Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-12-08COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ~ P. o: E;!DX 8127, F"QL:JNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF°DRNIA 92708 · 10944 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OF"F"-RArvtP, SAN DIEGO ~REEWAY) TELEPHCN ES: AREA CCOE 714 540-2910 962-2411 December 3, 1971 TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 11 Gentlemen: The next regular meeting of· the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, will be held: Wednesday evening, December 8, 1971 at 7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Tentative adjournments prior to next regular meeting: Executive Committee -6:00 p.m., December 28 District No. 2 -6:00 p.m., December 22 District No. 5 -5:00 p.m., December 28 j, I II II BOARDS OF DIRE CTORS Co unt y Sa ni ta tion Di str icts of Orange County, California 1()1 i\.IT J "'-' 18 -, I December 8 , 1 9 71 -7 :30 p .m. /(1) Pledge o f Allegi ance and Invo.cation V----( 2 ) Roll Call P. 0. Box 5175 10844 ~!lis Avenue Fo untain Val ley, Cel i~., 927(3 AGENDA ADJOURNMENTS ' ./' • COMP & MILEAGEZ FILES SET UP ....... ~ RESOLUTION S CERTIFI ED.w' 1..tnERS WRITIEN •. -~ ~uwm wRITIEN~ ~-m;mBL .-- (2a ) DISTRICT 11 Consi deration of motion to r eceive and f ile minute excerpt from the City of Hunt i n g ton Beach showing t emporary appoi ntme nt of counci l r epresentative on t h e Board of District 11 (3 ) Appo i ntme nt o f Chairman pro tern , if necessary (4) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motions approving minutes of the // fol l owing meetings, as mail e d : tti/:s District 1 November 10 , 1 9 71 regul ar· .,./"" N\/ S District 2 November 10, 1971 regular .......... ('{\ \ s Di strict 3 Novemb e r 10, 1971 regular ~ v ('I\ J.s District 5 November 10, 1971 regular c./ N1 /s Di stric t 6 November 10, 1 971 reg ular .......-,l'I\ I·£ District 7 November 10 , 1 9 71 regular and n\s Novemb e r 23, 1971 adjourned V" District 11 Novemb e r 10, 1 971 regul ar ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Joint Cha irma n ALL DISTRI CTS Re port of the Ge n eral Manager (7) (s)\ ALL DISTRICTS -\~ Report of the Exer::uti ve and Building Committees ~ and c o nsideration of moti on to receive and fi l e the Committ ees ' written r e p o rt (9) . ALL DISTRICTS Consideration Executive and of action on items recommende:d· by.the Building Committees: 8 ~s . . Consideration of motion approving recommendation of Executive and .Buil<!in@; Cammi ttees in connection wl th concept and design of shop a.nd warehouse facilities and ·authorizing the General Manager to direct ~ \ William P .. Ficker, Architect; to proceed with· final plans and specifications for Alternate "A" of said facilities. - . . . . (b) Consideration of motion to accept proposal of · ·~· . Louis R. Hovater} Consulting Engineer, dated ~ .·~~~V' r;..... .November 16, 1971, for services in connection I~\\-. -J· with study of feasibility of installing air ~ ~ / suppor_ted roofs over treatment works to mitigate v" ~~ · odors, for a lump sum fee of $2,200.00 including ·expenses. -Consideration of motion. authorizing and directing · . the staff to distribute to public agencies ~ A(\, .. throughout the State copies, of sample ordinance (~\ for modifying building codes to permit and require . w~ter saving devices in new·construction. ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of report of Special Committee-Studying Directors' Fees Schedule (Copy in meeting folder) (11) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to· convene in executive session to consider personnel matters C6 ; y ~ (12) ALL DISTRICTS (13) (15) Consideration of motion to reconvene in regular session ALL DISTRICTS I 0 ', :S~ Consideration of action on matters considered in executive session: (a) Consideration of motion approving Memorandum of ~ Agreement with Orange County Em,loyees.Association. _\ ~ :-f-. , (Copy in meeting folder) M S )(\9-~ G s ~b.) Consideration of Resolution No. 71-144, Positions and Salaries -1972. ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to grant a 1/2 step increase in salary tc Douglas Preble, Associate Engineer. ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Pump Station & Additions to Bypass Facilities at Plant No. 1, Job No. I-7-3, authorizing an extension of 37 calendar days and an addition of $g,856.83 to the contract with Healy Tibbitts Construction Company. See page 11 D" . . , ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive and file summons in Case No. 187060, Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. vs. pounty Sanitation Districts of Orange County 1 et al., concerning a claim for damages in the amount of ~65oi191 for alleged extra work on construction of Ocean Outfa 1 No. 2; and refer to General Counsel -2- ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion t6 receive and file certification of General Manager that he has checked.all bills appearing on the agenda, found them to be in order., and· that he reconunends authorization for payment (18) ALL DISTRICTS . (21) /V\ \s (22) /\\\~23) (24) N\\S \.,.I \ ( 25) /~\\S Consideration of roll call vote motion approving .Joint Operating, and Capital Outlay Revolving warrant books for . signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and authorizing· for payment of claims listed on page '~A" , if any ~proving~' ~ DISTRICTS 1 & 7 Consideration of motion approving suspense.fund warrants, if any. See page "C" DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from the . Irvine Company, dated December l,·1971, requesting the District enter into a reimbursement agreement for oversizing the proposed relocated portion of the Ba~side Drive Trunk Sewer at Promonto.ry Point. See page 11 E' DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any See page "B" (25a) DISTRICTS 5 & 6 . Consideration of Resolution No. 71-140, creating a Suspense ~ Fund for payment of obligations jointly undertaken, ~ \~ establishing percentages of contributions, and designating \{\ \ District No. 5 as agent. See page "P" ~ (26) DISTRICTS 5 & 6 <::) ·\\ Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warrants, ~ N\ \ S if any. See page "B" (27) .,_;r..;f;g._30) M \S (31). ~32) JlrSTRI<Xr 5 \ \ . \.. __ · . . . \ \ CJ\her ~sine~ and c~uni~tio~, i~ any DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to 28th at 5:00 p.m. adjourn to December \(\ · .. 5ct DIS l Cons deration of m~on approvi~ warrants,~.:f See p e "c" . "-""---\ any DISTRICT 6 It: o O Consideration of motion to adjourn DISTRICT 11 . Consldei"a.ti on_of Resolution No. 71-ll~O-ll, ordering annexation of terri e District (Proposed Annexation No. 15 -Signal Balsa r • ation to County Sanitation District No. 11) See page -------~- ,-3- ) (33 ) DISTRJCT 1 1 Consi-Qeration See p~e 11 c 11 -----=-- ap~ng wa\:ants , ~ any (3 4 ) M\.; .f'l\\-i (35 ) DISTRICTS 3 & 1 1 Consideration of motion a p proving suspense fund warr ants , if any . See page 11 B11 DI STRICT 11 Other business and commun i cations (a ) ~1t\~~ Consideration of Reso l ution No . 71-142-11 , approving and a uth orizing execution of agreement with Southern California Ed ison Company re re l ocation of a portion of the Newland Avenue Pump Station Force Main ; the to ~, Edison Company to pay for all construction , engineering ~\..\. a nd incidental costs . See page 11 G11 Consideration of motion authorizing General Manager to N1' direct Ke i t h & Associates to .proceed wi th design of ; relocati on of p ortion of the Nevrland Avenue Pump Station Forc e Main, for a maximum fee of $6 ,ooo . See proposal page 11 G-l 11 · () ~~~-(c)')Consideration of mot i on to receive and file the letter r,,L.. \.J\J v f r om Signal Properties-, Inc ., dated December 7 , 1971, · . j > ~~' ~ requesting deferral of annexation fees in connection V I'' with propo se d Annexation No . 15, Sig nal Bolsa No . 1 Annexation , and consideration of action on said reauest . See page "Q'r \ (36 ) DISTRICT 11 [\\\ ~ Consid e ration of motion to adjourn / J: O ;J § (38 ) .\\\ s \ (39 ) N\ \.5 . ( 40 ) \ (41) "-!\ s (42 ) ,\\\ s (4 4 ) rt\~ DISTRICT 2 Re port o n negotiations with Chino Basin Municipal Water District in connection with proposed j oint use of faci l ities DISTRICT 2 Conside ration of Res o lution No. 71 -143 -2 g ranting time extension to Kirkhill Rubber Company for sewer connection, p rior to impo s ition of late p e nalty charg es . Se e page 11 H11 DISTRICT 2 Conside ration of motion approving warrants , if any See page "B" .'j .(IG DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn to December 22nd at~ p . m. DISTRICT 3 /\·C G, Consideration of motion directing staff to p repare a District annexation policy for consideration by the Board at their regular January meeting DISTRICT 3 ~L Consideration of motion approvi n g reque st of Conve rse , Davis }.\ and Associates, for additional soils engineering services in connectio n with Knott Interceptor, Contract No . 3 -17; and, autho ri z ing inc r ease o f f ee for subject soils investig atio n from $6 ,500 to $8 ,500 . See page 11 I 11 DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion approving Change Orde r No . 2 to the plans and specifications for Beac h Relief Trunk Sewer, Re aches 17, 18 and 1 9 , Contract No . 3 -16 , autho rizing an addition of · $97 7.87 to the c o ntract with Merco Construction Engineers, Inc . ''J" See page -4- ... \._.} (45) ({\\ ~ \ (46) N\·S (47) (4$) (49) .M\cJ ~~) /M~7 DISTRICT 3 . Consideration of Resolution No. 71-141-3, a:uthorizing acceptance of Grant of Easemen~ from the Department of the Navy, for a permanent easement in.connection with construction and operation of the Seal Beach Boulevard Pump Station. See page 1.'K" DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion approv-ing·warrants~ if any See page 11 B" DIS ICT 3\_ . \om · .. ~< Othe .buSin~s and ~uni~io~, \!'airy DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn ., \ t, 9 ~ DISTRICT 7 . Consideration of Change Order No. ·l to the plans and specifications for Sunflower Interceptor, Reach 3 and Red Hill Interceptor, Reaches 4 & 5, Contract No. 7-6-3, authorizing a substitution of 54-inch diameter pipe for the 51-inch pipe originall~ specified at no cost to the District. See page 'L11 DISTRIC'TI 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 71-145-7, ordering annexation of territory to the District {Proposed Annexation No. 24 -Santia~o Junior High School Annexation) See page . M11 . . (51) DISTRICT 7 . proposal submitted by Boyle Engineering, dated \ Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept~ fV\ 7/ December 3, 1971, re design of West Relief ·Trunk, '-'{ ~\,-0...C o... Contract No. 7-5-lR, for a basic fee of $31,640. \,-'II'\.'~ ~V>v See page 11 N 11 (52) 4fl' ·fllli (53) ts\\s \ (54) (\t\\S . DISTRICT 7 Verbal progress report on possible changes to District connection and use ordinance ·to provide funds for construction of facilities not anticipated in master plan DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to receive and file letter ~-c+~ t~om R. E. Drinkgern, Administrator of the Estate of L~~ . W:lllard Smith, dated November 29, 1971, requesting O.rur~~~~~.Y ·annexation of approximately ll.38 acres of land \ · o contiguous to Santiago Boulevard near the intersection of Hewes Avenue; and consideration of action on said request. See page 11 0 11 DISTRICT 7 -· ·" Consideration of motion approving ·Warrants, if any See page "c" (55) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications· ~ ~ (a) Consideration of Resolution Noo 71-146-7, authorizing . Complex, for a permanent easement in connection with ~~ S construction of Sunflower Interceptor, Reach 3, and l'\ · Red Hill Interceptor, Reaches 4 and 5, Contract No. 7-6-3, at no cost to the District. See page "R" DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn JI: I 0 -5- ORDINANCE NO. -AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF -----CALIFORNIA, ADOPI'ING MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE 1970 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE The City Council of the City of , California, does ordain as follows: -------------- SECTION 1. Ordinance No. adopted by the City Council of the City of , California on the day of ------.......... -, 1971~ for the purpose of. prescribing regulations for the public health and safety and establishing minimum regula- tions for the instal.lation, alteration or repair. of plumbing and drainage systems, and the inspection thereof, shall remain in full effect, save and except those portions of said )J~form Plumbing Code as hereinafter modified and amended,. ---p( /' . . . • r ~ ~ r t: SECTION 2. Section of said Ordinance No. shall be modified to include Section to read as follows: Sec. Section· amended. --------- Section of said Uniform Plumbing Code is hereby amended to read as follows: '- "Except whe:re not deemed neces.sary for safety or sanitation by the Administrative-Authority, each plumbing fixture shall be provided with an adequate supply of potable running water piped thereto in an approved manner, so arranged as to flush and keep. it in a clean and sanitary condition without danger of backflow or cross-connection. Water closets. shall be flushed by means.of an approved tank or flushometer valve. Such tanks or valves shall have a sufficient flushing capacity that no hazard, . nuisance or insanitary condition is evidenced." ~~ ~ -=i:.----~ SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the passage thereof shall be published once in the . ~----------------...-.---------------a newspaper published in the County of Orange, State of Calirornia, together with the names of the members ·of the City Council voting for and against the same. Mayor of the City of California ATTEST: {SEAL) City Clerk of -che City of California. II MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California · J®I NT BOARDS REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, December 8, 1971 7:30 p.m. Post Office Box . 8 127 · l 0844 Ell is Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Te le phones: Area· Cod e 714 540-2910 962-2411 December 3, 1971 The following is a brief explanation of the more important non- routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which are not otherwise self-explanatory. Wa rrant lists are not attached to ·the agenda since they a re made up immediately preceding the meeting but will appear in the complete agenda available at the meeting. Joint Boards ... No. 6 -REPO RT ON PROPOSED STATE POLICY REGARDING DISCHARGE OF WAS TE- WATER TO THE OCEAN: Included with the report of the Gen era l Manage r will be a review of the November 18 and Decembe r 2 hearings of the State Wa ter Resources Control Board conc erning the propos ed policy. Chairman Just represented the Districts at the Novembe r 18 hearing in San Rafael, and Directors Battin, Mi lle r and Parsons attended the Decembe r 2 hearing in San Diego. The t estimony g iven . by Directors Ba ttin and Miller is attached. (Mr. Just 1 s rema r ks were previously ma iled with the Novembe r 23 Executive Committee r epor t.) Also attached are the conclusions and recommendations of the So u the rn California Coastal Wa ter Research Project testimony on the State ·policy. Our representatives will report their impressions of the hearing s at the Joint meeting. Nos. 8 and 9 -REPORT OF EXECUTIVE AND BUILDING COMMITTEES AND ACTIONS ON COMM ITTE ES ' RECOMMENDATIONS: The Committees met jointly on November 23 with Director Sims as a g uest. A report of the meeting, together with recomm enda tions to the Boa rds has been p reviously mai led to the Directors. Item No. 9 is consideration of actions recomme n de d by the Committees to the Joint Boards. No. 10 -CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR STUDYING DIREC TORS' FEES SCHEDULE: The Committee's report was received and filed and briefly reviewed by the Joint Bo a rds at the Novembe r 1 0 meeting . The r epor t was taken under submission for further considera- tion at this meeting. · Nos. ll and 13 -CONSIDERATION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS : A p r ogress report to the Di rectors will be presented in Executive Session concerning wage and fringe benefit meet -and-confer sessions with the Orange County Employees ' Association. The staff als o expects to be able to present a memor andum of understanding with the Association and recommendations concerning salaries for employees not represented by the Association . .. No. 14 -AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASE IN SALARY FOR ASSOCIATE ENGINEER : One of our eng ineering · staff, Mr . Douglas E. Preble, has recently received notification that he has successfully passed the State examination for registration in civil eng ineering. As a r ecognition · of this ac com p lishment, we are rec ommending that ·Mr. Preb l e be granted a one-half step increase in salary immediately . An identical action wa s taken last June in the case of another employee who obtained registration. No. 1 5 -CHANGE ORDER NO . 1, PLANT JOB NO . I-7-3: This project, Pump Station and Additions to Bypass Facilitie~ at Plant No . 1, is being constructed by the Healy Tibbitts Construction Company. Unanticipated soil instability in the area , as evidenced by a 6 -inch subsidence of the 84-inch Sunf lower TrUhk entering the station, r equired extensive additiona l work by ·the contractor to accommod ate the lowe r elevation of the incoming pipe and to prevent future settlement of the station itself. The recormnended change orde r, adding the sum of $9 ,856 .83 to the contract, basically consists of two separate items as described in the formal change order included with the agenda material . The place- ment of additional g ravel fill under the structure was done _for the specified contract price of $7 .50 per cubic yard . No. 16 -LAWSUIT FILED BY PETER KIEWIT SONS ' -CONSTRUCTION OF OCEAN OUTFALL NO. 2 : The Directors will recall that in April, 1971 , the Boards denied a cla im of the above contractor in the amount of $477,072 for unantici pated work on the new outfall . We have now been ·served with a Court Summons to the Distric ts and John Carollo Enginee rs to defe nd a l awsuit for damages in the amount of $650,1 9 1 for the alleged extra work . It is re commended that the matter be referred to the General Counsel for app ropriate action. District No . 5 No. 24 -PROPOSED OVERSIZING OF A PORTION OF THE BAYSIDE DRIVE TRU NK SEWER PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED: At the July 27, 1 971 adjourned meeting it was reported that the Irvine Comp any will present a formal r equest to the Board for an a g r eement p roviding fo r oversizing the proposed r e loc ated portion of this sewer at the Promontor y Point development in order to accommodate anticipated future flows from areas expected to be annexed to the District southeaat of Corona del Ma r. We have recently -2- •. met with the Irvine Company representatives and they advise that this formal proposal will be forthcoming before the meeting. It is recom- mended that it be r eceived and filed and taken under · submission for further action at an adjourned meeting later in the month (Item No . 28). No. 28 -ADJOURNMENT TO DECEMBER 28: It is s u ggeste d that t h e Board adjourn to the hour of 5 :00 p .m. on the above date, which immediate l y precedes the next r egularly scheduled Executive Committee meeting, to act upon the matter described in the preceding item . Distric t No . 11 No. 32 -ORDERING SIGNAL-BOLSA ANNEXATION·No. 1: This 347.728 acre annexation was previously app rove d by the Board and it is now necessary to take formal legal action to order the annexation .• District No . 