a monthly use charge. As part of the
agreement EDHDC was given priority rights for the recycled water. EID benefits from the
agreement by reducing surface water discharge, which under their permit with the RWQCB
requires a higher level of treatment compared to the treatment requirements for Title 22
recycled water for unrestricted use.
The City and future development could pursue a similar agreement to offset capital and
O&M cost, which would likely work best with larger development projects.
Water Quality Requirements and Regulations
Landscape Irrigation
The water quality requirements of recycled water depend upon the use of the water. Typical
uses of recycled water in the City's service area for landscape irrigation would require
compliance with Title 22 Reclamation requirements, including tertiary filtration and
disinfection. The facility upgrades to White Slough WPCF, scheduled for completion in the
fall of 2004, will provide the ability to treat to the disinfected tertiary level as defined by
Title 22, Section 60301.66
The following requirements found in the EID Recycled Water Master Plan (2002) apply for
landscaping irrigation using recycled water:
66 (1) A disinfection process that, when combined with the filtration process has been demonstrated to inactivate
and/or remove 99.999 percent of the plaque forming units F -specific bacteriophage MS2 in the wastewater. (2)
The median concentration of total coliform bacteria measured in the disinfected effluent does not exceed a
Maximum Probable Number (MPN) of 2.2 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results over seven
days.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 72 of 83
• No irrigation with recycled water shall take place within 50 feet of any domestic
water supply.
• Irrigation runoff shall be confined to the recycled water use area.
• Spray, mist, or runoff shall not enter dwellings, designated outdoor eating areas, or
food handling facilities.
• Drinking water fountains shall be protected against contact with recycled water spray,
mist, or runoff.
• All use areas with public access shall be posted with signs that are visible to the
public.
• No physical connection shall be made or allowed to exist between any recycled water
system and any separate system conveying potable water.
Groundwater Recharge with Recycled Water
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) requires advanced treatment of
recycled water before it is used to recharge groundwater aquifers. The DHS currently has
draft regulations for the recharge of groundwater with recycled water but no final regulations
are drafted at this time. Consequently, DHS has directed the RWQCBs to consider recycled
water projects on a case-by-case basis referring to the published codes and laws regulating
recycled water. Laws regulating recycled water are contained in the following:
• California Water Code Title 17 Section 7583 et seq. dealing with cross -connection
control
• California Water Code Title 22 Sections 60313-60616 dealing with recycled water
dual plumbed systems
• California Plumbing Code (CPC) Sections 601.2.2 and 601.2.3 and Appendix J
dealing with dual plumbed systems
The following is a summary of the general water quality recommendations for recycled water
recharge projects as outlined by DHS .67
1. The recycled water shall meet the definition of disinfected tertiary recycled water.
2. For a surface spreading project, all the recharge water shall be retained underground
for a minimum of six months prior to extraction for use as a drinking water supply,
and shall not be extracted within 500 feet of a point of recharge.
67 Draft Regulations (7-21-03) Title 22, California Code of Regulations Division 4. Environmental Health
Chapter 3. Recycling Criteria
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 73 of 83
3. For a subsurface injection project, all the recharge water shall be retained
underground for a minimum of nine months prior to extraction for use as a drinking
water supply, and shall not be extracted within 2000 feet of a point of recharge.
4. The total nitrogen concentration of the recycled water, or if supplemented with
diluent water, the blend of the two, shall not exceed the total nitrogen level specified
by DHS on review of historical nitrogen data and other operational data.
5. The recycled water shall be in compliance with the following:
• Primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels
• MCLs for disinfection byproducts
• Action levels for lead and copper
• Total organic carbon (TOC) in any portion of the filtered wastewater that
is not subsequently treated with reverse osmosis shall not exceed 16 mg/L
for more than two consecutive samples.
Summary
The City is currently designing tertiary treatment filtration facilities at the White Slough
Water Pollution Control Facility capable of producing Title 22 recycled water that meets
water quality regulations for landscape irrigation of residential homes, golf courses, parks,
schoolyards, and commercial areas. This report estimates the City could potentially use
2,000 acre-feet of recycled water at buildout for various landscaping irrigation purposes.
This estimate is based on a water demand analysis assuming only future facilities and
residences would receive dual plumbing and thus the means to irrigate with recycled water.
Two options are considered to use recycled water within the City's service area; (1) a return
pipeline constructed from White Slough WPCF to convey tertiary treated effluent back to the
City; and (2) a "scalping facility" constructed near the City limits to treat a portion of the
flow headed to White Slough WPCF while returning solids and some liquid to the current
White Slough pipeline for final treatment and disposal. The estimated capital cost of the
return pipeline option is $4.7 million. The estimated capital cost of the scalping facility is
$14.6 million.