2 No. 37 -REPORT CONCER NING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT: The staff wi ll report verbally on the prog ress of the negotiations with personnel from the Chino Basin Mun icipal Wate r District concerning contra ctual arrangements to participate in the joint cons truction o f the proposed Santa Ana River Interceptor and to p urchase treatment and disposal plant capacity. Our l a te st meetings have been fruit ful and the Chino Bas in representatives indicate they are now ready to execute an agre e ment similar to the former agreement with the Riverside County Flood Contro l and Water Con servation District . It is p roposed that the Board adjourn to Decembe r 22 (Item No. 41), by which time it is anticipated that a proposed formal ag ree- me nt will be ready fo r r eview by the Directors . No. 38 -GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO KIRKHILL RUBBER COMPANY : Th e Directors will r e c a ll that at the November meet ing a r equest was receive d from this Brea firm to waive the ten perc e nt penalty for delinquency in paying the conne ction charg e r equired under t he uniform c onnection and use ordinance . The General Counsel was requested to study this matter and to recommend a c tion at this meeting . The reso - lution, included with the agenda material, granting an extension of ·time of 60 days to the Company to accomplish in-plant improvements to eliminate the excess discharge, h as been approved by the General Counsel. This resolution, in effect, will waive the ten percent penalty payment . No . 41 -ADJOURNMENT TO 6 :00 P.M ., DECEMBER 22: rt· is suggested that the Board adjourn to the above hour and date for fu rther consideration of the Chino Basin Municipal Water District agreement as described under Item No . 37. It is expected that other matters affecting the l ong-range plans of the District for sewerage facility construction will also be ready to be considered. District No . 3 No. 42 -DEVELOPMENT OF ANNEXATION POLICY : We have recently received an informal inquiry regarding terms for annexation of territory north- east of the Nava l Weapons Depot. Since District No. 3 is the only Dist r i ct capable of annexing contiguous territory which does not have a formal annexation policy, the staff reconnnen ds that it be directed to prepare such a policy for conside r a tion at the n ext re gular meeting of the Board . No. 43 -INCREASE IN LUMP SUM FEE FOR S OILS INVESTIGATION, CONTRACT NO. 3-17: The Directors will recall that the soi l s engineering firm of Conve r se, Davis and Assooiates of Santa Ana was retained to provide consulting soils eng ineering services for the first portion of the Knott Interceptor (Contract No . 3-17) for the lump sum fee of $6500 . The State Division of Highways h as now advised us that addit ional soils work will be necessary in the area of the proposed future interchange of the Huntington Beach and San Diego Freeways, involving three additional 50-foot boring s. We have asked Converse, Davis and Associates to submit a proposal (included in the agenda material) for thi s work, which is outside the original scope of their project, and it is reconunended that the lump sum fee to the firm be increased to $8500 as compensation for the additional work . No. 44 -CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, CONTRACT NO . 0 3 -16: This contract with Merco Construction En g ineers, Inc ., for the Beach Relief Trunk Sewe r, Reaches 1 7, 18 and 19, is nearing completion . Du r ing the course of the work a large block of concrete, unknown at the time the plans we r e drawn, was encountered at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and Beach Boulevard . The contractor was according ly directed to remove the interfering concrete with extra compensation to be paid on a force account basis . It is rec ommended that the sum of $977 .87 be added to the contract for this additional work, as detailed on the formal change order included with the agenda material . · . No. 45 -ACCEPI'ANCE OF EASEMENT FROM NAVY FOR SEAL BEA CH BOULEVARD PUMP STATION: After a delay of many months we have finally rec eived from the Department of the Navy the a g reed upon easement fo r this pump station located on the Naval Weapons Depot property . Accordingly, it ·Will be n ecessary to accept this easement and order its recordation . District No . 7 No. 49 -·CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 , CONTRACT NO •. 7 -6 -3: The contractor on this job, Colich Construction Company, has requested that he be allowed to substitute 54-inch for the 51-inch diameter pipe originally speci- fied in a reach of app roximately 1000 feet . Since the substitution will re sult in more capacity in the sewer at no cost to the Dist rict, we r ecommend adoption of the change order include d with the agenda ma terial. -4- No. 50 -ORDERING ANNEXATION NO . 24 (SANTIAGO SCHOO L ): This 24 .65 acre annexation was previously app r oved by the Board a nd it is now necessary to t ake formal l e g a l action to order the annexation . No. 51 -PROPOSAL FOR DESIGN OF WEST RELIEF TRUNK, CONTRACT NO . 7-5-lR: At the Novembe r 10 Bo a rd meeting , I was directed to obtain a proposal from the District's e n g ineers for desig n of the above master p l an sewer . Boyle En g ineering has submitted a p r oposal (included in the a g enda materi al) which is satisfactory to the staff and we recommend its accept ance . No. 52 -PROGR ES S REP ORT ON POSSIBLE CHANGES IN CONNECTION FEES: Following a discus s ion of this ma tter at the November 2 3 ad j ourned me eting , the s t aff was d irected to study this ma tter further and to present a verb al prog ress r ep ort at this meeting . No. 53 -CONSID ERAT I ON OF ANNEX ATIO N NO. 26: We have received a proposal for annexation of 11 .3 8 a cre s of land fo rmerly in the District in the vicinity of the intersection of Santiago Boulevard and Santiag o Canyon Road . Thi s property is within the City of Orang e and will be developed as a standa rd su bdivis i on (Tra ct No. 7 565). The zoning is R-1-8 000 which is in conf ormance with the District!s Ma ster Plan o f Sewers. A letter from the prop onents and a map of the proposed annexation .area is inc luded in the a g enda material . ..... -5- Fred A. Harper Gene ral Man ager Novem be r 1 9 , COU NTY S AN ITAT ION D ISTR ICT S of O RANGE COUNTY, C ALl FO R N l A P.O. BOX 8127 108 44 ELLIS A V ENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (7 14 ) 540 -291 0 (714) 962-24 11 MA NAGER 'S REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE AND BU ILDING COMMITTEES Meet i ng Date : November 23, 1971 -6 :00 p .m. Chairma n Just has cal led thi s mee ting fo r 6 :00 p .m., fo llowing an adj ourned meeting of Di st rict No . 7 at 5 :00 p .m. Dire c tors Ha l Sims and Edgar Hirth have been invited to attend a nd participate in the d i scussions . tJI." Proposed Ag re ement between the Sanitation Distric ts a n d the Irvine Ranch Wa-cer District for Outfall Dis posal Capacity . The staff has been holding authorized discussions with r epresentatives of the Irvine Ranch Water District in an effort t o develop a formal document 'vi th the ·water District which is comparable to the agreement with the Riversi de County F lood Cont r ol and Wate r Conservation Distric t . The staff would l i ke t o r epo r t o n the progr ess to date and r eview the .more impo rtant terms of thi s· agreement with the Exe·cut i ve Committee . ~ Report on State Hate r Resources Cont r ol Board Hearing on Proposed Regulations for Discharge ~o Open Ocean ~aters . Chai r man Just and the staff will r eport on their impressions of th e testimony given at the.November 1 8th hearing i n San Rafae l . It i s hoped that the Executive Comm ittee will advise the staff of what information should be prepared for presentation at the State Board 's Decembe r 2nd hearing in San Diego . (Attac hed are the c omments presented by the Joint Chairman at the hear ing ). 3 . Repo rt of William P . F icker , A .I .A ., re : Shop and War ehouse Fac ilities, Job No . J -13 . . At the l ast meet i ng of the Bu ild i ng Committee the arc~it e ct was d irected to submit construction co.st estimates for the new d esign concept . Paul Ruffing, an associate of Mr . Ficker , will b e p r esent to r eview this matter with the Committees . 4 . Or d i n a nce .Mod ifying Bu ilding Codes of the Various Ci t i es to Permit and Re quire Wate r Savi ng Devices in New Construction . The staf f has ·prepared a sample ord i nance fo r use by pub lic a gencies thr oughout Ca lifornia wh i ch ;v i ll modify their Bu ilding Codes to inco r porate the use of water saving devices . We will be p r epared to discuss this matter in detail at the meeting . ~,~ J ~ ~ 5 . Pr oposal to Determ ine t he Feas ibility of Installing Air-Supported Roofs Over Treatment Works to Mitigate Odors . During the course of the Di stricts ' investigati on of vari ous methods to eliminate odo rs at t he treatment plants , the p ossibili ty of using a i r -supported roofs ove r the open tanks has been d i s cus sed with Louis R . Hovater, a c onsulting engineer who has specialized in l inings for wa ter , sewage, and pollution control works for many years . Air -supported roofs have been s uccess fully used for covering water reservoirs and other like faci litie s at t r emendous cost saving s when compared t o rigid roof construction; the r e f o r e , it is the staff 's r ecom - mendation that t he proposa l of Louis R . Hovater be accepted to d etermine the fe asibility and estimat ed costs of enclosing all open structures at the tre atment p l ants with air-supported r oofs . (See attached prop osal). 6 . Repor t of the Orange County Grand Jury . The enc l osed "Report on County Sewage Disposal Systems" was adopted by the 1 971 Orange County Grand Jury on November 11th , and it will be a part of· their final annual _ r eport . Attached for t he Committee 's cons i de r at i on i s a draft of a l etter by Chairman Ju st , commenting on the Grand Jury Report . FAH:j Enclos u re s Fred A . Harper Ge neral Manager f.~ec ting Date Dec . 8 , 1 9 71 DIS'l'HICT 1 Gris e t Miller Porte r Battin ./ Herrin =::;: Coco ...:&_t/ DISTRI CT 2 -==== r i.th ristie Cl ark Sul v e r Finnell Herrin / z -LL-~ Just ::Z Sims ~ Stephenson =ff Wedaa . Winn Battin ~ DI STRICT 3 Hyde Berto n Chri stie Clar le Culve r Davis Green Harper Harvey 1-Ie r rin He i11e on ~ · lden · / r· .... v hinney L Si1 1~S ~ Stephe nson _'JZ: Ba ttin ~ DIS'£ill:C'I' Parsons Hirth Battin DISTRICT Porte r Mc I nni s Battin ~l§J'U,gr:.--..L. Mi~l er '!/"' Gri s e t ~. Porte r t7. Ro ge r s /7 Smith Z Battin ~/ Hil em an Ro ot Jack son Gome z Gris e t Harpe r Zuniga Dutton Machado Schniepp Kroe s en We stra Roo t Jackson F o nte l'Ic Cracke n Just Ka n e l Griset Lewi s Ba rnes Zuniga Du tton Croul Hirth Co co Herrin Hi rth Hil em a n Go ldb e r g Tine 7 :30 p .m. -'---'~-=------Dis tricts 1 ,2,3 ,5 ,6 ,7&11 _,.,_ J OirIT BOA.i-'J)S J ust / Harper Be rton -;;;:r Hestra Christie .,/ Root C J.,p._r~k · ~ Jacks on ~nLk'e: --y- Culver -Y Da v is ""7 F onte F innell -;:::::::7 Gomez Gre e n --:?"Mc Cracken Griset / He rrin __ . Harper §:, Just Harvey . __ Kan el Hem e on _a_ Lewis Herrin · * Griset Hi rth Croul Holden Hoga r d Hyde Kro es en Mcinnis ~ Hirth Mc Wh inney '1 Mille r j:Z' Coco Parsons ~ Porter Ro gers :;2.!!i ~t h _ Shiple y L. H C vrac ;:e !'~ Sims JL_ Zunig a Sm ith L Hi leman Stephenson _7 :but ton We daa ~M ac hado Winn : /fichniepp Battin 7 * -:~ Mitchell Boyd -.Goldberg OTH ERS = O~\d ·\.l/1 ,, V-: Harper v \J 7 Brm·m c./ B rl!''-" ,, -Sylves t e r ..,/ C.. "'~r•'Ylol1 _L-.Lew:L s l"'7" 1 . / Dunn -,_,_.. 1 'bil OY-~ Clarke ~ ~~~d e.n _:L S igle r ~J Crabb -V- f\ "" \n)e \\ L . -Carl son Finster Gal1 oi'1a.y Hohener .1::::::::.. Hunt v-- Keith ~ Lowry Maddox :Ma rtinson-- Ni s son Pi ersall Stevens #5 -See notes to joint Chai rman -Stephenson attend -no on Wedaa #6 -Reported on State Water Resources Control Board hearing at San Raphael -Just and McGahey spoke on behalf of the Districts . San Diego Driec tors Ba ttin and Miller and Parsons attended meeting . Testimony given by Miller and Battin -Testimony by Just and Mi ller hit on tax rate -Testimony given by XMKXX~ Battin concerning the effects of ~Mlf physical chemical treatment with use of Lime . Director Parsons commented on his activities -got all other agencies involved in SCCWRPA to pass resolutions and commented that presentation at hearings by Hlvanka was outstanding -Prof .~,· Scripps presentation was very ~XJ,Ji[~~~~X~~X~X~X~ effective . Directors who attended should be commended -involved a complete day of t i me for each Director . Just went to San Rafael with HHH McGauhey FAH -McGauhey talked about technical part of new policy point by point . Just was only interested in politics of thing . J st had no que stion in his mind that they would go ahead with rMgulations -May be we culd only expect modifications . EXXXX~ ~~~x Battin -shocked at HH how amny people at hearings . The hearings went on until late -many environmentalists and lobbyists and fishing industry peo~le represented . Peop l e testified all different ways onvhat situation will be . Battin onl y one that testified that we only wnat to produce results -did not want to be mandated into what type of treatment we should use . Lady c l aimed regulations were not telling use what to do or bow to do it . Our staff feels that their staff is interpreting the way we should carry out regulations by requiring chemical treatment . When it actually comes out X:IDiX~X MX~ and we see what their interpretations are wi ll determine how MK successful we real l y were . Miller Expressed his thanks to the KX staff, HRH and JWS for putting together a complet projection for next five years on ~~X~XXX~ physical chemical treatment -he was able to put this into sort of simpleminded presentation -showed what it would mean to each Distri ct as far as tax rate . $35 a year tax payer in Tustin ~X~~Xfilf~XXX rate would increase immediated from $53 to $47 per year . Most ~' official seem to be sympathetic except Mr . Roby -only pennies a day he said -Miller KKH answered that it was important to tax payers -Battin only Chairman of Board of Supervisors to attned this haaring and Mil ler feels that he should be commended. Parsons -Analysis of meeting pretty well summed up in his letter to John Schmitz -thinks our ~~~KX~ problems will only begin after hearings and problems will be political . SWRRPA understands our problems but feels that federal legistlation will require these typ e of regulations -thinks we shoul d try to get amendment to federal legislation special for Southern California Co astline . California should try to get concessions -our problems is that we are discharging directly into d e ep water -others discharging into shallow water . DoeBn 1 t think we should be forced into expenditures of millions of dollars before we know what the problem really is . Would like other directors to write letters . Hanna should be written . Has already talked to Ventura -they are writing their congressional people -T:IDi~ Parsons hopes we can get good congressional group together to plead case for us . XMXX . . Just -Resolusion they are getting from various cities in Orange County is definately making impression on State Board -want to know what is happening i n Orange County to stir everyone up . The way things look at present, the vote on federal level will not be taki ng place this month . Action on this matter wi ll not be taken up until January on congressional level . THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON THE 28th, WILL LINE UP STRATEGY ON THIS . Will get information ready to send to federal level -FAH get results on paper to send letters to Miler -Is thei r going to be any more testimony before committee before this thing goes out of committee -When/Board was saying that they we r e going to testify State but couldn 't get any help -Thinks we should have Director who can go at any time to testify before these committees whenever needed . Parsons -Hlvaka stated he wou l d be willing to go and thi nks Dr . Issacs should also bo back to Washington . (Issacs h ead of Scripps ~ Oceangraphic Institute) Wou l d like to know if board wou l d support expenses necessary to send someone to Washington Battin , Finnell , Mi ller, Parsons were recommeded as Directors who could IDI.I handle this type of representat i on . , Parson s -would like to call Schmitz on this to follow up This matter will be held up in committee since ~~ publ ic works commission is n ow sick . Griset -feels Hanna should be called on this . Griset and Battin both call Hanna.. Just -Mr . Hyde you can al s o call Hanna if you would like to. MS&DC -That we support someone from SCCRPA , ISSACS from SCRIPPS and one Directors to attend and represent us at hearings in Washington . #8 -Reported on executive and building commitee meeting by Culver #9a-Just reported on comment he received on traffic flow here . Comment was that flow takes it all in one direction . Separate gat provi de for access for all trucks going through to go through new gate . One entrance is security measure . b -What is air supported IDUX~IDCX roof -FAH -a balloon c -Proposed change in plumbing code is not very specific -does not say what is to be done r FAH -Since REL not here he will comment on this -it is our understanding that code states that some type of sanitary condition should be maintained . Just -Some of building directors have been working with staff and have 1 . taken it to their association of building directors -t .. '\ Perhaps this type of code should be at national level Parsons -Thi s abolishes minimum requirements now set Harvey -Feel s that last sentence of Code should be inserted in " recommding a change in the f§:~~ plumbing code to f§:~ provide for modification of building codes to permit X~~ for water saving devices in new construction~X Parsons -report ed that there is now one on trial here in the Districts fa"Uilities . Battin -feels this is just first change to be passed and should be followed uplater making it mandatory -is trying to get this passed in County now to allow this M/S above recommendation for change #10 -Santa Ana not disucssed proposed consol idation Tustin -iKXID§M~ his council instructed him that we have no objection to change in X~~X~XKXIIDQ fee schedule but by legislation to filE make it a matter of choice for Districts to do so but not in favor of c onsolidation straw (see attached for breakdown of/vote on consolidation) General Counsel -thinks it would be better to put off until another meeting until everyone has given an expression of their opinion . Can be arbitrated under joint administrative agreement . Miller -i.e . 2 and 3 not consolidate and other MIN not have to would Shipley -Feels that all Districts should act as one or we will look foolish ' Nissen -If 4 decide to and 3 not to, could go into arbitration and what is MR« decided is binding . ~·· I I • Can c ities have option of ap p ointing some one to be their r epresentati ve other than a connc i lrnan or a mayor? Could this be done . Nisson -wou l d requi re amendment to State Health and Safety Code Mill er Reason Council of Tustin i s not in favor of 4 . Feels that Distric t a r e c r eat i on of cities -likes l ocal control Fee l s we a r e o ve r r e a cti ng to fees prob l em Finne l l -lack of home rule question -shoul d recognize that we have in th= interests of most efficient government abandoned home rule in that we have the joint treatment works .Feels we have to look a t what would be most e f f i c i ent operati on . I n a l l committee mee t ings we had they felt that resentment of fees did not enter into it much -if it had been that alone !llt . #2 wouJdbe passed , unani mously . Smith -XMM Xg Orange feels that instead o f having a special zone committee we would rather have control of Di strict than just have a zone Hyde -fees ar e mani f estation of som e thin g that had to happen - p r oblem really i s Mgx not just fees -ma i n po i nt ±f is fees are just tip of iceberg -awarding of contracts by one district - would like to see county line to county line -if we dont do it now it wil l be done for us Griset -Has a l ot of misgivi ngs about conso l idating the Districts Sub -committee which presumably will operate like the Districts 1111 ii- now don 't know what any provi sion for reimbursement of this sub -committee or not . Gri set says he has more meetin~s than he can go to now - cost him money to serve city of Sant a Ana -is not looking for another meeting -Won 't pay the Districts to function without a quourum -as far as joint d i stri cts are concerned threat of others 11 discovering 11 fee schedule , etc . :cmxt just anothe r mandate -another mandate is nothi ng -feels that only real prob l em is the consolidation of 5 and 1 1 when Newport Beach and Huntington Beach ~M councils all become membe r s of this board . Fee l s that this is practical organization p r oblem that we face here . EX~MX*KMX~XIDf~X~X~ By adding anothe r city this p r oblem can be solved .Districts are working will -s h ould not mess with it . John Harper -When talking about home ~M rule is not talking about smallest ~~g~Xlixxxxi possible agency c l osest to taxpayer -talking about most eff icient operati on by small est agency possible -not concerned with loss of home rule Finnell -Lack of quorum everything tomes to halt -league of cities averages about 22 each meeting -same rep r esentatives here as there - in instances where zone meeting call ed -when it is important enough , feel : calibre of men we have here no problem . i I Shipley -our city splits its representation up among three members - no problem as far as fees -feels citieens beli eve that if you • represent 7 distri cts does not mean you get seven times more out of meeting ~ I i II . I • fl -....... MS&DC that this matter b e ta.bl~d to the next regular meeting of the joint boards • If all Dis tricts vote to consolidate, if unanimous , goes right through . If it goes by split vote of the Districts resolution will pass but then LAFC O probably require public hearing for XIDf it to consolidate Green -requirement of fil§filS:~Xfilrn:X HUD has referenced to SCAG development grant XX money because ~X SCAG is doing no consolidation .... of water districts and sanitation districts . This will be held up until certification . HUD and EPA involved. Feds what certification -must be consolidation within regionXI before federal monies availabe . Consolidati on of water district and santation district in entire 6 xounty region (b) Moved that ~~S:i:S.IHHSSKSJS:rK!UU~S things on ye llow sheet be raised to 5 .85 total package -same as bargaining employees 19 -Suit from Peter Kiewit has been servff!d agai nst us and our engineers .. JUST -Announced that Manager and Ass istant General Manager has formally asked that their salaries not be adjusted and the Board of Directors have accepted offer of these men and give them t he ir thanks . Retaining right to review both of them at end of six month period.offered becuase men at top rid i ng on shirt tails of those below . Salari es acceptable at present level . 35C -Applicant forannexation cna defer payment of fees until such time as area develops -MX Hunt ington Beach collects fees X~X and pays as permits XNMN~N issued -m/s/&dc that deferment of payment of fees be approved 37 -We have eve r y thing c l eared on this . They are willing to sign agreement to acqu ire three M~X~ million gallons a day capacity i n our system . The original agreement that we had with RCFC&WCD contained a ~K clause that gave them cred i t for certai n grants received here in the Dis tricts -asked that we M~I~~ delay E~XliXXID:fXI~fil<:li~XXIXXMXK XMXXX~~~MX~HXX~filCXXX~IXID:f XX~~x~~XXlilKXN~XIXK~~xx~~XX~X:irn~~MX~NX ~~XKXXK~~~XXX action on this unti l staff can do testing at this end -recommended K«i~«K adjourned meeting on 22nd to d i scuss in detail thi s matter and a lso to discuss upstream treatment #41 -Can not make meeting on the 22nd can i t be a differaat day? How about another time earlier on that day. Change meeting to 5 :00 #52 -Defer to next meeting • EXCERPTS FROM TSE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE :OOP.RDS OF DIPECTORS 01<.., COUNTY SANITATION DI ST~ICTS NOS . 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, OF 0Ri'.,N G:rl: COUNTY , CALIFORNIP. A regular joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts No s. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, an d 11, of Orange County, California, w&s held at the hour of 7:30 p.m., December 8th , 19 71 , 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California . The Chairman of t he Joint A1min~strative Organization called the weeting to order at 7:30 p.c . The roll was ca lle d and the Se c retary reporte ~ a quorum present for each District 's Boar~. DISTRICT 5 Adjournment * * * * * * * * * Moved, seconded and dul y carried: Th a t this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanita tion District No. 5 be ad journed to December 28, 1 97 1, a t 5:00 p.m. The Ch airman then declared the meeting so ad journed at 10 :59 p.m., December 8, 1 9 71. STATE OF CALIFORN IAl SS, COUNT Y OF ORANGE I, J . WAYNE SYLVESTER, Se c r etary of each of the Boarrls of Directors of County Sanitation Distri~ts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, ·!o hereby ce rtify that the above an d foregoing to be full , true an~ cor re ct copy of minute entries on meeting of sai~ Boar d s of Directors on t he 8th day of Decemb e r 19 7 1 ' I N WITNESS WHEREOF, I hav e h ere un to set my han rl this 8th n ay of December, 1 9 71 S-1 0 7 Boar ~s of Directors t _ion Distr i cts Nos . 7, and 11 - -·· . --·-· Chairman Just Report of the Joint Chairman Presentation of Service Award to Gerald Baldwin who has completed 10 years of service with the Districts. Gerald, who is now Chief Operator, was employed as a La.borer in December, 1961. Presentation of Certificates of Completion to.the following apprentices who have satisfactorily completed the pre.scribed two-year training curriculum for Apprentice I in the field of waste water quality control with a minimum of three months of study and applica- tion in each of the following: Plant ·Maintenance, Collection . . Facilities Maintenance, Mechanical Maintenance, Electrical Maintenance, . . Treatment Plant Operations, Laboratory Procedures and General Engineering Practices :. Gale Kelly -Employed ih January, 1970. Gale lives in Santa Ana and is currently working in the Engineering Department. He attended high school at Saddleback, and attended Santa Ana Junior College. Michael Chapman -Also lives in Santa Ana, and attended Saddleback High Sch9ol and Santa Ana Junior College. He was employed in 1970, and now works in the Plant Maintenance Department. William Hayden -Bill, who is currently working in the Laboratory was employed in -January, 1970. He lives in Anaheim with his wife, Vonda. Bill attended high school in Garden Grove and Newhallj California. Call meeting of the Executive Committee for 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, ~ December 28th. Invite Directors Wedaa and Stephenson to attend. '. EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE :aO.ARDS OF DIP.ECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, OF ORilNGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIP. A regular joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, was held at the .hour of 7:30 p.m., December 8th , 19 71 , 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. The Chairman of the Joint A1ministrative Organization called the ffieeting to order at 7:30 p~n. The roll was called ana the Secretary reporteA a quorum present for each District's Boar0.. DISTRICT 2 Adjournment * * * * * * * * * Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned to December 22, 1971, at 5:00 p.m. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 11:07 p.m., December 8, 1971. STATE OF CALIFORNIA~ COUNTY OF ORANGE ~ SS .. I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of each of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Distri~ts Nosv l, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, io hereby certify tpat the above and foregoing to be full, true an0 correct copy of minute entries on meeting of said Boards of Directors on the 8th day of December 1971 ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hann this 8th riay of December, 1971. S-107 /_ -. - -- --~ ,..-......_ . --- II l lr COUNTY SANiTATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. O. BOX 8127. F"OUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIF"CF:ZNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO F"REEWAY) : Hon. John Schmitz House of Representatives United States .Congress D~cember 6, 1971 1208 Longworth House Office Building Washingto~, D.C. 20515 Dear John: Senator Muskie's Clean ·water Act recently passed the· Senate 86-0. A like bill is now unaer committee con- sideration in the House of Representatives. If legislation is ena~ed as presently proposed, all dischargers will be required to-give their waste streams at least secondary treatment regardless of where their effluent will be discharged. Currently (see Federal Register, Tuesday, July 13, 1971) the Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency may waive the re- quirements of ·"removal of not less than 85% off ive-day · bio-chemical oxygen demand 11 in the case of a project · which will discharge waste into open ocean waters thro.ugh an ocean outfall. This indicates very clearly that secondary treatment is not required for ocean dis- posal. Unless the proposed legislation is amended, municipalities discharging to the ocean will be required to make major capital and operational expenditures with0ut a-discernible benefit to our marine environment. While we all concur'in the broad principle that we wish to ·ao whatever is necessary to prevent pollution of the nation's waters, we feel that the proposed legislation TELEP ... ON ES~ AREA CODE "714 540•2910 962•2411 . . as presently written deals unfairly with the ocean dis- chargers of the Southern California Bight~ and particularly with t?e taxpayers of Orange County.· It would appear . . . '· . l COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Hon. John Schmitz December 6~ 1971 Page 2 .. of ORANGE CoutflY. CALIFORNIA . P.O. BOX 812"( · 108.C.C ELLIS AVENUE • FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (71.C) 5.C0-2910 (71.C) 962-2.C 11 that Congress is preparing to prescribe a cure before the problems of the patient have been diagnosed, and that the ·cure may be more harmful than ·the illness; that is, that the requirement of secondary treatment for ocean discharge may require the use of tremendous amounts of the nation's resources and accumulate vast quantities of residues which must be disposed of, while doing little to improve the quality of the ocean waters. It could· cost the taxpayers of Southern California in excess of $500,000,000 in inunediate capital expenditures plus a permanent increase in operating costs. Under the ·proposed requirements we will be ·forced to spe11d $65 million for second~ry treatment works in Orange County, with a permanent tax incre~se for operation of more than seven cents per hundred. You are avrare of how we fight for pennies on the tax rate. To my mind, this type of legislation llli~ps "the good guys with the bad guys. I feel that our only hope is to have the bill amende~ in the House of Representatives allowing some special consideration in the case of ocean dischargers. Nearly three years ago the sanitation agencies of the Southern California coastline joined ·together to set up ·an independent authority to study the effects of ocean discharge on Southern California waters. This study, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) will be complete in 1972. I am including a report entitled "Comments on the Policy for Water Quality Control Proposed by the State Water Resources Control Board" dated December_, 1971; which describes some of the conclusions and recom- mendations of their study to date. The· Sanitation Districts of Orange County, the County of Orange_, and most of ·the cities, joi~ed the other city and county agencies of Southern California to fiie resolutions with the State Water Resources Control Agencies who are proposing an ocean discharge policy which requires secondary treatment, requesting a stay of execution until the results of the present SCCWRP studies have been evaluated. I attended the State Ocean Discharge hearings last week in San Diego. It was my impressio~ that the State Board is sympathetic to our problem, but that.it has little power to combat the federal juggernaut. .- . . .. , •· .• Hon. John Schmitz December 6, 1971 Page 3 .. .. . COUNTY SANITATION· UISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 108.W ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN .VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (71•) S..0-2910 (71-4) 962-2411 I cannot agree. I believe the State of California is too big and too powerful; that we should have some voice when we .can logi.cally demonstrate a difference between deep ocean discharge on our.,narrow continental shelf, and the obvious ·· pollution problems of inland waterways, and the shallow reaches of Atlantic Ocean and Gulf Coast shore.lines. · If our present studies demonstrate that secondary treatment is an unwise solution, the money expended is literally do~m the drain. Further expenditures may then be necessary to institute more appropriate treatment processes. In the hope that this bill can be amended to provide a reasonable exemption for Southern California ocean dischargers, I intend to ask my fellow conunissioners on the Coastal WateF Research Project t~also contact their representatives in. Congress. · This problem is most urgent. Is there any way you can help us? LPij Enclosures t· ·. ~~th kindest regards,_ ~~~ Lindsley Parsons, Chairman, County Sanitation District No. 5, Newport Beach City Councilman, Vice-President, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project .• .. r-v Jfl"\.1-£.-- L-A-,J ~ i.+ L- t' (' ft i.- Novembe r 5 , 197 1 i.-- I if -'--"" $1,,,.\ J ...,_.. N'S -~ r-l 1) 2.. f { -I ~ p. MEMORANDUM 01r't' <; ~. ,j, tv '-..,..,.... N 6) -u0 ~ .. '111 $A ~ Afb fr-c.-l,,.._ S'I) -Wb e,.. { ..- "TO : EDWARD JUST, JOINT CHAIRMAN Coe.. flft,, Cl' " /<'-'> FROM : ROBERT FINNELL; CHAIRMAN, SPECIAL COMMITTEE STUDYING DIRECTORS 1 FEES SCHEDULE SUBJECT : RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGES IN THE PRESENT DIRECTORS 1 FEES SCHEDULE The following report constitutes the recommendat i ons of the special committee appointed by the Joint Boards at the regular board meeting of March 10 , 197 1 . °' During this pe r iod the committee has met on a number of occa s i ons and has requested and received detailed information f r om both the Sanitati on Districts 1 staff and the Dist r icts ' General Counsel . The c ommittee has reviewed several alternatives which a r e d i sc u ssed be l ow . (1) Ma i ntai n the Di r ector s 1 compensation at the present l evel as established by resolution of t he ind i vidual Districts in 1967 and 1968 . Th e special committee concluded that the presen t fee structure is inequitable and t h at anothe r a l ternative shoul d be sought . (2) Amend t he fee schedu l e so that those Directors rep r esen ting more than one District at a joint meeting wou l d only receive compensation equal t o t hat of a Di r ector representing a single Di-st rict . The General Counsel rul ed that under the present Health and Safety Code the Sanitati on.District does not have the authority to discriminate in it s fees . This alternative could be achieved, howeve r , by r equesting the State Legislature to enact special legislation . It was the consensus of t he special committee that because such legis - lati on would affect all sanitation districts in t he State of Ca l ifornia, the chances of securing passage of such legislati on were slim . It was a l so agreed that even if such legislation could be enacted it would be time consuming and would not solve o ther probl ems which will be f a cing the Di stri cts in the near future . 2-/ The special committee does r ecommend , ·however, t hat if the Joint Boa r ds do not agree with the c ommittee's recommended alternative, serious c onsi deration should be g j_ven to r equesting l egisl ative action to accomp l ish the reduction of multiple fees to a s ing l e Direc t or . (3) Con so l idate the va ri o u s Sanitat i on Di s t r i c t s int o one County Sanitation Di stri ct wi th ope r a - ti on s, maintenance , and capital outlay costs spl it evenly thr oughout the new Di strict . Whi l e this would achieve many of t he goals the c ommittee felt we r e needed , i t would create t ax increases in Districts 5 , 6, and 7 , whi l e l owering taxes in Districts 1 , 3 , and 11 . It would have no effect on District 2 . The Com - mittee concluded that this would not be an equitable distribution of costs and therefore does not recommend this a l ternative . (4) Conso l idate the present Sanitation Districts i n t o one County Sanitation Di strict with spec i al zones which would be co -terminus with existing Dist r icts ' boundari es and it would have separate budgets, could issue bonds, and i ncur bonded indebtedness for improvements and t he maintenance thereof within the special zone . In effect, thi s alternative would provide for only one Sanitati on Dist r ict but would all ow for special zones which wou l d be the equivalent of the present County Sanitati on Districts which wo u l d have no effect on the tax rates of each of t he present Di st ric t s . The consolidated a gencies would act as a singl e Sanitation District n ow acts . The exis ting Joi nt Administrative Or ganization would be e l iminated as would the n ecessity for seven se t s of resolut ions, minutes, seal s, etc ., for joint business . Rather than h aving District No . 1 act as agent for all the Di s tricts it would merely be one District . There wou l d be no duplication of Di rectors in that each c ity within the District, each Sanitary District n ow represented, and the County Board of Super - visors, would have a single representative and an alternate for a total of 23 active Directors . The committee felt that this latter point was one which deserved special attention of the Joint Boards . At the present time there are -2 - 29 Directors represent i ng 19 cities and 3 Sanitary Dis tricts and the County Board of Supervi sors . However, if Districts No . 5 and No . 11 annex present l y unincorporated areas, the entire city councils of · the Ci ties of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach will automatically become the Board of Di rectors for those two San i tation Districts . This will increase the number of Di rectors to 36 with two cities having 1 4 representa- tives voting on matters befo re the Joint Boards . In addition , if each of the mayors of cities belonging to more than one District should el e ct a different alternate to repre - sent them in each District , the number of Directors could go as high as 48 . This wo ul d more than double the number of Directors which would be possible unde r this proposed alter- n ative . The committee felt that the unwieldy nature of such a large Board would be detri - mental to the effici e nt operations of the District s . This alternative would a l so have the effect of substantially reducing the number of special d i stricts, an objective formally endorsed by the Orange County Board of Sup e r v isors, the Orange County Division of the League of Ca liforni a Cities, and the Orange County Grand Jury . At the same time, i t woul d still p rovide the mechanism for solving local problems by p r oviding for zone committ ees equivalent to the p r esent Districts 1 Boards. Last but certainly not l eas t, t he reduction i n.Directors fees would amount to a sub - stantial savings to the taxpayers of the Di stricts . The committee recommends the adoption of this alternate plan . It has prepared for the re - view of each Director , a proposed consolidation agreement . It is recommended that this item -3 - .. ·. b e p l ac e d o n the D e c ~m b c r . 8 , ·1971 a g erida fo r a d iscussion a n d vote by ·the mcm b.ership of the Joint v oards . Respe ctfully submitted , 1/' c-r _, " /") ~ ) /) _t? ·/ ti ''.l; 7~ j~;n·u / Ro e r t ?i nne ll Ch airma n· . .