Public funding assistance for recycled water projects are typically in the form of bond issues,
the most recent of which is Proposition 50. Approximately $42 million in water recycling
funds for local assistance is available through Proposition 50 for fiscal years 2003-2004 and
2004-2005. Private funding assistance is also available in some cases. Under one possible
scenario a developer would absorb the capital and O&M costs for facility installation and
upgrading in exchange for development rights and reduced facility capacity charges.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 74 of 83
Section 7. Mitigations for New
Development
New developments add additional demand on local water resources and require the
construction of additional facilities to accommodate this demand. Water suppliers can
develop mitigation requirements for new developments to help offset these impacts. For this
task, the practices of several northern California municipal utilities are reviewed and
compiled to list potential requirements that City could reasonably require of developers to
offset these impacts. The Urban Water Management Plans for the Stockton East Water
District (SEWD), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), and the cities of Lodi,
Davis, Lincoln, and Stockton, California were reviewed for mitigations required for new
developments. Additional information was gathered from the cities of Manteca, Tracy, and
Modesto, and from the El Dorado Irrigation District. The mitigations practiced and enforced
by each of these entities are summarized into a listing of applicable mitigation alternatives
that might be considered for implementation by the City of Lodi to offset cost of its new
surface water supply.
Identified measures fall into four broad categories:
• Water use efficiency programs and metering
• Funding and construction of water supply infrastructure
• Reclamation and dual plumbing requirements
• Building code and landscaping requirements
Water Use Efficiency Programs and Metering
Programs to increase water use efficiency include plumbing modifications as well as
changing water use habits. Plumbing modifications include installation of low -flow fixtures
and appliances. Water use practices include metering, pricing, and irrigation restrictions.
The City's current water use efficiency measures include enforcement of yard watering
restrictions, in -school education programs, public information and education programs,
building code enforcement, and promotional programs such as rebates for purchase of water
efficient fixtures.
Requirements for new developments might include:
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 75 of 83
• Metering. The primary mitigation that should be considered for new developments is
the metering of water use. Existing law requires the installation of a water meter as a
condition of water service provided pursuant to a connection installed on and after
January 1, 199268. Water use in the City of Davis was approximately 20 percent
higher prior to the switch to metering in the mid-1990s. Metering can also aid in
identifying leaking pipes or damaged irrigation systems69, which can lead to reduced
losses. According to the 2001 City of Lodi Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP), metering with commodity rates for all new connections has been studied
and found to be cost effective, but has not yet been implemented.
In addition to metering all new connections, the City might consider the following
methods to accelerate the retrofit of meters for current users:
o mandatory metering of commercial facilities
o voluntary meter program — early adopters generally are those who use less
than average and can thus realize reduced water charges
o meters for luxury uses (e.g. swimming pools)
o meter on pipe/lateral replacement
o meter at change of ownership70
An additional consideration to make metering an effective water conservation tool is
to make the volume -base charge a significant portion of a customer's water bill. If
the capacity (meter) charge is a large part of the bill, the customer will not see a large
incentive to cut water use. Similarly, adding other charges to the water bill such as
wastewater fees will also dilute the incentive to conserve. On the other hand,
adopting a wastewater fee tied to the volume of water used will accentuate the
incentive to conserve. A drought reserve fund might be established to stabilize water
utility revenues.
• Submetering. Require the use of separate meters to indicate individual water use in
apartments, condominiums, and trailer homes to promote water awareness by
individual users that might otherwise be metered only for the complex as a whole.
Submetering is reported to reduce water usage by 20 to 40 percent. Retrofitting
existing structures may be expensive, but is relatively easy in new construction.
68 California Water Code, General Provisions, Chapter 8, Article 3, Section 523
69 The City of Davis has installed billing software that automatically sends a notice to homeowners if a
significant increase in water use is detected, e.g. from a damaged irrigation system
70 The City of San Diego, City of San Francisco, City of Santa Monica, Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District, and North Marin Water District have plumbing retrofit on resale ordinances
(http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/urbanplan/faq/faq.cfm)
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 76 of 83
• Increasing block rate pricing. This rate structure reduces water use by increasing per-
unit charges as the amount used increases.
• Automatic irrigation systems. Timed irrigation systems are required for all new
single-family homes in the City of Lincoln. Soil moisture sensing irrigation systems
save water by balancing the needs of the plant and shutting down during periods of
rain. Such a mitigation could be implemented by Lodi for all new developments in
conjunction with a discount or incentive program for drought -tolerant landscaping.
Currently, EBMUD has a system in place that rewards public and commercial entities
with discounted meter and connection fees when landscapes are installed that do not
need irrigated water within three years of installation. The City of Lodi's
demonstration garden is a good start in promoting low-water use landscaping.
• Conservation retrofit programs. The City could collect fees that would fund meter
retrofit, efficient fixture, turf -replacement, water audits, and other programs for older
portions of the City. For example, a new
development with a water demand of 10 acre-feet
per year could be charged a fee adequate to develop
10 acre-feet of conserved water savings71
.
Developer fees could similarly fund leak detection
and repair programs for the existing water system.
One consideration for Lodi is evaluation of the net
increase in water demand for parcels that have been
converted from agricultural to residential use.
Funding and Construction of Water Supply Infrastructure
A philosophy of water supply planning that is growing in application is the principle that
"growth pays for growth," in other words, the cost to serve new development should be paid
for by such development, rather than distributed throughout the rate base.
71 For example, if expected savings from metering is 20%, a developer might be required to retrofit five houses with
meters for each new unit constructed.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 77 of 83
In the extreme, each user might be charged the precise
cost for the facilities to pump, treat, and deliver water
to the point of connection. In practice, utilities
designate zones of benefit with similar characteristics
and collect the same fees for each connection within the
zone. For example, the East Bay Municipal Utility
District uses nine zones for its 325 -square mile
territory. These zones are differentiated by the major
facilities required to serve them.
Designation of service zones might be accomplished
during a master planning process, during development
of an Urban Water Management Plan, or as part of a
Capital Improvement Plan process. All areas that will
benefit from a new facility (e.g. a pumping plant or
pipeline) should share in the cost of that facility.
Likewise, a new increment of demand that requires
development of a new supply (e.g. a new well, or
imported water supply) should pay for the cost of
acquiring and developing that supply.
For facilities that serve a single development, or limited geographic area, the developer might
be compelled to design, permit, and construct the facility as a condition of development. For
water facilities, ownership is most often turned over to the local water supply agency for
maintenance and operation.
In addition to a meter installation charge, the fee structure for new developments could
include the following components:
• a connection fee to recover appropriate costs of the existing production system
• a water capacity charge to cover acquisition and development of new supplies and to
recover infrastructure costs such as new pipelines and pumping facilities
Existing City practice is to charge an impact fee for installation of new wells, large diameter
mains, and associated facilities, and to assess a meter installation charge.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 78 of 83
Reclamation and dual plumbing requirements
The reuse of wastewater or reclaimed water for purposes such as landscape watering is
beneficial because it reduces the demands on available surface and ground waters, and may
delay or eliminate the need to expand potable water supply and treatment facilities.
Potential applications for reclaimed water include other industrial and cooling uses, toilet
flushing, landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, fire protection, and aesthetic uses such
as fountains.
New developments might be required to install dual piping and
connections to allow for reclaimed water or grey water landscape
irrigation in public and common areas including schools, parks,
golf courses, office buildings, and in water features such as
decorative pools, fountains, ponds, and other aesthetic features
that can be considered for secondary or tertiary water use.
EBMUD has recently reached agreement with an office building
developer in downtown Oakland for installation of reclaimed water plumbing to be used for
toilet flushing. The City of Davis uses storm runoff and secondary -treated effluent to
irrigation wetlands habitat. The City of Lincoln uses reclaimed water for golf course and
park irrigation.
Developers might also fund construction of in -city wastewater treatment plants to be used for
reclaimed water supply. Developers might be required to use reclaimed water for
construction and dust control uses.
Building Code and Landscaping Requirements
Developments planned to minimize water use will arise from comprehensive, multi- faceted
land use plans emphasizing density and infill development, water efficient landscaping, and
open space planning. Regulations can be developed governing landscape standards and plan
review, prohibitions on water waste, and plan review of commercial, industrial and
recreational landscaping. Retaining large shade trees on newly developed land will reduce
water use during the period when new landscaping is being established.
Developers might be compelled through building codes to provide only water -efficient
fixtures, insulated pipes and water heaters, and appliances such as ultra -low -flow toilets,
showerheads, and point -of -use water heaters. Long uninsulated pipe runs lead to letting
showers run to warm up. A 5 gallon -per -minute showerhead run for three minutes will thus
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 79 of 83
waste up to 15 gallons per day per person, and
energy costs are also significant72. Such losses can
be reduced or eliminated through short pipe runs,
insulated piping, hot water circulation systems, and
point -of -use water heaters. Since January 1, 1994,
all toilets installed in the state must use no more
than an average of 1.6 gallons per flush.
In addition to enforceable codes and policy,
incentives to install other water saving devices such
high -efficiency clothes washers and other water -
using appliances can be provided. Currently, the
City of Davis is participating in a cash rebate
program in association with the CALFED Water
Use Efficiency Program and Pacific Gas & Electric
(PG&E) to provide incentives to the public for
purchasing water and energy efficient appliances.
The City of Lincoln has a similar incentive plan.