·~ .Me mbe r s of the S pe cia l Cor~.r!"li ttee : Ch a i rm a n : Me mb e r s : Ex o ffi cio J.;e mber.s : Robe rt Finne l l .) ;.:a y e r City o f Pl acent i a J osep:J. E::,·de _, Councilr.!an Cit y of Los Alamitos Li ndslc:; Pa rsc11s , Cou:nc ih:~a n Ci ty of I:e •.-:po r t Bea c h "" Don Smith , 1-'..::i.:,·c r City o f Or ange Ma rk Stepl:~ns o n .) C:oun c i l:na n Ci ty o f .L.naheirn C. Ar thur Niss on, Ge n e r a l Co w1s c ], Ora n ge Coun t y San i tation Di s tricts Edward Just .) Join t Cha irma n .Oran ge CoW1 ty Sanitat ion Di s tricts , -4- AGREEMENT FOR CONSOLIDATION DRAFT 9/29/71 This Agreement made in Fountain Valley, Califdrnia, on _____ day of -------------------' 19 , by and between COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOSo 1, 2, 3, 5, ~' 7 and 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY (each hereinafter referred to collectively as "Districts").· W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Districts are organized and existing under the provisions of the County Sanitation District Act . (Section 4700, et seq~ of the Health & Safety Code), and " WHEREAS, Districts .are each engaged in the collection, transporting and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes originating with the County of Orange, and WHEREAS, Districts jointly own and operate property used for the treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes, and WHEREAS, each District serves a different territory of the County of Orange and owns certain sewerage facilities independent of each other District, and WHEREAS, the territory of all districts together constitute a cont~guous territory, and WHEREAS, by agreement districts maintain a single joint administrative organization which administers all of the affairs of each districts, and WHEREAS, by reason of assess.ed ya.luations, varying. states of development and land uses, each district ha.s· different requirements for funding its operations, and WHEREAS, many adminis tra ti ve benefits ·can be derived f'rom a consolidation of' all districts· in.to a single county sanitation district, and WHEREAS, the County Sanitation District Act provides f'or the maintenance of zones within a single county sanitation district (Health & Safety Code, Section 1+850-4856, inclusive) which can be maintained to keep existing tax burdens in similar proportions upon consolidation of the districts. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements set forth hereinafter, it is agreed as follows: 1. That the districts will petition for consolidation into one county sanitation district whose territory'will include all of the territory now contained within their respec- tive territorial boundaries. 2. ~he consolidation district, hereinafter called , will be known as --~~------~~~- 3. When formed, will be divided into zones as authorized under the provisions of Health & Safety Code, Section 4850-4856, inclusive. Said zones will be coterminous with existing boundaries of each district and sub-committees of' the directors will be created to recommend to the whole board of directors the special improvements and tax requirements for each zone. Each sub-committee shall· include the directors whose constituencies are significantly included within the zone they are to be concerned with. '--'1' · 4.· In de~ermining the revenues needed for each zone within ----as provided in Health.& Safety Code, Section 4856, the directors shall calculate the requirements for each zone insofar as the operation of is dis------ tinguished from the special sewerage facilities construc·ted, maintained and operated to serve.the· localized requirements of the iones in accordance with the joint own~rship, operation and construction agreement dated March 10, 1971, now existing by and between the.districts, parties to this agreement~ . ·5. The expressed intent of this agreement is to provide the means to maintain the existing proportions o~ the tax burden on the property within each district to be included . in the newly consolidated ' ---~--~- EXCERPr FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATER RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT DATED DECEMBER 2~ 1971 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Regulator¥ policies for ocean disposal should give maximum consideration to the marine ecology as de~cribed from coastal water research programs. In.particular, the most probable explanations for observed eco_system changes must be thoroughly evaluated, despite the considerable difficulties involved. Natural phenomena and the broad range of man's activities yield many possible causative factors. Attempts to consider tl1ese factors will help ensure that the effects of· wastewaters have been assessed in the proper perspective. The proposed State policy should be modified to reflect this reasoning. 2. ·The natural transmissivity of coastal waters is extremely variable with location, depth, and time and is affected by · a variety of processes. Although little is known about the effects of the various types of solids on transmissivity, the relatively small amount of available data indicates that natural fluctuations in transmissivity may be much greater than the permissible 25 percent reduction in the proposed water quality· objective. For this reason, it is recommended that the proposed water quality objective for light trans- mittance (Policy Section III-B-2-C) be deleted. This.ob- jective has little if any relevance to coastal water ecology as ~ong as tne requirements £or initial dilution (~olicy Section III-C-1) are maintained. Transmissivity in California coastal waters is primarily of concern because of the need to ensure sufficient light for the growth of kelp. Therefore, it is reconunended that, in lieu of a water quality objective for transmissivity, an objective be established for the amount of light energy available at the bottom in kelp growing areas. Such a water quality objective might be stated as follows: Waste discharges shall not reduce the total available light energy to less than 108 ergs/cm2-day (measured from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on clear days) more than 20 per- cent of the time in areas that are less than 100 ft in depth and that are considered desirable for kelp. . . If .such an objective ~s adopted, the methods of measuring light and determining waste discharge influence on light reduction should be specified. ' 3. Settleable materials from wastes may be beneficial to the marine environment in ter~s of providing nutrients and in- creasing productivity, and this potential advantage should not be overlooked in the formulation of a waste discharge control policy. Therefore, the policy should be directed -24-\ .. to controlling excessive accumulations of settleable materials rather than to limiting the input of these materials. There is no scientific basis for the 0.1 ml/l limitation on settleable solids contained in the.proposed . policy. At the present time, there appears to be no good reason for restricting the settleable solids to a concen- tration less than, say, 0.5 ml/l. Furthermore, the proposed policy should recognize the possibility of new alternative means of marine disposal of particulates. A major SCCWRP program summarizing and evalu~ting available information on the ecological impact of marine disposal of particulates is scheduled for com- pletion ea~ly in 1972 and should directly affect the formu- lation of water quality standards. 4. The.absolute prohibition of floatable materials from sewage effluents is unrealistic. In lieu of a more definitive and enforceable limitation, it is recommended that the State adopt the followin·g interim numerical requirement: · s. The maximum areal concentrat-1.on of hexane-extractable materials on the coastal water surface should not exceed· 20 mg/m2, al'\<l that of floating particulates of· sewage origin should not exceed.1.5 mg dry we~ght/m2. · At the same time, the State should take the initiative to support research efforts to define more appropriate para- meters for floatables control, and to determine improved analytical techniques and more efficient floatables removal processes for marine sewage disposal. There is no evidence to indicate that present levels of discharge of suspended solids are damaging the marine· environ- ment. It is recommended that suspended solids in waste effluents be limited to about 150 mg/l, because at 100:1 dilution, the resulting concentration will approximate natural levels of particulates. 6. ·rt is evident from the data on the concentration of DDT ··residues in Mytilus californianu.s that a substantial point source of a material can be detected and monitored by sampling and analysis of the biot.a if the material is con- centrated by a relatively nonmobile or~anism. DDT is the only known trace material clearly exhibiting this character- istic. · 7. Although more data are necessary to draw firm conclusions, the available·data indicate that the uptake of certain metals by intertidal organisms is influenced more by diffuse sources than by discrete wastewater inputs. These studies indicate -25- ,. . ·a. that, at the p·resent time, there. is· no basis for estabJ.ish- ing the restrictive limits proposed in t~e State policy for concentrations of metals in wast~water effluents. Meas~rements of loc~lized concentrations of metals, however, do appear to be warranted, and SCCtvRP is expanding its analyses of trace con:>tituents to include demersal fishes and invertebrates living in deeper. waters adjacent to several wastewater outfalls. It is hoped·that SCCWRP will be able to determine, within the next year, if uptake of metals in these organisms is influenced by wast~ inputs and if certain metals are ~elated to fish diseases observed in areas adjacent ·to the outfalls. This problem is extremely complex: The rele-· vant variables, both natural and man-related (such as re- lations to predators) are difficult to identify, let alone distinguish as to importance . .. SCCNRP is continuing to investigate possible natural and man- related causes of fish diseases by environmental correlations and by identification of pathological agents. In conjunction with the disease s~udies, SCCWRP is also analyzing local marine fish catch data·for diversity and.distributional in- formation on about 150 species of demersal and nearshore fishes. This work may help tb determine within the next year if present monitoring methods are sufficient to detect faunal changes attributable to natural or man-related environ- mental changes. 9. Recent data indicates that the proposed ammonia effluent standards may be unduly restrictive. It is recommended tha.t they be deleted at this time because SCCWRP research schedqled for completion in 1972 is expected to clarify this issue. 10. .several of the foregoing recommendations have involved re- moval of the proposed restrictions on waste discharges. If followed, these might be interpreted as a "permit to pollute". Therefore, SCCWRP recommends that the State policy incorporate ··provisions for future modifications; these can also ensure .that new research findings are incorporated. The statement in the draft policy that.it "will assure continued application of the latest knowledge in environmental protection and waste management" is especially commendable in this respect; however, the policy should be expanded to specify the manner in which this is to be accomplished. This need is particularly urgent ·in view of the additional data required for relevant criteria and the expenditure of resources. that will be necessary to meet the requirements of the proposed policy. In addition, policy criteria should be 'flexible so that water quality objectives can be met in alternative ways. -26- ~r~ ~ .... -·t 11. NOTE: ,. At this time, SCCWRP can offer no specific ·reconuncndations on gross toxicity bioass-ay techniques and on measures of long-term chronic toxic effects. We hope to incorporate such recommendations into our final report, which· will be released late in 1972. Bibliography available on request. -27- December 3, 1971 REMARKS BY CLIFTON C. MILLER AT HEARING BY STATE WATER RE- SOURCES CONTROL BOARD ON PROPOSED OCEAN DISCHARGE WASTE REQUIREMENTS ON DECEMBER 2, 1971, SAN DIEGO My name is Clifton Miller. I am a Councilman in the City of Tustin, as well as the Chairman of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7. Among the numerous others directed to you, you have received a resolution from our city council requesting delay in adoption of the proposed policy for discharge to open waters until the study being done by SCCWRP*is available. I -thought it would be help~ul for you to know the reasons why our council passed this resolution. Before deciding on our position we requested the staff of the Sanitation Districts to estimate for us from their estimates of capital and operating costs, what the effect on the tax rate in District No. 7 would be for both activated sludge treatment and physical-chemical treatmept, both with and without 80% Federal grants. The immediate impact, if 80% Federal grants will be available, is of course less, but sti·ll extremely serious. In our City, the assessed valuation is very close to $60,000,000. If the standards you propose are adopted and the Districts go to an activated sludge system, over th~ next five years the Sanitation Districts will have to collect $930,000 more in property taxes from our city taxpayers than will have to be collected if the standards are not imposed. If 80% Federal grants are available, .• the amount wi~l be $450,000. If a physical-chemical system is *Southern Catifornia Coastal Water Research Project adopted, the amount will be $740,000 and with 80% grant $414,ooo. The physical-chemical system has a distinct long range disadvantage, however., in that it has a much higher operating cost which goes on .forever, so that a five-year projection doesn't indicate its dis- advantage over the activated sludge process. The average assessed valuation per home in our City is $7,000. In order to meet the proposed standards using the activated sludge. process, the average homeowner will have to increase his property tax payment to the sanitation district from $35 a year to $52.50 next year, whether or not there is an 80% grant. In 1973-74. '4 thout a grant' his tax .bill to the Di•strict will increase to $62.30, but would stay~at $52.50 if there were an 80% grant. This kind of increase is going to be very difficult to accept. In the case of the.physical-chemical processes, the increases would be from $35 a year to $47 and $53 the second year. With an 80% grant $47 the first year and $46 the second year. Those of you board members who may have had experience· as an elected official struggling with your City or Agency's budget, can appreciate the agonies which have to be gone through to raise the tax rate as much as 5¢. In our community we have had several school tax overrides voted down, until the school boards were willing to reduce the amount requested to cover what a majority of the com- munity could agree upon were the bare ess~ntial n'eeds of their children. In order to avoid raising the tax rate our city -2- . is def~rring needed capital improvements·. as well as services. The d~y _has lon~ passe~ when people wil~-accept increases in .. their taxes passively.· Unless they are convinced of the need they are angered. The point I want to make is that people will accept increased taxes if they are convinced of the benefit or necessity •.. Another point that I would like you to consider is that as the property tax burden increases, the ability of all other agencies which depend pn the property tax, to raise needed revenues from that source is decreased. An increase in the Sanitation District tax rate· will make it more difficult for our schools to increase their taxes to benefit our children, as well·as my City's ability to increase its taxes to meet its increasing costs. I hope your board will take this into consideration. By these remarks I do not mean to convey that people are unwilling to be taxed more to improve the environment. In our City. they have proven it by approving bond issues for sewers as well as parks and not objecting to increased taxes for better waste water treatment. However, it is a lot less palatable to enact something like this that drastically affects everyone's pocketbook than to impose· standards that affect one particular industry or group of industries for example. Before something like this is adopted, which affects everyone, I believe that several important steps have to be taken that have not yet been taken. The first of these is to let everyone know by . . means of pre~s and radio releases, interviews, and whatever other .!' means are available, that something impgrtant and expensive with regard to the environment is afoot that will affect their pocketbook, -3- · and to. let them know why i:t is being pro.pos.ed and what the benefits. will be. If the proposal ·is reasonable and wor:th,while, it will be able to stand the kind of public scrutiny it will generate. Those of us who will have the respons~bility for setting tax rates t·o accommodate this program will then be· able to defend. it as having a benefit commensurate with its cost. A~ it stands now, the information given to me indicates its benefit is not pr()ven. In Orange County we have been. constantly upgrading our treat- ment facilities and anticipate continuing to do so, and ~nticipate that the people will have to pay more for better treatment, and will be willing to do so, but request that you not be hasty in adopting this new policy, but adopt a policy based on information now being developed which we can then.all support because the policy and its benefits to the environment have been adequately justified. -4- " November 30, 1971 REMARKS BEFORE THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Robert Battin Chairman, Orange County Board of Supervisors Subject: Proposed California State Policy for Water Quality Control -General Principles and Provisions for Discharge to Ocean Waters -State Water Resources Control Board Hearing, December 2, 1971, San Diego, California · Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: I wish to address my remarks concerning the proposed State policy for discharge to ocean waters to the over-all environmental impact WQich could result from the policy as written. From .the information I have. received, it would appear t::.c.t the policy encourages ocean dischargers to immplement physical-chemical treat- ment methods to meet the proposed requir~ments, and that due consideration of the total environment has not been given in the drafting of this policy. For example, assuming that in Southern California there is a waste discharge to the ocean of a billion gallons per day, the application of physical-chemical treatment with lime, utilizing a recalcining* process, will require 750 toris of new lime to be delivered to·the different treatment facilities in Southern California each day. Forty-five large in- cinerators will have to be constructed which will consume 13 billion cubic feet of gas per year. In addition to the atmospheric problems attendant with incineration in Southern California, this process will produce daily 1120 tons of residue which will have to·be dis- posed of in sanitary landfills. Also, I ·am told that the commercial *Regeneration of spent lime sludges to quick lime by incineration. ·grade lime available will add approximately 25 tqns of impurities to the· waters ea·ch day.