Incentives might be provided to developers and
homeowners to install low- or zero -water use xeriscaping involving a comprehensive low -
maintenance approach incorporating planning and design, soil analysis, appropriate plant
selection, practical turf areas, efficient irrigation, and use of mulches. EBMUD provides
connection fee discounts to customers who install landscapes that no longer require irrigation
within three years of installation.
Summary
As a result of studying various urban water management plans, several potential mitigations
can be proposed for new developments in the City of Lodi. In summary, these mitigations
are:
• Water use efficiency programs and metering
o Meter water usage and charge by volume
o Submetering of apartments, condominiums, and trailer parks
o Establishing an inclining block rate structure
o Require automatic irrigation systems in new development
o Charge developer a water meter installation fee
72 Raising the temperature of 15 gallons of water by 50 degrees requires 6240 BTUs or 1.8 kWh
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 80 of 83
o Provide detailed and educational billing statements
o Fund water meter retrofit programs for older homes
• Funding and construction of water supply infrastructure
o Charge a connection charge tied to the cost of the existing supply and
distribution system
o Charge fees that cover new water production and transmission facilities and
infrastructure including surface water fee tied to the cost of acquiring and
developing the new supply, or alternately, require developer construction of
such facilities that serve a single development or limited geographic area
• Reclamation and dual plumbing requirements
o Require dual distribution systems with dual connections to allow for
reclaimed water landscape irrigation in public and common areas
o Provide incentives for reclaimed water or grey water landscaping at private
facilities
o Require funding of in -city wastewater treatment plants to be used for
reclaimed water supply
o Require use of reclaimed water for construction and dust control uses
• Building code and landscaping requirements
o Require automatic irrigation systems for new single-family homes
o Provide incentives for drought -tolerant landscaping
o Require the installation of low -flow water user fixtures in residential and
commercial developments
o Provide incentives for water -efficient appliances
o Provide incentives for xeriscape landscaping
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 81 of 83
Section 8. References
Black and Veatch (2003) California Water Charge Survey 2003. Black and Veatch
Boyle (1999) Beckman Test Injection/Extraction Project. Boyle Engineering Corporation,
Sacramento, CA
Brown and Caldwell (1985) Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Study. Brown and
Caldwell, Sacramento, CA
Brown and Caldwell (200 1) City of Lodi Urban Water Management Plan. Brown and
Caldwell, Sacramento, CA
Camp Dresser & McKee (200 1) Draft San Joaquin County Water Management Plan —
Volume 1. Camp Dresser & McKee
DHS (2001) California Health Laws Related to Recycled Water "The Purple Book. " CA
Department of Health Services, Sacramento, CA
DHS (2003) Title 22, California Code of Regulations Division 4. Environmental Health
Chapter 3. Recycling Criteria. CA Department of Health Services, Sacramento, CA
DWR (1980) Ground water basins in California: Bulletin 118-80. CA Department of Water
Resources, Sacramento, CA
DWR (1998) California Water Plan Update Bulletin 160-98. CA Department of Water
Resources, Sacramento, CA
DWR, Recycled Water Task Force (2003) Water Recycling 2030. CA Department of Water
Resources, Sacramento, CA
Environmental Sciences Associates (2003) Feasibility Report City of Stockton Delta Water
Supply Project. Environmental Sciences Associates
HDR Engineering Inc. (2002) El Dorado Irrigation District Recycled Water Master Plan.
HDR Engineering Inc.
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 82 of 83
J.M. Lord, Incorporated (199 1) The Lower Mokelumne River Area Crop, Soil, and Water Use
Assessment for a Ground Water Storage/Conjunctive Use Study, Final Draft. J.M. Lord,
Incorporated
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. et al. (1988) Background Report General Plan Update City
of Lodi. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. et al. (1990) City of Lodi Draft General Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. et al. (199 1) City of Lodi General Plan Policy Document.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Montgomery Watson (1996) Mokelumne Aquifer Recharge and Storage Project.
Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc.
Parsons (2001) Alternatives for Water Supply from the California Aqueduct. Parsons
Infrastructure and Technology Group Inc., Pasadena, CA
RRM Design Group (2001) City of Lodi Westside Facilities Master Plan. RRM Design
Group, Oakdale, CA
Saracino-Kirby-Snow (2003) South Fork American River Water Availability Study San
Joaquin County Water Right Application 29657 Progress Report. Saracino-Kirby-Snow,
Sacramento, CA
West Yost and Associates (2000) Planning Level Cost Estimate — Reclaimed Water
Facilities. West Yost and Associates, Davis, CA
West Yost and Associates (200 1) City of Lodi Wastewater Master Plan. West Yost and
Associates, Davis, CA
City of Lodi Draft Report - Surface Water Supply Options Page 83 of 83
City Council Shirtsleeve
September 21, 2004
Mark S. Williamson, P.E.