· Based oh the foregoing,' it would ~ppear that a secondary treatment process, such ·as that known as activated sludge, will affect the total environment far less, i~ that, it provides for the reduction of wastes by natural biological processes. Therefore, State policy. should encourage this type of treatment. I concur with your objectives to improve the quality of the coastal waters and protect the beneficial uses of the ocean; . however, I urge this Board in its deliberations to examine very carefully the stresses that· wil.l be placed on the. total environment. by the dischargers to comply with these proposed effluent discharge requirements. I' .,~· . The REGISTER Friday (m) November 19, 1971 01 I ,te Bo it©l ti \ By JOE l\1UHOJ\E Y Rcg istrr St:iff Writer SAN RAFAEL-The Califor- nia Water Re so urces Control Board was told al a heari ng here Thursd ay th at Orange Cou nty's se\·cn sanit ation di s- tricts hav e a fiv e -yea r, S!16.5 millio n con struction program unde r way, and that if they arc to obey a prop osed stale po li cy for refining sewer water di s- charged at sea, an ad dition a l $ti5 milli on capita l oull ay will be r equired in the same period. Edward E. J ust of Foun tai n Valley , joint chairman of the Orange County di strict s, said . ----... ·-•."; enforceme nt of th e propos ed County is in the forefront of the I ope r a ling agency be permitted -Orange County is contribu- policy wou ld jump the average fight lo end oc ea n contam in a -to make ifs own d eterm ination lin g to a coasta l wa ler resea rch sewage-d isposa l lax r ate in his lion from wh a tevc1· so urce. of th e bes t method lo me et the project lo develop a body of fact county from 112 cents pe r ~100 Ilul he said, "\\"e IJ el ieve thnl adopted effluent di~ch:uge r e-on the subject. as!>esscd v ~ lua ti on lo 85 cent s disc ha r ge reslr ict i:·ns or ef-q11iremenls when . it ca n be -Before emba rkin g on a $65 l.Jy 1973-74, ass uming DO pe r cenl fl uent s tandards mus t be ha scd s hull"n tha t the method cho sen mi lli on overhaul of it s prese nt fecic ral -sta te :iid in the pro ject. in fad on some ,m ca:;urnhl e will have the leasl impncl on :;e wa ge treatmenl faciliti es , Or- lf the loca l tax payers alone improve ment to the marine en -lhc total environment." I an ge County want s ass urance we re to carry the burden th e vi ronm en t, and tha t require-S:rn il a r y engineers at the lhal the resu lts to the ocea n average ra te for :<:!wage di spos-mcnts should be modif ied from hearin g in ter preted thes e r e-en\"iro nm ent wou ld be as benefi- al in th e county's seve n san it a-time to time when new changes marks as meaning : cial as th e state boa rd hop es; lio n di stricts would ri se lo $1.38 and improvements are dictated -Neither the federa l govern--In the absence of reliable by 19i-t-75, he said. by · new scientific kn o\\'lc d ge, menl, lhe state bo a rd, the Cali-data concerning th e effect of Just said: "We subscribe to such as po ss ible r ecomme nd a-fomia coa sta l countie s, nor any treated se\\'ag e effluent on the the stale board's intent lo est ab-lions rcs ull ing from th e South -r esem•c h aut hority any\\'here ocea n, th e li fe within il and those li sh a uniform policy for a ll ern California Coi!s lal Waler knows how or in what degree who ve ntu re into il for spor t, lhe di sc harges lo the coas tal wa-Resea rch P roj ect study. t reated sewe r water affects the $!i5 millio n Orange County pro- lers ," and he implied Orange I "It is imperative Uiat each ocea n envi ronment; · ject would be a s hot in the d ark. Sanitation -!-- e y ,.-... .. Rep r ese ntative s of lh e Orange County Joi nt Sanitation Dis trict s today urged the .-state to postpone new controls on th e . d ischarge of sewage in to the o~c:rn. Rountain Valle\' i\la rnr Ed .Just t • • 1 ·cha ir man of th e joint hoa rd s, ancl Frc'd . Har pe r. ge ner:1l man;1gr r of the s:111i ta- ti on di stric ts . hoth nfl<·nd <'cl a he:-iring on t he prorosed Ill'\\' s l:inclnrds in Snn Ra fael. . The cities of NC'w por t RP:w h and Tllm -· a $96.~ million con slnwtioo program . a nd if the new di scha rl'(e pol icy 1s put into ef- fe ct the co un ty sanitntion dist ril'ls wou lrl be rac ed with an add ilion;1 I $65 million I capital ou ll av . : It lws been est imated th al the di s tricts ' avera ge C'ount ywide !:ix rate or 47 ce nts would cl imb lo $l.l6 as a re sult of the ! new pol icy, Ju st said. 1 "We believ e that di sc harge r estri ctions or efflu ent standards mu st be bMe d in facl on some m~a surable improvements 0 c l inglon Bench have supported the sa nita- ti on di s tri ct's stand in 1·cqu esling a delay in im ple mentation of the st rict standards until mo re rcseareh is comp leted. Ohjrcl io ns nre h;1spd on th e cos t of put- f ing t he r equire1 1wnts in to effetl nnd a rt'porlt•d lack of knowle dge thnt the restri ctions will l.J e Pflt>C'l ive. Thr pro posrd poli<·.1· of !hr sta le Waler n rs1111 r C'eS Contro l Bn:i nl IVOlll<! pruhihit t hf' cli sc har gC' of tnxit• w:1sl PS or sol ids in - lo the m arine environment and re- qu ir ements should be morlilied fr om lime lo ti me whe n new chan ges and im- pro vP ments are dicl;ilc d by new sc ientif ic kno wledge," Ju st said. li e then sa id lh;it th e So uth ern California co;isl;i l study migh t pro vide such kn owled ge. Jlrpr ese nt a tives of the st;it e board a nd environm ente1li sls have argued that ocean pollution mi gh t be Loo great a probl em to solve if act ion is del ayed until the pro- § U ge t:rols . -, lo th e oce an. Treated ernuent is currenlly , pum pe d into th e oce an two miles off Hun- tin gto n Beach . The sa nit ati on di stricts are asking the st::te boarcl tu po stpone the controls until a SI. I milli on stud y by lhr Southe rn Califo rnia Coasln l Waler n escarl'h Pro- ject is comp leted. Th e threr-yrar study is cxp ec-l ed lo l.J e fini shed next s ummer. .111 sl tol d th e sl:ile boa rd today th at the co1111f y s:rnil nt ion di stricl s are c11g11ged in bl em is prop er ly iden tifi ed and pointed out the1l the stale policy is being offered as a more economica l altern ativ e to. stri ngen t feder al contro ls already ap·-' proved by Congress. Th e stale board is Lo hold anothe r hear· in g on th e proposed policy in San Diego De c. 2. Robert Ballin, chairman of t he county Board of Supervi so rs. has told sanitation directors he will attend the Dec. 2 hearing. ~. ·~~ . . 2 1Los an1tlt~ 1!timt! ~ . Part ll·Fri., Dec. 3, 1971 R .State Sewage . . . Disposal Plans ·Held Arbitrary · BY LARRY PRYOR Time! Stiff Writer SAN DIEGO-A pro-- posed state policy to tight- en stand_ards on disposal of sewage· in the ocean .came un•for fire at a public h~aring here Thursday as ·being arbitrary and pos- . sibly more harmful than · . beneficial to the environ-· m~nt. · Criticism came from a broad spectrum of inter~~t in Southern California- m u n i .c ipal dischargers, scientists and conserva-. tionists. · · · I · :Basic criticism was that the state standards are not based on sci-entific studies · of the effects of waste on the ocean. · Expenditure of Funds "The state board has ne- glected to define exactly what are the environmen- tal problems to be solved, . and is proposing some ar- bi~rary rules without ade- quate scientific or en- gine~ring basis," said Dr. ·N o rm a n H. B r o o k s, professor of environmen- tal science at Caltech. As a result, the State · i Wat~r Resources Control i Board was told. vast sums i of tax money might be ex- . pended that would pro- : duce meager results and . possibly cause harm. '. "We do not believe that .the citizens should be ex-' pected to invest billions of . .dollars in capital and oper-· ating funds without a sup-, portable and rational basis for such investments." ·said Roy E. Dodson. water· utilities -:iirector for the , r tjty ~f. S~J!.J?.i~(q. , , .... -d~ Doug Yingst, repr~s~nt..:·~· ing· the Southern Califor-'. . nia Water Quality. Con1-·!-· mittee of the Sierra Club, : . urged the board to · im-· .· prove the rationale for its · standaz:ds. 1 Chan1es Seen "As· of now,''· he said, ••there is no rationale for determining the limits in : the effluent, the back-'· ground (natural) level and -: . levels harmflul · to orga-, nisms." · Kerry Mulligan,· chair- man of the state board, said the ''policy· obviously w.ill be changed in many · areas" but warned that the. basic prqblem will lay with broad standards im- posed on the state by the . federal government. . "We are equally as frus- trated as you are," :Mulli- gan told· one scientist. The federal Environ- mental Protection Agency recently required that mu- nicipal waste dischargers would have to drastically improve their treatment · to qualify f o r f e d e r a 1 grants. A bill that has passed the U.S. Senate 86 to O and is now before the House would require secondary treatment of sewage-the removal of solids by so- phisticated physical -che- mical methods or bv bio- logical means-by 1976. The federal standards are based on biological ox- ygen demand (BOD)-the amount of oxygen used by organic materials wh~n they reach the receiving waters. ~ · Waiver Possible ' This standard is basical-. ly applicable to lakes and rivers, where the pollution . problem is most severe. · The state would be al-. low~d to waive the BOD · standard for ocean dispo- sal if it can supply a satis- factory alternative. 1 Since the main problem · with ocean disposal is the • effect of toxic materials-• metals, DDT, acids-on~ m a r i n e 1 i f e. the st;1te board concentrated on this-· . factor.!. ----• ~-. 1 • .i......;i · But persons-:· ·testifying\ Thursday ·said the state went too far, substituting ah equally arbitrary stan .. dard-removal of almost all solid . materials from· the waste water. One scientist, Dr. John D. baa cs, professor of o c ea no g raphy at ·th~ Scripps Institution of Oceanography. said much of the solid materials, if free of toxic elementS and p r o p e r 1 y . d i s p ersed, . "would b~ ju"st what. the ; ocean needs.11 : ·The board wu. urged to· _devise a policy that would :eliminate toxic materials . at tht!ir sourc~ . ... ••~I })f\\L ... / ?\Le:;,\ ~ ))tt. ? I State Sewage . :; ·Policy Hit By County· .J .I 1 f · Orange County Saniration District of- ficials today continued their fight against· proposed new state policies en th~! discharge of sewage into the ocean by presenting an alternative they say would save the county.$50 million. 1 The presentation was given by Fredi -Harper, general manager of the county' district, at a hearing on the proposed new: policies in San Diego. The hearing was 1 conducted by the state Water Resources i Control Board. . Essentially, the new state regulations~ i would prohibit the discharge of industrial l t toxic materials and organic solid wastes ! ~ jnto the ocean. . t · . Harper told the state board this morn-·1 .· ing that the regulations would require·! . the county to make a capital out!.ay of: $65 million fo requipment with an addi· j tional annual operating cost of $2.5 mil·, ' lion. I Harper submitted a proposal that· would improve ocean discharges, but , with the county's investment amounting! to only $15 million with increased annual : operating costs of only $600,000. ~ The difference in the two proposals lies i : with the county suggestion that would : place a greater burden on industrial : plants to prevent the di!'charge of toxic-~ materials into sewer lines. · . County officials also have argued t~at ; no research has shown that the marme : environment would be improved by a ban , on the discharge. of Lli~ wastes into the ; oce!Il-.. ~, . ..,.:. ~·. _, ........... -···~.;>·-~~: ...:~ I...-::-·.~,,;:.:...,_. •. _ ~~.,.;~ ........... ,.. ... A.a.J,.C:;.,..,, ___ .. _. ~ 1 2 Apnda ltmn Ro I 3 (CL) MEHORM'DUM OF AGREEMENT This Memorandum of .. ~reement contains the results of nego- 3 tiations between County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, · 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 4 and 11, of Orange County, California, acting individually or in con- 5 cert through the Joint Administrative Organization, hereinafter 6 called Districts, and the Orange County Employees' Association, 7 hereinafter called Association, concerning uages, hours and other 8 terms and cond.i tions of employment for. Districts' employees for. the 9 period December 1, ·1971, to Nov~mber 30, 1972. This Agreement shall 10 apply to all employees of the Districts represented by the Associa- 11 tion. 12 1. The salaries received by the employees shall be increase 13 by 4.125%. 14 2. ·The Districts shall continue to pay the full cost of 15 employee only group insurance, except the premium for disability 16 insurance which the employee shall continue to pay. Based upon 17 present data and rates, thi$ means the Districts shall pay ~30.89 18 per month per employee, or an increase of $10.58 per month per 19 employee. 20 3. The Districts shall pay ~41.30 per month per employee 21 for· employee plus dependents group insurance, or an increase of 22 :~10.58 per month per employee. 23 4. The parties agree that the above changes represent an 24 approximate annual aggregate increase 9f 5.585%. 25 5. The parties further recognize that the Districts have 26 requested bids on' its group insurance program. In the event the bid 27 accepted is lower than the rates of the current carrier, and this . 28 reduces the total value of the above increase below s.5%, the partie ~ l shall then meet and confer for the purpose of. restoring said increa e 2 to the s.5% level. 3 6. This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions A agreed upon. Except as modified herein, all existing terms and 5 conditions of employment shall continue in full force and effect 6 unless changed subsequent to the parties meeting and conferring in 7 good faith. 8 7. This Agreement shall be of no force and effect unless o .!iJ until duly adopted, ratified, and agreed to by the Districts' 10 .aoard of Directors. 11 ilated: December 6, 1971 12 13 ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES· ASSOCIATION BY 1 ~?~_,. /? f7 ffi.-1-: 14 {/' 15 16 17. (} '/ Ii""' (··' V n / ,l~--1 I~ J ·. ·µ 'Jr ·j , 'O : ,, h i, t ,( ! • '• I _ _., >(_, ·-;:;J-.J 18 19 20 21 22 23 COUNTY SANI'i'ATION DISTH.ICTS OF ORANGE 24 25 BY: 26 27 -· 28 -2- Nov ember 5, 1971 MEMORANDUM TO: EDWARD JUST _, JOINT CHAIRMAN FROM : ROBERT FINN ELL, CHAIRMAN , SPECIAL COMMIT'"fEE STUDYING DIRECTORS ' FEE S SCHEDULE SUBJECT: RE COMMENDA TI ON FOR CHANGES IN THE PR ESENT DIRECTORS ' FEES SC HEDU LE The foll.o win g r ep ort constitutes the recommendati ons of the special c ommitte e a p p o inted b y the Joint Boards at the regular board meeting of March 10, 1971 . During this period t0e-committee has met on a number of occasions and has r e quested and rec e ived d etailed i nf ormat i on from both the Sanitation Districts' s taff and the Distri cts ' General Counsel . The committee has reviewed several alternatives which are dis cuss ed below . (1) Maintain the Directo rs ' compensation at t h e present level as established by resol ution of the individual Districts in 1967 and 1968 . The special committee concluded that t he present fee structure is inequitable and that another alternative should be sough t . (2) Amend the fee schedule so that those Directors r epresenting more than one District at a joint meeti ng would only receive compensation equal to t hat of a Director representing a single District . The General Counse l rul ed that under the present Health and Safety Code the Sanitation District does not have the authority to disc riminate in it s fees. Thi s alternative could be achieved , however, by r equesting the State Legi slature to enac t special legislation . It was the consensus of the special committee that because such l e gis - l ation would affect all sanitati on districts in t he State of Californi a; the chances of secu~ing passage of such legislation were slim . It was also agreed that even i f such legislation coul~ be enacted it would be time c on s um in g an d woul d not solve othe r pr ob l effi s wh ich wi l l be fa cin g the Districts in the n e ar future . Th e spec i a l committ ee do·es r ecommend , h oweve r , t hat i f the Joint Boards do not agree with the c ommittee's recommended alte r native, serious · consideration should be given to requesting l egislative action to accomplish the reduction o f multiple fees to a single Direc t o r . (3 ) Consolidate the vari ous Sanitation Di s t ricts into one County Sanitation District with opera - ti ons, maintenance, and capital outlay costs s p lit evenly throughout the new Di s trict . (4 ) Wh ile this would achieve many of the goals the c ommittee felt were needed, it would create tax increases in Distri~ts 5 , 6 , and 7, whi l e l owering taxes in Districts 1, 3, and 11 . It would have no effect on Distri ct 2 . The Com - mi ttee concluded that this would not be an equitable distribution of costs and therefore does not recommend this alternative . Consolidate the present Sanitation Di strict s int o one Co hn ty Sanitation District with special zones which would be co -terminus with existing Districts' boundaries and i t would have separate budgets, could i ssue bonds, and i n c u r bonded i ndebtedness for improvements and t h e maintenance the r eof within the special zon e . In effect, this alternative would provide for · on l y one Sanitati on.District but would allow for special zones which would be the equivalent of the p r esent County Sanitation Distri cts which wou l d have no effect on the tax rates of each o f the present Districts . The consolidated agencies would act as a singl e Sanitation Di s tri ct now acts . The exis t ing Joint Administrative Or gani zation would be e liminated as would the n ecessity for seven sets of resol utions, minutes, s eals, etc ., for joi nt business . Rather than hav i ng Distr ict No . 1 act as agent for al l the Di s t ricts i t would merely be one Di str ict . The r e would be no dupli cation of Di re c tors i n that e a c h city within the District, each Sanitar y Distr ict now represented, and the County Board of Super - v i sors, would have a single representative and a n a l ternate for a total of 23 active Directors . The committee felt t hat this l atter p o int was one which deserved special attention of the J oint Boar ds . At t he present time the r e are -2 - 29 Directors repr esenting 19 c ities and 3 Sanitary Distri cts and the County Boa rd of Supervisors . Howeve r> if Dist rict s No . 5 and No . 11 annex presently unincorporated ar eas > the ent ire city councils of the Cities of Newpo r t Beach and Hunt i ngton Beach will automatically becqme the Board of Directors for those two Sanitation Districts . Thi s will increase the nwnber of Direc tors t o 36 with two cities having 14 representa - tives voting on matters befo r e the Join t Boa r ds . In addition> if each of the mayors of cities belonging to more than one Dis trict should elect a different alte r nate to r epre - se~t them in each Dis trict> the number of Directors could go as high as 48 . Thi s would more than double the number of Di r ectors which would be possible unde r this p r oposed alter- nat i ve . The c oil')ITlittee felt that the unwieldy nature of such a large Board would be detri - mental to the efficient operat i ons of the Di stricts . Thi s alternative would also have the e f fect of substantiall y reducing the numbe r of special district s > an objective formally endorsed by the Or ange County Board of Supe r visors> the Orange County Divi sion of the League of California Cities , and the Orange County Gr and Jury. At the same time , it would still provide the mechanism for solving local p r ob l ems by providing for zone committ ees equi valent to the present Dis tricts ' Boa rd s . Last but certainly not l east , t he r educ ti on in Di r ectors fees would amount to a sub - stantia l savings to the taxpayers of the Districts . Th e commi ttee recommend s t he adoption of this a lte r nate p l an . It has prepared for the re - vi ew o f each Directo r, a proposed consolidation agreeme nt. I t i s r e comm ended .that thi s i tem -3 - • be placed on th~ Decembe r 8, 1 971 agerida for a discw_;si cn and vot.e by the membership of the Joint Boa rds . Re spectfully submitted , J=y]!~ /-1-'tM1'(/ Roo e rt ?i nnel l Ch a irma n· ....... Me mbers of the Special Cor:i..rni ttee : Chairman : Me mb ers : Ex officio 1.:embers : Robert Finnell > r.:ayor : City of Placentia Jo seph Eyde> Councilr.i.an Cjty of Los Alamitos Li ndsle:/ Parsc11 s > Counc ilr:ia n City of J-:c~·1po r t Beach Don Sm ith> l·fo.'.lyo r City of O:cange J.)ark Step!:~n::;on > City of Anahe im Cour.cil:aa:i. C. Arthur Hi.ss ori , General Counsc ~ Ora n ge County Sanitati on Dis~rict s Edw ard Ju st, Joint Chairr.i.an .Orange County Sanitation Di s tricts , -.. -4-" ·J AGREEMENT FOR CONSOLIDATION DRAFT .9/29/71 This Agreement made in Fountain Valley, California, on --~-day of ~----------~' 19____, by and between COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOSo 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7_and 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY (each hereinafter :r:eferre.d to collectively as "Districts"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Districts are organized and existing under the provisions of the County S~nitation District Act {Section 4700, et seq. of the Health & Safety Code), and WHEREAS, Districts are each engaged in the collection, transporting·and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes originating with the County of Orange, and WHEREAS, Districts jointly own and operate property used for the treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes, and WHEREAS, eacn District serves a different territory of the County of Orange and owns certain sewerage facilities independent of each other District, and WHEREAS, the territory of all districts together constitute a contiguous territory, and WHEREAS, by agreement districts maintain ~ single joint administrative organization which administers all of the affairs of each districts, and WHEREAS, by.rea~on of assessed valuations, varying states of development and land uses,· each dis.trict has different requirements ·for funding its operations, and WHEREAS, many administrative benefits can be derived from a· consolidation. of all districts into a single county . . sanitation district, and WHEREAS, the County Sanitation District Act provides for the maintenance of zones within a single county sanitation district (Health & Safety _Code, Section 4850-4856, inclusive) which can be maintained to keep existing tax burdens in similar proportions upon consolidation of the districts. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements set forth hereinafter, it is agreed as follows: 1. That the districts will petition for consolidation into one count~ sanitation district whose territory will include all of the territory now contained within their respec- tive territorial boundaries. 2. The consolidation district, hereinafter called --~-------~- , will be known as 3. When formed, will be divided into zones ----- as authorized under the provisions of Health & Safety Code, Section 4850-4856, inclusive. Said zones will be coterminous with existing boundaries of each district and sub-committees of the directors will be created to recommend to the whole board of directors the special improvements and tax requirements for each zone. Each sub-committee shall include the directors whose constituencies are significantly included within the zone they are to be concerned with. 4. ·In determining the revenues needed for each zone within as provided in Health & Safety Code, Section 4856, the directors shall calculate the requirements for each zone insofar as the operation of is dis- tinguished from the special sewerage facilities constructed, maintained and operated to serve the localized requirements of the zones in accordance with the joint .ownership, operation and construction agreement dated March 10, 1971, now existing by.and between the districts, parties to this agreement. 5. The expressed intent of this agreement is to provide the means to maintain the existing propor~ions of the tax burden on the property within each district to be included in the newly consolidated ~~~~--~ December 3, 1971 REMARKS BY CLIFTON C. MILLER AT HEARING BY STATE WATER RE- SOURCES CONTROL BOARD ON PROPOSED OCEAN DISCHARGE WASTE REQUIREMENTS ON DECEMBER 2, 1971, SAN DIEGO My name is Clffton Miller. I ·am a Councilman in the City of Tustin, as well as the Chairman of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7. Among the numerous others directed to you, you have received a resolution from our city council requesting delay in adoption of the proposed policy for discharge to open waters until the s~udy being done by SCCWRP*is available. I thought it would be helpful for you to know the reasons why our council passed~this resolution. Before deciding on our position we requested the staff of the Sanitation'Districts to estimate for us from the!r estimates of capital and operating costs, what the effect on the tax rate in District No~ 7 would be for both activated sludge t~eatment and physical-chemical treatment, both with and without 80% Federal grants. The immediate impact, if 80% Federal grants will be available, is of course less; but still extremely serious. In our City, the assessed valuation is very close to $60,oob,ooo. If the standards you propose are adopted and the Districts go to an activated sludge system, over the next five years the Sanitation Districts will have to col~ect $930,000 more in property taxes from our city taxpayers than will have to be collected if the standards are·not imposed. If 80% Federal grants are available, the amount will be $450,000. If a physical-chemical system is *Southern Catifornia Coastal Water Research Project adopted, the amount will be $740,000 and with 80% grant $414,ooo. ·The physical-chemical system has a distinct_long.range disadvantage, however, in that it has a much higher op~rating cost which goes on forever, so that a five-year projection doesn't indicate its dis- advantage over the activated sludge process. . The average assessed valuation per home· in our City is $7,000. In order to.meet the proposed standards using the activated sludge process, the average homeowner will have to increase his property tax payment to the sanitation district from $35 a year to $52.50 next year, whether or not there is an 80% grant. In 1973-74 without a grant, his tax bill to the District will increase to $62.30, but would stay at $52.50 if there were an 80% grant •. This kind of increase is ·going to be very difficult to accept. In the case of the physical-chemical processes, the increases would be from $35 a year to $47 and $53 the· second year·. With an 80% grant $47 the first year and $46 the second year. Those of you board members who may have had experience as an elected official struggling with your City or Agency's budget, can appreciate the agonies which have to be gone through to raise the tax rate as much as 5¢ •. In our community we have had several school tax overrides voted down, until the school boards were willing to reduce the amount requested to cover what a majority of the com- munity could agree upon were the bare essential needs of their children. In order to avoid raising the tax rate our city -2- . . is deferring needed capital improvements as well as services. l..,,.J The day has long passed when people will accept increases in their taxes passively. Unless they are convinced of the need they are ange~ed •. The point I want to make is that people will ·accept increased taxes if they are convinced of the benefit or necessity. _ Another point ·that I would like you to consider is that as the property tax burden increases, the ability_ of all othe~ agencies which depe!ld on the property tax, to raise needed re.venues from that source is decreased. An increase in the Sanitation District tax rate will make it more difficult for our schools to increase their taxes • to benefit our children, .as well as· my City's ability to increase its taxes to meet its ~ncreasing costs. I hope your board will take this into consideration. By these remarks r·do not meant~ convey that people are unwilling to be taxed more to improve the environment~ In our City they have proven it by approving bond issues for sewers as well as parks and not objecting to increased taxes -for better waste water treatment. However, it is a lot less palatable to enact something like this that drastically affect.s everyone's pocketbook than to impose· standards that affect one particular industry or group of industries for example •. Before something like this is adopted, which affects everyone·, I believe that several important steps have to be taken that have not yet been taken. The first of these is to let everyone know by means of press and radio releases, interviews, and whatever other "'-" means are available, that something impo~tant and expensive with regard to the environment is afoot that will affect their pocketbook, -3- and to let them know why it is being proposed and what the benefits will be. If the proposal is reasonable and worthwhile, it will be able to stand the kind of public scrutiny it will generate. Those of us wbo will have the responsibility for setting tax rates t·o accommodate this program will then be able to defend it as having a benefit commensurate with its cost. As it stands now, the information given to me indicates its. benefit is not. proven. In Orange County we have been constantly upgrading our treat- ment facilities and anticipate continuing to do so, and anticipate that the people will have· to pay more for better treatment, and· "' will be willing to do so, but request that you no~ be hasty in adopting this new policy, but adopt a policy based on information now being developed which we can then all support because the policy and its benefits to the environment have been·adequately justified. -4- November 30, 1971 REMARKS BEFORE THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Robert Battin Subject: Chairman, Orange County · Board of Supervisors Proposed California State Policy for Water Quality · Control -General Principles and Provisions for Discharge to Ocean Waters -State Water. Resources Control Board Hearing, December 2, 1971, San Diego, California Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: I wish to address my remarks concerning the proposed ·State policy for discharge to ocean waters to the over-all environmental impact which could result from the policy as written. From the information I have received, it would appeart~at the I.._; policy encourages ocean dischargers to immplement physical-chemical treat- ment methods to meet the proposed requireme~ts, and that due consideration of the total environment has not been given in the drafting of thi.s policy. For example, assuming that in Southern California there is a waste discharge to the ocean of a billion gallons per day, the application of physical-chemical treatment with lime, utilizing a recalcining* process, will require 750 tons of new lime to be delivered to the different treatment facilities in Southern California each day. Forty-five large in- cinerators will have to be constructed which will consume 13 billion cubic feet of gas per year. In addition to the atmospheric problems attendant with incineration in Southern California, this process will produce daily 1120 tons of residue which will have to be dis- posed of in sanitary landfills. Also, I am told that the commercial *Regeneration of spent lime sludges to quick lime by incineration. grade lime available will add appro~imately 25·tons of impurities to the waters each day. Based on the foregoing, it would appear that a secondary treatment process, ·such as that known as activated sludge, will affect the total environment far less, in that, it provides for the reduction of wastes by natural biological processes. Therefore, State policy should encourage this type of treatment. I concur with your objectives to improve the quality of the coastal waters and protect the beneficial uses of the ocean; however, I urge this Boar~ in its deliberations to examine very carefully the stresses that will be placed on the total environment • by the dischargers to comply with these proposed effluent discharge " requirements. COUNTY !SANITATION UISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA November 18, 1971 P.O. BOX 8127 108·" ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714} 540·2910 (714) 962·2'411 REMARKS BEFORE THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Edward Just, Mayor, City of Fountain Valley Joint Chairman, .Orange County Sanitation Dis~rict~ The Boards of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation Districts believe that the proposed State policy for discharge to open wat'er.s represents a sincere effort by the staff of the State Board to develop a policy which will comply with the Envir9nmental Protection· A~ency requirements. : We subscribe to the State Board's intent to establish a comprehensive uniform policy for all dischargers to the ~oastal \..,..J waters to insure the continuing beneficial uses of same. We agree with most of the proposed general principles for the protection of the beneficial uses of the ocean; however, it · is our opinion that those materials that are toxic to the marine . environment can be controlled at the source. In fact, during this ·past year our Districts' staff initiated discussions with representatives of t~e California ·Regional water Quality Control Board} Santa Ana Region, the State Department of Fish· and Game, .the State Health Departme.nt and the Orange County Health Department to limit the industrial discharge to our system of .twenty-one specific elements including those proposed by the State Board to insure compliance with new Regional Board requirements which became effective April 1, 1971. . ... , __ ,-,,,,,.~ Currently our Districts are embarked on a.$96,557,135 five-year construction program, $17,000,000 of which ~s now under contract. If the proposed ocean d~scharge policy is implemented, our Districts will be fac·ed with an additional $65,000,000 capital outlay during this same five-year period. We_believe that discharge restrictions or effluent standards must be· based in fact on some measurable improvement to the marine environment and requirements should be modifie~ from time to time when new changes and improvements are dictated by new scientific knowledge, such as possible recommendations resulting-from the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project $1.l million study. It is imperat:tve that each operating agency be permitted to make its own determination of the best method to meet the adopted effluent discharge requirem~nts when it can be shown that the method chosen will have the least impact.on the total environment. In the case of our Districts, we are ·presently constructing a twelve million gallon per day facility to conduct a project known as "Improved Treatment tprough Better Utilization of Pri~ry Sedimentation (Physica.1-Chemical Treatment) 11 • This facility will be operational in June, 1972, and is designed to evaluate methods of increased removal of floatable and settleable material by the addition of chemicals. · The purpose of this work is to demonstrate on a large scale the cost/benefits of physical- chemical treatment in meeting the proposed requirements for discharge of waste water to the Pacific Oceane This will , ... - ~- ·involve monitoring the removal o~ settleable solids, suspended solids, grease, turbidity, pH, heavy metals and toxi~ity, as measured by the bio-assay tests. We anticipate that the evaluation of this· unit wili require a period of one year at a-cost of at least $250,000 to determine its effectiveness and its total ehvironmental impact, such as the disposal of the chemically laden sludge residues. We wish to compliment this Board on its endeavors to implement. a comprehens:ive state-wide program of water res.burces management which will insure the max;tmum beneficial use of our water resources. Subject: Proposed California State Policy for Water Quality Control -General frinciples and Provisions for Discharge to Ocean Waters -State Water Resources Control Board Hearing, November 18, 1971, Marin· County Civic Center, San Rafael, California -· .· .. (Ube ttesisftf, The REGISTER Friday (m) November 19, 1971 D 1 State Board Hears OC Sanitation -·--..... --·· .. -:-·-.... --,-1 Plans.·, By JOE :MURONEY . enforcement of the proposed County is in the forefront of the I operating agency be permitted -Orange County is contribu- Rcgister Staff Writer ' policy would jump the average fight to end ocean contamina-to make its own dclcrmination ting to a coastal water research SAN RAFAEL-The Califor-sewage-disposal tax rate in his tion from whatevct' source. of the best method to meet the project to develop a body of fact nia Water Resources Control county from 42 cents per $100 But he said, "\Ve believe that adopted efiluent discharge re-on the subject. Board was told at a hearing assessed v::.luation to 85 cents discharge restrict!:ns or ef-quiremenls when it can be -Before embarking on a $65 here Thursday that Orange by 1973· 74, assuming 80 per cent fluent standards must be based shown that the method ch<;sen miJlion overhaul of its present County's seven sanitation dis-federal-slate aid in the project. in fact on some mea:surable will have the least impact on sewage treatment· facilities, Or- tricts have a five-year, $96.5 If the local taxpayers alone improvement to the marine en-' Ute total environment." ange County wants assurance' · n1illion construction program were to carry the burden the vironmenl, and that require-Sanitary engineers at the that the results to the ocean under way, and that if they are average rate for ~~wage dispos-menls should be modified from hearing interpreted these re-environment wQuld be as bcnefi- to obey a proposed state policy al in the county's seven sanita-time to. time when new changes marks as meaning: cial as the state board· h9pes; for refining sewer waler dis-tion districts would rise to $1.38 and improvements are dictated -Neither the federal goveru--In the absence or . reliable charged at sea, an additional by 1974-75, he said. by new scientific knowledge, ment, the state board, the Call-data concerning the effect of $65 million capital oullay will be Just said: "We subscribe to such as possible r.ecommenda-fornia coastal counties, nor any treated sewage effluent on the required in the same period. the state board's intent to estab-tions resulting from the South-research authority anywhere ocean, the life within it and those Edward E. Ju~t of Fountain lish a uniform policy for all ern California Coastat' Water knows how or in what degree who venture into it for sport, the Valley, joint chairman of the discharges to the coastal wa-Research Project study. treated sewer water affects the $65 million Orange County pro- Orange County districts, said ters," and he implied Orange "It is imperative that each ocean environment; ject would be a shot in the d~. ---·--------------·--~--...... --···-·--.. ~·-... ·---... _., --····-------- ) ) ) DAILY PILOT, December 8, 1971 . -.. -... -... ·--'1'·· -...... -... -··-, ....... ............,_. . -, High Costs· Of Sewage~ Plan Cited 1 "J \ SAN DIEGO (AP) -All but one of 24 ' agencies throughout Southern California ! ·say they object to the cost of strict new . sewage controls being proposed by the I state Water Res~urccs Control Board. i In a rec~nt six-hour. hearing, th cir '. representatives complained that an extra · $500 million would be charged to tax- payers if the board adopts the controls Jan. 6. Spokesmen for the Los Angeles County Sanitation District said it would have to ; bill taxpayers S240 million just for changes in the sewer network. The extra bill for the city of Los Angeles was estimated at $60 million to $70 million, for the smalJ city of Tustin in Orange County r.bout $900.000. Similar prof es ts came from representatives of , Ventura. Santa Barbara and Long Beach. The California Ocean Fish Protective Association alone praised the 13 pages of standards drafted to iollow closely new federal guidelines for sewer treatment and the flow of chemicals into the ocean. - Unexpectedly, a spokesman for the · conservationist Sierra Club said the pro-· posals "s~em to need much more flex- ibilitv ." A ~professor of environmental science, Dr. Norman Brooks of California 1 Institute of Technology, told the hearing ' there is "no scientific evidence to back up charges that California has a pollution . crisis." · ~ ·' ''This table of standards and re-l I quiremcnts is medicine to cure an illness .' . that does not ·exist in my opinion," . . Brooks said, calling the plan ''scientif· : · ically indefensible." · • Prof. John B. Isaacs of Scripps Institu- tion of Oceanography said much of the t sewage flowing into the Pacific may be of gr.eat value to the ocean. i. It is "really hungry for the types of 'nutrients that can come from sewage," .he said. ~ · .. _..;.,..