Schlumberger Water Services
Schlumherger
Water Services
• Assess options for use of surface water
supply
• Assess feasibility of using recycled water
from White Slough PCF
• Identify mitigations for increased water
demand from new developments
schiumherger 2
Water Services
• Water Needs
• Surface Water Supply Options
• Use of Surface Water Supply
Interim uses
— Long-term use
• Mitigations for New Development
schiumherger
Water Services
3
• Projection used
• Projected to 2040
• Population projected at I% and 2%
• Per capita use projected at 10% reduction
and current (2000) rates 225 gpcd, 250 gpcd
schiumherger
Water Services
M
Historical and Projected Unit Water Use
380
360
340
320
300 Historical
Low
280
High
g
CL 260
0 240 _ u 0
220
200
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
35,000 -
30,000 -
25,000 -
U_
Q
20,000 -
c�
E
a)
0 15,000
10,000 -
5,000 -
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Historical
—Love (1 % growth, 225 gpcd)
—High (2% growth, 250 gpcd)
—4—Gen. Plan est. for 2007 (335 gpcd)
iGen. Plan est. for build -out (304 gpcd)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
a DWR Bulletin 160-98, p.4-15
b Average of 1988 to 1992 per capita water use taken from historical data
toaccount for variations in hydrology
'The California Aggie, 5/7/04
d Modesto 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. 1995 per capita use assumed
SC&Mherger in UWMP projection. Residential uses taken alone are reported to average 170
Water Services gpcd.
Table 4:
Per Capita Water Demand
1990 gpcd 2020 gpcd
Percent
Change
M
Cal Water,Stocktona
187
162
-13.4%
M
EBMUD'
196
171
-12.8%
M
City of Davis
230
185
-20.0%
U
City of Fresnoa
285
262
-8.1%
U
City of Sacramentoa
290
263
-9.3%
U
City of Modestod
289
289
0.0%
.78 U
City of Merceda
336
299
-11.0%
Average
-10.7%
U
Lodi
2572
225
-12.5%
a DWR Bulletin 160-98, p.4-15
b Average of 1988 to 1992 per capita water use taken from historical data
toaccount for variations in hydrology
'The California Aggie, 5/7/04
d Modesto 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. 1995 per capita use assumed
SC&Mherger in UWMP projection. Residential uses taken alone are reported to average 170
Water Services gpcd.
• Water Needs
• Surface Water Supply Options
• Use of Surface Water Supply
Interim uses
— Long-term use
• Mitigations for New Development
schiumherger
Water Services
0
• Woodbridge Irrigation District
• North San Joaquin Water Conservation District
• City of Stockton
• New Appropriations
— Mokelumne
— Delta
• EBMUD Water Banking
• Reclamation
schiumherger
Water Services
0
• 6000 AF/yr, 7.5 month delivery season (Mar -Oct 15)
— at least half by July 1
— 8.5 MGD
• 50% cut-back in dry years
— cut back in about '/4 of years
— would need 7000 AF/yr capacity to recover deficit
10.0 MGD
• $1.2M/yr, increasing at CPI within 2-5% band
— PV (6%, 40 yrs) _ $23-32M
schiumherger
Water Services
10
Year
Unit Cost ($/acre-foot)
Base SupplyExtra
WID Supply
Wheeling
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
2003
200
200
100
100
20
20
2009
200
200
100
100
20
20
2010
204
210
102
105
20
21
2020
249
342
124
171
25
34
2030
303
557
152
279
30
56
2040
370
908
185
454
37
91
2043
392
1051
196
525
39
105
PV (6%,40 yrs) $23M $32M
schiumherger
Water Services
11
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
m
Unit Water Use:
• 3.2 — 6.9 AF/ac
• 5.2 AF/ac average
+Acres Irrigated
� Diversion (AF)
Sustained canal
losses of 2.5 ft/day
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
• Temporary right
to
20,000
AF/yr
• Direct diversion
of
80 cfs
12/1 — 7/1
• Regulated by EBMUD in normal and wet
years
• Current use averages 3000 AF/yr
• Current rate $50/ac
Schiumherger 13
Water Services
• SEWD Irrigation Supply
• Pond Recharge
• Stockton Delta Diversion Project
— 2010 early on-line date
— Treatment plant near Eight Mile Road/ I-5
— 30-126 KAF/yr
schiumherger 14
Water Services
• Mokelumne
— Fully appropriated —flood flows only
— Mokelumne River Water and Power Authority
— $150-210/AF +
• American River/Freeport
— $106-286/AF +
• Delta
— Stockton Delta Water Supply Project
Schlumhergep 15
Water Services
• Water Needs
• Surface Water Supply Options
• Use of Surface Water Supply
Interim uses
— Long-term use
• Mitigations for New Development
schiumherger
Water Services
16
schiumherger
Water Services
• Interim uses
Sale to Stockton/SEWD
— Environmental Water Account
— Canal ponding
• Long-term use
— Non -potable irrigation
— Recharge ponds
— Inj ection
— Potable supply
— Regional projects
17
• Surface water supply available a maximum of 7.5
months every year
• 7,000 acre-feet of supply design capacity
• Peaking factor of 2 for recharge alternatives
• Design pipeline velocity 5 ft/s
• Unit cost of facilities taken from Mokelumne
Aquifer Recharge and Storage Project, 1995
• Unit cost adjusted to 2003 using ENR CCIndex
schiumherger
Water Services
In
6
J 4-
• Injection wells nominally spaced 2000 feet
from each other
• Injection wells located at least 2000 feet
from nearest point of extraction (DHS rec.)