__..~.. . .: .. : ; .. · -l }. STUDY OF FLOW REDUCTION /ilil) TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER FRQloI HOUSEHOLDS by James R. Bailey Richard J. Benoit John L. Dodson James M. Robb Harold Wallman General Dynamics, Electric Boat Divi~ion Gro~on, Connecticut 06340 for the FEDERAL WAi'ER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION DEPAR'J.MENT OF· THE INTERIOR Program #11050 Fl{g Contract #14-12-428 FWQA Project Officer, C. L .. Swanson Advanced Waste Treatment Research L~boratory Cincinnati, Ohio December, 1969 For sale by the Superlnten<lcnt oC Do~uauwt.;, U.S. Oo\"enunent Prlnt!ng Ofilce· Wash!nr;tv:1, D.C. 2Qfl':' • rrice !1.25 .· 1 HOUSEHOLD PLUl\!BING FIXTURES TO REDUCE WATE~ U~AGE REQUIREMENTS Previous studies concerning the use of water in plumbing devices and home appliances were reviewed, and plumbing equipment manufacturers were surveyed to determine availability of wate~ saving plumbing equipment. Manufacturers, both in this country and abroad, have developed water saving faucets, showers, and toilets. B~cause of · water shortages and higher water costs, some foreign countries have placed great emphasis on conserving water. For example, a vacuum flush toilet has been developed in SWeden, and in the United Kingdom toilets with two flushing cycles and water- saying spray faucets are being used. The feasibility of using the various water-· ·saving devices in the household is evaluated on the basis of cost and wat~r savings. POSSIBLE TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE TREATMENT The demands for high quality water and the increasing costs of securing and treating water supplies have stimulated the search for better methods of water and waste treatment. The literature on advanced treatment methods was surveyed and the various methods ai .. e discussed as to their applicability for household use. Most of the methods considered do not at this time appear suitable for use in individual households. However, changes in economic factors and technical improvements could make some methods attractive for future use. ENGINEERING STUDY AND EVALUATION OF PROCESSES :E'OR WATER CONSERV~ TION AND WASTE TREATMENT The practicality of using the various schemes of waste treatment or flow reduction in the household are evaluated. An order-of-magnitude cost analysis of the various systems led to the following conclusions: · 1. Reduction of water usage appears to be the most economically feB;sible means of reducing waste flow from the home. 2. Flow control faucets are.of marginal value when replacing workable fau'cets 1 but are definitely warranted for new homes and for necessary replacements. 3. Flow control showers are an inexpensive means of economi~ally saving considerable quantities of water. 4. 'i'he use of pressure flush valves to reduce water flow does not appear ~s a_dvantageo.us as the redeslgn of the toilet bowl to allow adequate flushing with less water. The p:r:essure flush valve could be advantageously used with the redesigned toilet bowl. Siphons, as used in the English water closets, would also provide better volume control than the system presently · used in the United States. 5. The vacuum flush toilet for the individual home is too expensive because of the high cost of the accompanying equipment. .. ·• . .... 2 ~ .. 6. The major econoruic disadvantage of the recycle toil~ts is the 4igh cost of the chemical used for disinfecting the recycled flush water. Development of a suitable, lower cost disinfectant could make their use much more practfoal. There could be a problem with acceptance of reused flush water .in the home, but this objection does not appear insurmountable. 7. Incinerator toilets are excessively costly to operate and maintain for f~mily use. For certain applications, such as weekend cabins which are used sporadically, the incinerator may be the most economical system, but for normal continuous use, the incinerator toilet cannot economically compete with conventional systems. 8. The analysis of the system to reuse wash waters for toilet flushing reveals several very significant facts. The treatment and the quality standards required for flushing water are minimal and the costs are thus relatively low in comparison to those for any other reuse. Yet this treatment and reuse :s ·economical fo only fair and poor soil areas. 9. . The additional treatment of the non-sanitary waste waters by distillation, reverse osmosis, or a multifilter system for use as laundry and bathing water as well as toilet flushing does not appear economically feasible. . 10. The treatment of all waste waters by distillation, and reuse for all purposes except drinking is also economically unattractive • . 11. Aerobic treatment is competitive with anaerobic systems in poor. soil areas. In such poor s~il areas some reuse may also be warrante.d. 12. Electrolytic ·treatment for disposal is not economical for most areas because '..! of the low conductivity of. the water. Based on these observations,_ the systems that warrant further·consideration are ~-t~e various means of restricting water usage, reuse of wash waters for toilet flushing, I ' and the use of a~robic treatm~.nu~stems in poor soil areas with tbe possibili~L..of ·treating and reusing portions of the aerobic effluent. PRESENT STUDY ·This study examines the feasibility of applying the principles of water conservation and reuse of partially treated water to the household, not only to stretch the limited water supply, but also to provide a transition into the approaching era of complete water reuse with the corresponding high level of wa~er conservation ne~essitated by higher costs of water treatment. The various uses of water in the typical home are studied in an attempt to find. methods of reusing partially treated water and changing present home practices which use ,\,ater needlessly or wastefully. The amount of \Vater that can be poten- tially saved in a single household may be relatively small, but even small decreases in the daily per capita wate~ use and waste discharge can result in large cumulative decreases in costs at the municipal water and sewage treatm~nt plants. Besides savings in operating costs for water and sewage treatment, the decreased usage would delay the need for the construction of new wast~ treatment facilities, for con- struction of larger sewer lines-and water mains, and for the development of new water supply sources which ar·e ·becoming increasingly scarce a~d costly. 3 255 gp Potabl Water d~ ., e ~ , Kitchen ,, * I Utility Sink . ~·· .. , , "" ,, ,, / Laundry Bathing Lavatory Toilet 27 gpd 5 gpd 35 gpd 80 gpd 8 gpd 100 gp.d ' . ~ , , . . 255 gpd. to Waste Disposal * dishwashing 15 gpd .drinking, cooking 12 gpd Figure 1. Average Household Water Requirements for a Family of 2 Adults and 2 Children. 4 IV HOUSEHOLD PLUMBING FIXTURES TO REDUCE WATER USAGE REQUIREMENTS INTRODUCTION This section presents a study and engineering evaluation of possible changes in household plumbing fixtures to reduce water usage requirements, and hence reduce the flow of waste water from households (Task i). Specifically~ the following program was undertaken: (a) a review of previous studies, (b) a survey of plumbing fixtures that have the potential of saving water, and (c) evaluation of the feasibility of using these fixtures in the household on the basis of quantity of water saved and cost (fixture cost plus installation labor). REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES The Cornell University study "Bathroom -Criteria for Design" was reviewed (45). While this report was very interesting, it was slanted more toward physiological, psychological, and aesthetic improvements in design (i.e., human engineering) . rather than towards a reduction in water usage. For example, the report encourages the use of the urinal for reasons of convenience and aesthetics, but does not mention its potential for water savings. Many of the desig"ll:. concepts presented would ~se more water rather than less. ·ve~y' little information was found in the open literature on water savings to be realized by the installation of special valves or fittings. In most cases, fhese fixtures are designed primarily to conserve hot water and reduce fuel costs. Reduced hot water use is particularly helpful where the hot water supply is heated instan- taneously from a house _heater. The British have been very interested in economizing on the use of hot water in lavatory basins since fuel costs are high in the United Kingdom. In one series of tests run· in large office buildings, wash basins were fitted with thermostatically- controlled, single outlet spray taps (26, 78). Test results showed one-half to two- . thirds reduction in water consumption for washing as compared to standard basins fjtted with 2 faucets and a drain plug. ·The British have developed a dual cycle water closet, one flush cycle for urine, the other for solid wastes (26, 70). The water closets operate on a syphon system with a very shallow trap seal. The flush for solid waste is 2. 5 gal. (2 Imperial gal.) as compared with 5 to 6 gal. in the standard American fL"Cture. The urine cycle uses only 1-1/4 gal. These cycles are actuated by a short sharp stroke or pull for the smaller amount of water, or a longer sustained pull.for solid's flushing (see fig. 6). '. . . ..; 5 ~·· -------- --~ -;;n;-g-;l;;,n-; ---1 _.-:. ____ ..._. __ --.-----.-~ , one gallon* D ' · potential saving · . ... A-ha.ndle,, B-air intake, -C-siphon, D-piston When the piston {D) is held open, the air intake {B) is closed and the whole contents of the tank are siphoned. Wpen the piston is opened, then released, the air intake is open and the siphon breaks when half the tank is empty. * Imperial gal. Figure 6. Dual Flush Toilet Tank ---....~_,,_,-..--.1...-....... C.i A.,.(U ;:, ... h .. a ».£! ... c ~ 6 . . The test results using this dual flush cycle in low income flats showed a mean saving of 27% of the normal water used. (It should be. noted that ''normar' for water ~losets in· England is only 2 Imperial gal. per flush). - •, These studies have been going on in the United Kingdo·m since 1956, and the reports not~d above are quite detailed. However, as noted, the tests have been directed towards large office buildings or multiple family apartments rather than individual homes. The reason for this greater concern for water economy in Europe is the higher water costs and .the greater public awareness of these costs. Most services in the United Kingdom are metered. In the United States, however, public water supplies ili big cities (especially in the older sections) are not metered, and water is wasted ·because so much of it seems available at no direct cost to the user. SURVEY OF PLUMBING FIXTURE l\'.IANUFACTURERS A survey of manufacturers of plumbing fixtures and household appliances was made to determine the availability (commercial or under development) of hardware devices tllat have the potential of reducing wat~r consumption. The companies responding are listed in Appendix IIA. The inf ormn.t.ion furnished leads us to believe that the manufacturers of plumbing fixtures and equipment are cognizant of the problems requiring reduction of water consumption and waste water flow reduction in house- holds. The results of this survey are summarized. below. Faucet Flow Reduction Devices Several manufacturers currently market limiting flow valves and mixing valves that restrict the maximum flow rate (29, 67, 46). These valves provide maximum water savings with showers although they can also be used in kitchen sinks and bathroom lavatories. One company offers· an inexpensive flow reduction device ~hich is pres- sure comP.ensating, fits in the supply lines to faucets or showers and reduces the flow from conventional fittings. For showe:i;-heads, the flow rate with a limiting flow valve is usually restricted to about 3 gp~. A water savings (for sh<?wers) of 50 to 70% is claimed, but independent test data .are not available. Obviously, the quantity of water saved will be dependent on many factors, including _the water pressure available and the habits of the user. For lavatory and kitchen sink fittings, the flow is usually restricted to 2. 5 gpm for each valve. Water savings are claimed to be "up to 50%", but again test data for households is not available. ' .. 1.. I' .. . .; . 7 ~- i An i~portant advantage of tiie flow reduction dev~ce~ for s~o\~ers ~nd sinks is the : savings in fuel for hot water heating. A reduction in total hot water consumption of f 25 to 40% is claimed; this can provide a requction in fuel cost that is the same order i of magnitude as the total savings in water. cost. . . i A very simple water-saving device already in wide use is the aerator used on faucets. 1 Although intended principally as an anti-splash device, it does provide· some water ! savings. It is estimated that the faucet aerator reduces water consumption at kitchen i and lavatory sinks by approximately 25%. · ! . ; Another plumbing device which promotes some water saving~ is the thermostatic : mixing valve, a device which permits mixing of hot and cold water to attain a desired temperature level. Once adjusted, the proportion of hot and. cold water is varied : automatically by a bi-metallic coil as the temperature or pres~ure of the incoming '.water is varied. Thus, the bather is not in danger of being suddenly scalded or ! doused with cold water as others in the household stop using or begin using water : at other fixtures. This diminishes the danger of falls as bathers try to avoid the ·sudden changes in water temperature while standing on slippery tub or shower floors. Besides advantages in safety and convenience, the thermostatic mixing yalve offers the opportunity ·for moderate savings in water consumption. This device enables the bather to turn the shower off while soaping and to be able to h_ave the same temperature when the water is turned on for rirising. This saves the water that would be wasted as the water temperature is readjusted befote rinsing or the water that would be wasted if the shower were left on in order to avoid the problem of adjusting the temperatur~ again. Water Closets A ·standard U. S. water closet with a 4 gal. tank will, in most cases, deliver about 5 to 6 gal. of water from the time the handle is tripped to the time the tank refills. This is considerably more water than is really necessary. U. S. manufacturers now market shallow-trap toilets that use about one-third less water, i. e. , about 3. 5 gal. /flush (99). One such unit is shown in figure 7. As noted earlier, the British have pioneered in the use of dual flushing cisterns (2-1/2 ga~. or 1-1/4 gal. /flush). This is now a mandatory requirem~nt in certain parts of the United Kingdom· and has been included in the revision to British Standard · 1125 (41).· This same reference states: ·· · "With regard to U. K. type closets, you will note that these· .are designed to clear the pans with one 2-gallon flush. There would be no difficulty in designing a syphon closet, suitable for the American bottom outlet require- ments, which will also work efficiently with a 2-gallon (Imperial) flush. We would also mention that in England cisterns are operated by syphons which prevent the water running a way to waste into. the W. C. pan. " ·8 [ .. ~d ··~· r : •'· .,... ........ ·~·. ·.--.... ·· .. -:-· .,, ·:."h, 1:\ :~:· .. ~. : ....... :~ . . . . ·. . -~-~ f.; . .:. ·;.,:::_~.~~~~~~~~~-... . -~-\'.i~;,~&Ol~;.:.·~~ ,;..:..,;.,;" ·.,;;,,, .> .;·i :<.•:~~~ ........ ~ . ..;.,·; .. ... Figure 7. Shallow Trap Water Closet . ..• .. ... .. . / ~· 9 ~-· This dual cycle water closet would provide a 70 to 75% reduction in water usage (as compared to the common U.S. toilet). However, it should be noted that ·this _design may not meet the requirements of the plumbing· codes in some U. s. localities. ""'-' Batch-type flush valves (instead of a· tank) are widely .used in commercial buildings ' ·and apartme.nts, and these could also be used in homes. They can be set to deliver from o. 5 gal. to 4 gal. /cycle (66). However, they would require a larger diameter waler line than is now used to supply a flush tank. One of the most interesting developments in water closets is the Liljendahl* system (Swedish) which is being investigated for use in this country by the Eljer Plumbing Company (103). This system uses afr (rather than water) as the transport fluid and reqttires only O. 5 gal. water/flush. Plastic pipe (2" dia.) is used for the drain lines, and a waste receiving tank and vacuum pump are needed. The system is in use in ·hotels> motels, apartment houses, and other large buildings in Sweden and in the Caribbean Islands; it has not , as yet, been used in individual hom~s. (See figure 8). Urinals Wall type urinals of compact design for home installations are available (99). These urinals have batching-type flush valves set at 1~ 5 gal. water per use. The use of urinals in the home would have two obvious disadvantages: 1. additional bathroom space would be required, and 2. the units would serve lnale household members only. "...,J Female urinals are used on a limited basis in a few office buildings and factories, but· their use in homes is not warranted. ·Automatic Clothes Wash~rs Water requirements for washing machines vary considerably, depending on design, from about 20 to 33 gal./cycle. One of the features used with automatic washing machines to save water (and.detergent) has been to store and reuse the wash water. However, this feature has not proved popular with the consumer as indicated by the following quote (72): "The automatic washer is but one element in the home laundry process. Fabrics, detergents and laundry aids have far more effect on water thati the machine does. For some time we have marketed what we call "Suds Miser" models of our washers. These utilize water twice and at one time represented a significant share of sales. In recent years homemakers have more or less rejected the suds saver feature • • • Changes in ~abrics and detergent tech-· nology liave meant the need for more water. Permanent press items, for in- stance, require more water for washing because they must go through a gradual cool down. There is nothing that we, as manufacturers of equipment, can do to lessen the need for water in the washing process b"ecause of developments in fabrics 9.nd laundry aids." . \wl *Mention of a commercial product does not imply endorsement by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 10 timing and water valve main valve water vacuum pump vacuum .receivin~ tank (may be located above or below toilet) Figure 8. Vacuum Toilet System .. . .. 11 ~· ·. ·. Another feature now being marketed is a loading door which acts as a weighing scale to measure the amount of clothes to be washed. Knowing the weight of the clothes, the user then selects only the amount of water required to wash a particular load size. In other words, a water level control is provided \vhich can be set to avoid using unnecessary extra amounts of water (34). Another means of reducing the amount of water is by the use of front loader washers. The washer tub rotates on a horizontal axis and tumbles the clothes through the water • . This type of washer uses approximately-half as much water for a particular load size as compared to the top loading washers and costs about the same. Early homewashers (patterned after commercial laundry washers) were of this type, but consumer acceptance was poor. Automatic Dishwashers ""'··!