• Assumed injection rate of 800 gpm
• 15 wells used in this example; 12,000 gpm
PF = 1.8
schiumherger
Water Services
20
Schlumberger
Water Services
2000 4000 6000
Linear Distance (feet)
�m
10000
22
12000
Schlumberger
Water Services
2000 4000 6000
Linear Distance (feet)
�m
10000
23
12000
Schlumberger
Water Services
2000 4000 6000
Linear Distance (feet)
�m
10000
24
12000
Schlumberger
Water Services
2000 4000 6000
Linear Distance (feet)
�m
10000
25
12000
$14.6M
• Injection Wells Pipelines
,' ,' Local Treatment Plant O Production Wel
N,. 26
k. 24
25
., o5d r in s
s 21 ;,"r
2 >r
k 14 k 3R
. c _L tion ,r^ 4R
yr
2 `-
17 a
2 0', 6
W 1WC
• 20
MainILz
.16 _ A n�" 22
E city
Limit
2 0 2000
yl
• 23 acres necessary to recharge an average volume
Of 7,000 acre-feet Larger area
necessary if
• Average percolation rate 2.5 ft/day integrated into
w/peaking factor of 2
parklands
• No pre-treatment is necessary but basins must be
located a minimum of 500 feet from nearest point
of groundwater extraction
• Two example locations evaluated
West of WID canal; DeBenedetti Park
— East of WID canal; Kettleman Lane Conveyance
Schiumherger
Water Services
M
I lir
6�
�7 "T
r
-Q-4
.. Pf
E.&Iwell ;,Pc
WWI
p
-.0
f
td
Wbstside
Recharge Basin
It
Rk
A
4.1
Lj
jr il.*
—J. F
017.7
-AIL!
dw- 'i'
j
�LA
r
1W.7
ri
!. N
• Seasonal 9.5 MGD Plant PF = 1.0
— Proposed Site Location: alongside WID canal on the
West Side of town (-2.5 acres)
• Treated surface water introduced into groundwater
distribution system would require chlorine
residual throughout distribution system
— Seven production wells currently have chlorination
capability
— Cost of adding chlorination capability to additional
Lodi wells not yet determined
schiumherger
Water Services
30
rr 1 ■ T .T
� � • {r •' •. ' � r� � 'ir Y' a � . IJ - f I JJ�
. L , 1Y •
IN
,•i :ti f '
IN
C { r
11 I�,,J�, 7 '' • •1
■r 1 1 pyr. L �Jf
r F -•J -�,
7.
r
r I •• r. r y l �r,• r, 3f Iia -- I; 1 ,
ar
r L
r • d' r {rbL
L T
1; i'r frL-C
r 1r•I• L
-}' Sa
�.4�, I- 1 • 1 . yam'•' �' ,~* •'r-� '� r
1 jI r' Ltik 4: LI •Tq. • T�,� F. Krr �:+' + •{Fr, �r rl,�' y tlr. .
IN 1 i -S• •1 yr r , '� �r IN'S' 1 �• .jr�}. 1•r�
�1.r �•,.� •,L-1�••.0 r,• '� •M �_.''I I � � r' '''.I L
J •y•i :■ .l1. 1 F ori. :I IN - i IN 1�ia
• 1 1.. r -,L• L L
- • '� •• 1- .. `L •; - 1 •.L-.. .r ;I'� r'r • `I .'•1 rte. -R 'r 1 •:. '�' �I ••r I
�. •r1 •'~a •'• ' i v.- ,rtil ,1- •. .ar Ir,•.. .L 4• ti� JhI •r.
y + , , :L. r, r I� ti zr� •I 1- 11 - ,{.k•i, Sf -f 1 1 } y
�'+ r _ _N_rkr P'
' �'s r'1 I , 'rl 1 FIt r
ti- .. �i +
7 '• •LL • r J Irx ■ r{ �, I'.�.. iLl� Y1� Ri' ,� 1 r��" yiti,� = !�
ti ■r - 1 . ;.r•r_ Lyr ah. 1 ' -•• 'ti - - 1' .� 1
' ti r-• - tir r �, } y, }'� •' ! a . J' ti ' �, S 1;M].� r r L • 1.
•r r �- r '� . r r . - • 3v� •1 VI�{�1 r ti' ,ry 7•�• r• ,ar
•1 - . '�' •f -L I J „ ,�,. 1 .a a •JIB.
• , ti• 1
• - r 1 F' J. tti 1.- 'r
1 � • •1 • •til 1 1 � 1 •{ . r1i +1 � 1 ••1 , , _
r•tiL r , 1 z 3 ri .r� Z .� If .•�. �1 , •'ti � •, ., f' . 1 r r', yrs �• �
•r .I . ti • I r 7 . , •I J' fa 1 � 1 I
1 .•.rr•� •.1- L.h
.�- 1 I�1- -, .' ,ti •.. '' .TI --1 �1•yrL •�,■ r r�_ �. + �•
'�• •r• ti• �•T �' ��'1 ''• 1 •�, .., '' . moi• ,��
1 I J L.i++ .a,• '. IN.. _ ;•• LiJ.. 11N ,} fi I • 71 r. : ,'•L ! _ rte. '. • 1 1 711 .
4ir r. 1 %;
.. 1 i . a+ ', - I .•y. _ii . f� 1 r1' , J-' .� •+��- '.. T.•. r -
r_ }y
kti},tr-•t �' r+'~ , } �� •¢; 1"* - L J �, �r13 F.. L,'.�+•' . �•: +fir• - •1
L 'I . �. 11` IJ1•. Sr •r'• �,=�I .'J•'Z-''_ ,L ! 1 _•, h: S' 1 • na • r I-_. +�.•i1}J
•rr l�i111r-■�1Jti7�'•CrLTfi�
al
r , L -'r •' 1- , ••tiJLL �� �yxt 1•'' { 1 , 1 ��} r , ' 1
113
',' r' _ _ J F 7' r 1 �� �'•�. r 1 F
IN !• 1 r' ;_�'# _ ` rr' ' LL _
.t' la n
I��w �IDelt'1�later;
vrrolibt-
FP, y
I
• .1 ---' Ir'r� 4r -1 ~ •-4 . {.�� it :.
�yer�
71
Local ''lVater Districts
CENTRAL DELTAVMATERAGENGY
NORTH SAN JOAQUIN VV.C.D.
tivT r.
-- -- i
STO C KTO N -EAS T V%?. D.
City Property
'WOODBRIDGE I.D.
-
W I D DIStribLAi0rl
I.-
.
ld"
-
.t' la n
I��w �IDelt'1�later;
vrrolibt-
FP, y
I
• .1 ---' Ir'r� 4r -1 ~ •-4 . {.�� it :.
�yer�
71
Local ''lVater Districts
I•. I �.I -
I,�,• J ,
- – N 6u h
:_�OAQ 1 VV_ r j
-f —� Beckman.k
_ I jgctio -Project.. f
r- i 5 qu dUct .
fT -
I I/
I O.
�Y •� L L -f t���- f
CENTRAL DELTAVMATERAGENGY
NORTH SAN JOAQUIN VV.C.D.
-- -- i
STO C KTO N -EAS T V%?. D.
'WOODBRIDGE I.D.
I•. I �.I -
I,�,• J ,
- – N 6u h
:_�OAQ 1 VV_ r j
-f —� Beckman.k
_ I jgctio -Project.. f
r- i 5 qu dUct .
fT -
I I/
I O.
�Y •� L L -f t���- f
�N'`;.*�"+ {■rte a I
- rt��-,"'�•.�; • - i t • , - �'• Jai a ri,
1p
- ' 1 �� by '• '
LEllr i1 ' I' }�L �r� { r� ~ rim' '3 ' �"` k • i - 1 _ • i r-
F•. .r •+fir• •ti. - Ta ksyj�� I - � � '�•'• -'�
pb
war
Irl'_ ' • :11 •` s ' .iR • ' I y ..
PRI 'n
��r • ? `fib r G?r _ _ •�ridi
if 1
• .� L I r ,•
L } j _4
r I - ' �
•• ; y� , . � S' _ r I .� � . _tel- f �. �. • 'I
i� ._ �i y � .Jti k Tey '•• •� ' "+ � - f •y-
UR
t n �
rb
ER
fol
Me
!Pm J
- �4 s ~� � r - L I . � I � • r
f 'r'
. i R — ' •l
ii i
'
-mr7— ' y '
y. Lir �• •C'•r`�'t I 1y� �
� — � 'y. •~ ' r ' � r•` �{{��•� T•~1�"' -_ '• �• •r X14 �-
I z '• � iL •stir .. r r. ,
•� _,I* Lvti I JL.�ay '•' 'f�'rL � �'S�•Yf•5 S} _ ' ��'.
. �Y %f '•ti'1•'_.Y��•1='� r�J '�. si•'Fri Ji �.� � yl•�L -y J_ � •� I• �k~h+ •. L .'.� � .'.h �,�
schiumherger
Water Services
• Stockton Interim Recharge Ponds
— Interim project to offset WID purchase costs
Use of flood control facilities could reduce cost
$0-10.8M
• EBMUD In -lieu and Banking Potential
— Cost sharing opportunities
— Water export may be controversial
— $0-31.8M
• EBMUD In -River Exchange
Interim revenue generation option
— $0, no net recharge
34
• White Slough WPCF currently treats an average of 6.6
MGD (7,400 acre-feet/year)
• UWMP 2001 projects treatment of 8.5 MGD (9,550 acre-
feet/year) by 2020
• The City is currently constructing tertiary treatment
filtration facilities, scheduled completion Fall 2004
• The City is planning to discharge tertiary effluent to
surface waters when necessary, while continuing to irrigate
animal feed crops with non -disinfected secondary effluent
schiumherger
Water Services
35
• Pipeline from White Slough to the southwestern
boundary of the City
• Two cost estimates
1.
Recycled
water return
to service area
2.
Scalping
facility near
City limits
• Tertiary treatment assumed as sunk cost
schiumherger
Water Services
36
L
;3F, . .0
Schlumkerger
water services
Average Eatimarbed City Estimstad Annualizsd Unit Coat in
Project CabWory ,iltamatiwe Mier Supply i $IAF oFAvg.
{AFfyear) Cfapital Ccs# {]8M Cast Com Lka
Surface VVskK Irrigation of 1,000 $1,400,000 $68,000 $1M,000 $180
Parr and Schonle
Injeobon Wa11a
SerFaoe Weir 1+1fesbida Rschs%q Pond
PF*cbs v&h City
Coat
Eastside RedmW Pond
6,0D0
$14,600,000
0,001)
51,ti80,000
$280
6,000
$6,000,000
5112,000
$580,000
$100
6,000
$-9,400,000
-S1g1,000
$030,000
$180
Surface V"ar Trsebnerrt 6,000 $13,900,000 W0,001) 51,590,000 $320
Plant
Recharge Utilizing NBAYM $,000 $10,400,000 4150,000 $580,000 $180
Facilities
Stocktfln Interim Recharge 6,000
Ponds
Rsgiond Pr*cta
v&h Shared or Nn EBMUD IwLieu and Banking 6,000
Cosa Potential
EBh1Ua In-Riwer Exchange 0&
$Oto
soto
$0 to
$0 to
$10,900,000
5110,000
$13m,000
$180
$Oto
soto
$0 to
$0 t3
$31,600,000
$1,300,000
S3,7743,000
$+630
$0 $0 nat menue
generator
1Mrka Slough Recycled 01)0 $.+1, 00,000 $BB 000 $.+170 000 $240
ReoyrdEd Wartier 1Vr�r I mp
PF*cbs v&h City
Coat
noel ping Faolit 4 2,000 $14,600,000 -S700,000 $1,840,000 $020
• Water Needs
• Surface Water Supply Options
• Use of Surface Water Supply
Interim uses
— Long-term use
• Mitigations for New Development
schiumherger
Water Services
39
• New developments will add additional demand on
the City's water resources and require construction
of additional facilities to accommodate this
demand
• Review practices of northern California municipal
utilities that impose development mitigation
requirements
• Compile list of potential requirements that the
City could reasonably enforce to mitigate
increased water demand
Schlumherger
Water Services
M
• Meter water usage and charge by volume
• Submetering of apartments, condominiums, and
trailer parks
• Establish inclining block rate structure
• Require automatic irrigation systems in new
development
• Charge developer a water meter installation fee
• Provide detailed and educational billing statements
• Fund water meter retrofit programs for older
Schlumhergep homes
Water Services
41
• Charge a connection charge tied to the cost of the
existing supply and distribution system
• Charge fees that cover new water production and
transmission facilities and infrastructure
— including surface water fee tied to the cost of acquiring
and developing the new supply, or
—require developer construction of such facilities that
serve a single development or limited geographic area
Schiumherger
Water Services
42
• Require dual distribution systems with dual
connections to allow for reclaimed water
landscape irrigation in public and common areas
• Provide incentives for reclaimed water or gray
water landscaping at private facilities
• Require funding of in -city wastewater treatment
plants to be used for reclaimed water supply
• Require use of reclaimed water for construction
and dust control uses
Schiumherger
Water Services
43
• Require automatic irrigation systems for new
single-family homes
• Provide incentives for drought -tolerant
landscaping
• Require the installation of low -flow water user
fixtures in residential and commercial
developments
• Provide incentives for water -efficient appliances
• Provide incentives for xeriscape landscaping
Schlumherger
Water Services
schiumherger 45
Water Services