· •• '. Jn recent years the numb.er of homes with automatic dishwashers has been increasing fairly rapidly. Depending on the design, water requirements vary considerably, f. e., from about 6 gal. to 19 gal. /cycle (30). Based on studies that indicated an . average of 1-1/3 uses/day, the average household uses 13 to 19 gal./day in their automatic dishwa~her (96). These values do not include water used in rinsing the dishes before putting them in the dishwasher or the water used in washing particular items. None of the manufacturers contacted indicated· any design features specifically intended to reduce water consumption. Garbage Disposals No information on potential water savings for food waste grinders was received from manufacturers. This is understandable since published information indicates that total water consumption in th~ home is not significantly increased by the use of garbage disposals (16). · Other Fixtures Except for the devices and features previously described,· none of the manufacturers . contacted indicated any plans to market fixtures or appliances designed to reduce water consumption. If anything, the comments received indicated that water require-. · men ts for household appliances would increa~e rather than decrease.· HOUSEHOLD FEASIBILITY OF PLUMBING FIXTURES. Cost Estimates cost estimates for each type of water savings d~vice \Vere made for both old con- struction (remodeling) and for new home construction. For ~ld homes, the purchase price of the hardware device, as determined from manufacturers' prices, was used. For new homes the difference in price between the water savings device and the con- ventional hardware was used. Installation costs were also estimated for old and new construction. A labor rate of $7. 50/hr ·was used. Installation material (e.g. , piping) was included under 12 material costs. Again, for old homes the· total installation labor was used, while for new homes the difference in labor (between the water savings device and the conventional hardware) was used. The cost estimates are summarized in table IX. Costs for the Liljendahl vacuum flush system were ·estimated by Eljer (103) for individual homes and for groups. of lOO homes. These cost estimates are shown in Appendix IIIA and were used in table IX. This system is not currently being marketed for use by single homes and would require a waste storage tank (about 50 gal.) and a vacuum pump for each home. The tank would be discharged periodically into the main drain line. The plumbing devices listed in table IX are the following: 1. Shower with limiting flow valves used in place of conventional shower. Maximum flow rate would be 3. 5 gpm. 2. Bathroom lavatory with limiting flow valves (hot and cold water) in place of conventional faucets. 3. Kitchen sink with limiting flow valves (hot and cold water) in place of con- ventional faucets. . . 4 •. Aerator faucets for bathroom lavatory and kitchen sink. 5. Water closet with one batch-type flush valve (3. 5 gal. /flush) in place of the conventional tank. A 3/ 4" copper tube water line is used in place of a 1/2" line. ·. 6. Water closet with two batch-type flush valves (3. 5 gal. /flush for solids or 2. 5 gal. /flush for urine) in place of conyentional tank. Again, a 3/ 4" water line is used. 7. Urinal with batch-type now valve (1. 5 gal. /flush) in addition to conventional water· closet. · 8. Water closet with shallow trap (3. 5 gal. I flush) in place of conventional water · closet. 9. Dual cycle water closet (2-1/2 gal./flush. for solids or 1-1/4 gal./flush fpr urine) in place of conventional water closet~. 10. · Liljendahl-type vacuum flush toilets (0. 5 gal. /flush) in place of con- ventional water closet. Drain lines are 2" plastic pipe. A central collection tank with dual vacuum pumps is used for a group of 100 homes. 11. Same as No. 10 but with tank and vacuum pump for each home. 12. Washing machine with water savings feature such as weighing device and level control for partial loads. 13. Thermostatic mixing valve used in tu~ and ~hower. I' . . . " .13 Water Sav~~ ., .. The quantity of water saved by various hardv:are devices (as compared to a con-. ventional fixture) was estimated. Rest!lts are summarized in table IX. The use of limited flow control valves for showers wou.ld give· a savings up to 6 gal. /person/ ~ day, or 24 gal. I day for a 4 member household. (Item 1). Lim1ting-flow control· valves for the lavatory or kitchen sink result in a relatively small water savings (Items 2 and 3) •. Aerator faucets for. kitchen and lavatory (assuming no dishwasher) coli~d give a savings of 2 ~al./day for a 4 member household (Item 4). The use of batch-type flush valves for toilets (rather than tanks) would result in an average water saving of 1. 5 gal. /operation.· In a household. of 4 with 5 uses/day/ person, this would give a savings of 30 gal./ day (Itcm5 ). The use of urinals in the home with a batch-type flush valve, assuming 2 male · members, and 4 uses per male household member would result in a savings of 3. 5 gal. per use or 28 gal. I day (Item 7). · The use of the sha"llow-trap water closet would give a water savings of 7. 5 gal. /person/ day (Item 8). A dual flush cycle water closet (British type) would result in a savings of 17. 5 gal./person/day or 70 gal./dav for a 4 member ho~sehold (Item· 7 ). The Liljendahl vacuum flush system would save 23 gal. /person/day (Items 10 and 11). A washing machine with the suds savings feature or with a level.control for small loads could save an estimated 5 gal. I cycle. Based on 6-7 loads/\veek, water savings would be about 5 gal. I day (Item 12 ) • The savings with the thermostatic mixing valve would probably amount to less than two gallons per shower which· is equivalent to approxima..tely $1. 00 per year per person in water, fuel and s~wage costs. Since thermostatic mixing valves presently cost about $80. 00 and installation would be about $20. 00, the thermostP.tic mixing valve cannot be recommended on the basis of water savings alone. Selection of this device should be for comfort, convenience, and safety; water savings are just a side benefit. (Item 13) • Cost Evaluation of Plumbing Devices Jn order .~o· evaluate the relative merit of the various plumbing devices presented in table ~' the following ratios were calculated for each plumbing device: Total Cost (New Construction) Water Savings (gpcd) Obviously, the lower the ratio, the more desirable the plumbing device. Results are presented in table X (in order of decreasing desirability). I' 14 Table IX~ Water Savings vs Cost For Plumbing Devices Water Savings New Construction Old Construction Estimated Cost Estimated Cost '--' Installed Installed Hardware Device gpcd + gpd* Matl. Cos~ .. Matl •. Cost 1. Limiting Flow 6 24 15 . 15 35 . 50 Valves for Shower . ' .. . 2. Limiting Flow 0.5 2 25 25. 45 68 Valves for Lavatory. 3. Limiting Flow 0.5 2 25 25 45 68 ·valves for Kitchen Sink 4. Aerator for 0.5 2 2 2 2 2 Lavatory and ·Kitchen Sink 13. Thermostatic 2 8 80 90 80 100 Mixing Valve 5. Batch-type 7.5 30 25-. 40 75 105 \._) Flush Valve (1) for Water Closet ·6. Batch-type Flush 15.5 62 55 70 120 158 . _Valves (2) in Dual Cycle . 7. Urinal with 7 28 125 148 150 175 Batch-Type Flush Valve . 8. Shallow ·Trap 7.·5. 30 20 20 80 110 ·Water Closet : I 9. Dual Cycle 17.5 70 10 10 100 130 Water Closet 10. Vacuum Flush 22.5 90 (110)~* 295 Toilet (100 Homes) + gal/ capita-day (gal/person/ day) * 4 member household ** Negative cost, i. e. , cost reduction l "-"' .. ~ .... ·. Table IX. (Cont'd) · . Water Savings Hardware Device gpcd + gpd* Vacuum Flush Toilet (Single 22.5 90 Homes) · Washing Machine 1. 2 with Level Control- + gal/capita-day (gal/person/day) * 4 member household 5 ** Negative cost, i. e. , cost· reduction New Construction Estimated Cost Installed Matl. Cost· 1115 35 .35 From these results the following conclusions are .drawn: Old Construction ... Estimated Cost Installed Matl. Cost 1520 35 . 35 1. Limiting flow valves appear to be justified for showers and should be further considered. , . · 2. T.he vacuum flush water closet can only be justified (economically) for groups of ~omes or multi-family dwellings • • 3. Of the various water closets and urinals considered, the dual cycle water closet appears to be the qest approach for sanitary waste and should be further considered. 4~ Aerator faucets, where not already in use, should be required. 5.. The other plumbing devices listed do not appear to be warranted. The above conclusions are tentative in that they are based on the cost/water savings ratio only. Obviously, there are other.important ~onsiderations, e.g., consumer acceptability (see section VII). The most desirable plumbing devices are· discussed further in section VI and compared with other alternatives, such as water treatment and reuse. · Although the available data indicate that the vacuum flush toilet system has many economic and water conservation advantages, the group application of the vacuum flush system will not be considered further in this study since our primary concern is for problem solutions that can be y.ndertaken by individual homeowners. It is, · however, recommended that further studies be conducted and the results made available to contractors and real estate developers who work with multiple dwelling unit system~. 16 . Table X. Cost Evaluatio~ Ratio R _ Total Cost (New Const.) -Water Savings (gpcd) . : : .... Item No. (From table IX) · Hardware Device 10. 9. . ·. 4. 1. 8. 6. 5. 7. 12 .• 13. 2. 3. 11. Vacuum Flush Toilets (100 Homes) Dual Cycle Water Closet Aerator Faucets for Sinks Limiting Flow Orifice for Shower Head Shallow Trap Water Closet Batch-type Flush Valves (2) in Dual Cycle· Batch-type Flush Valve (1) for Water Closet Urinal with Batch-Type Flush Valve Washing Machine. with Level Control . Thermostatic Mixing Valves Limiting Flow Valves for Lavatory Limiting Flow Valves for Kitchen Sink Vacuum Flush Toilet (Single. Homes) ... *Negat~ve Cost, i.e. cost reduction R .. (4. 9)* 0.6 1 ·2. 5 2.7 4.5 ·s.a . !l 29 45 50 50 50 _17 ·,. VI ENGINEERING STUDY AND EVALUATION OF·PROCESSES FOR WATER. CONSERVATION AND WASTE TREATMENT Th.is section explores the practicality of the. various combinations.of current water and waste treatment techniques which appear promising for the flow reduction or treatment of household waste waters. Rather than making a detailed examination .of .all the possible systems, the large number of treatment or flow reduction tech- niques was first reduced by a qualitative evaluation. Then a technique for the com- prehensive analysis and evaluation of household water and waste systems is developed and applied to some of the treatment schemes already discussed. Assumptions used throughout this evaluation section were (1) that reclaimed water would not be used for drinking and cooking, (2) that water from any outlet may occasionally be ingested, and (3) that homeowner acceptance of dirty looking water will be 1ow even though it might be· suitable for its intended use.. Thus, the water for any reuse must be biologically safe and contain no chemical substances considered dangerous to health when accidentally consumed." Also the water supplied to any point in the system where drinking or cooking water is commonly drawn must be connected to a drinking water supply. For example, both hot and cold water supplied to the bathroom and kitchen sinks must be taken .from a safe drinking water supply. Present practices would dictate that only two clas.ses of water could be used in the household. Most people have at some time obtained water for drinking from every supply p9int in the house (bathtub, shower, ·laundry, outside faucet) except from the· water closet; and, therefore, if present practices are to-continue, the only pur- pose for which non-potable water could be used would be toilet flushing. Present practices. could be changed, ho\vever. People could be educated not to use all the supply po.ints for drinking. Dual quality water systems have been used in some areas for years. In sections of the West brackish water systems are used for many non-critical purposes to conserve a limited fresh water supply. Many ships use a seawater system for toilet flushing, deckwashing, and fire fighting. To encourage the safe use of multiple quality water systems, a reminder of the lower quality, such as color, odor, or taste, could be added to the water; in addition the outlets themselves could be colored or shaped differently. .Some people may point out that small children iriay not recognize these danger signals; but this danger would be no greater than in the present situation in which the water supply most accessible to small children is in the toilet. · .. 18 PRELil\llNARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS After review of the problems and the requirements that must ·be met, the various systems were then subjected to a prelimina:ry economic evaluation. Most people are interested in pollution abatement and are willing to encourage the spending of government money in the pollution abatement program. However, they are much less willing to spend their own money for a private pollution control measure when their neighbors are not also compelled to do so. Thus, few homeowners are li.kely to put any device into their homes that is not specifically required by law, unless it can be shown that the device will cost less (or at least not more) and will require vecy little, if any, more maintenance than their present system. Fo~ this reason, all the treatment techniques considered in the previous sections were examined from an order-of-magnitude cost v~ewpoint to eliminate those schemes that would be economically unacceptable to the average ho~eowner. Each proposed treatment or waste reduction system is compared to the cost o~ the present water and sewerage system at homes with central water and sewerage and at homes with septic tank systems on good, fair, or poor soils. The cost fi~ures were taken from many sources including reports from the Office of Saline Water, the Public Health Service and the Federal Water Pollution Control Admini~tration. All assumptions were slanted toward making the processes less ~xpensive, so that no process would be unnecessarily eliminated. The general assumptions used throughout the comparison were: a. Each system will be installed in an "average" home as described on page 8 with a four member family having an "average" water use of .255 r gallons per day distributed as follows: 27 gal. kitchen & drinking 88 gal. bathing & hygiene · 40 gal. laundry & cleaning 100 gal. toilet flushing b. Electrical energy -$0. 02/KWH c. Fuel oil -$0. 15 per gal. d. water r.ate -$0. 42 per 100~ gal. e. · Sewerage rate -$0. 44 per 1000 gal. This brief economic analysis provided many enlightening comparisons and per- mitted recommendations for the further investigation or the elimination of various schemes. The information from the cost comparison table is summarized below: · 1. Reduction of water usage appears to be economically the most feasible means of reducing waste flow from the home. 19 '..,) . . . \.,,,,' 2. Flow control faucets are of marginal value when replacing workable faucets, but are definitely warranted for new homes and for necessary replacements.· Faucet aerators would apparently be a useful addition. to all faucets for convenience as well as water savings. · 3. Flow control showers are an inexpensive means of economically saving con- siderable quantities of water. 4. The use of pressure flush valves to reduce water flow does not appear as advantageous as the redesign of the toilet bowl to allow adequate flushing with less water. The pressure flush valve could be advantageously used with the redesigned toilet bowl. Siphons, as used in the English water closets, would also provide better volume control than the system presently used in the United states. 5. The vacuum flush toilet for the individual home is too expensive be9ause of the high cost of the accompanying equipment when used for single homes. As mentioned on page 64 the use of the vacuum flush system for groups of dwellings or multiple dwelling units was considered to be outside the scope of this study. 6. The major economic disadvantage of the recycle toilets is the high cost of the chemical used for disinfecting the recycled flush water. Development of a suitable, lo,ver cost disinfectant coul~ make their use much more practical. There could be· a problem with acceptance· of reused flush ·water in the home, but this objection does not appear insurmountable. 7. Incinerator toilets are excessively costly to operate and maintain for family use. For certain applications, such as weekend cabins which are used sporadically, the incinerator may be the most eeonomical system, but for ·normal continuous use, the incinerator toilet can not economically compete with conventional systems. . . 8. The analysis of the system to reuse wash waters for toilet flushing reveals several very significant facts. The treatment and the quality standards required fo1: flushing water are minimal and the costs are thus relatively low in comparison with those for any other reuse. Yet this treatment and reuse is economical only in fair and poor soil areas. 9. The additional treatment of the non sanitary waste waters by distillation, ]'."~verse osmosis,carbon adsorption, or a multifilter system for use as laundry and bathing water as well as toilet flushing does not appear econo- mically feasible. 10. The treatment of all waste waters by distillation and reuse for all purposes but drinking ls also economically unattractive • . • . -i . 20 \.._) l;riter1a !t·or A ::>emi-Quantitative System Evaluation Definite evaluation criteria were established to facilitate an objective comparison of the possible flow reduction and treatment schemes. The c·riteria chosen and their relative values are given in the following table. The reasons for this selection are then discussed • . _ Criteria Weighted Value (%) r. Initial Cost 20 2 .. Operating Cost 20 3. Reduction in Waste Volume 20 4. Effluent Quality 10 5. Operating Attention 10 . 6. Aesthetics 10 7. Safety 5 8. Compatibility with home plumbing 5 All the evaluation criteria can be grouped under. cost, utility, or household acceptability. These main groups a~e further broken down to make evaluation easier • . Cost is represented by initial cost' and operating cost; utility is ·represented by reduction in waste volume and effluent quality; household acceptability is represented by operating attention required, aesthetic factors, safety, and compatibility with home plumbing. Thus, of the total evaluation 40% is based on c.osts, 30% on utility, and 30% on household acceptability. According to the ratings just presented, the order of desirability of the waste reduction and treatment schemes is shown below followed by a similar ordering as to net savings per "average family" per year. · Order of Rating Rating 1. Shallow Trap Toilets 9i.1 2. 2 flush valves with toilet 90.5 . 3. Flow control showers , ·87.7 4. 1 flush valve with toilet 82.9 5. Reuse of wash waters for toilet flushing ·80.1 6. Aerators 78.5 7. Aerobic treatment (poor soil areas) 71.5 s. Distillation and reuse of all wastes . 54.8 I'. 21 '...,; Order of Net Yearll Savings ($) 1. Flow control showers 2. Shallow trap toilets 3. 2 flush valves with toilet 4. 1 flush valve with toilet 5. Aerators 6. Reuse of wash waters for toilet flushing 7. Aerobic treatment 8. Distillation and reuse of all wastes , . $ 10.00 4.39 3. 30' 2.15 0.67 -4.75· . 1. 00 (in poor ~oils) -260. 00 (in poor soils) . When the raUng order and the savings order are combined, the listing of the processes in order of practicality becomes: 1. Shallow trap toilets 2. Flow control showers 3. 2 flush valves with toilet 4. .1 flush vaI:ve with toilet 5. Aerators 6. Reuse of wash waters for toilet flushing 7. Aerobic tr~atment . . 8 • Distillation and reuse of all wastes . Figure. 18 show the probable costs and savings that would correspond to two of the possible combinations of these devices. Each actu2.l application would be a different and individual probiem which could be solved in the manner outlined at the beginning of this section. 22 ~· .... 205 gpd ..J> .I Potable Supply 27 gpd 35 5 60 8 70. i ~ (aerator {aerator)' Kitchen L:!ur:.dry Utility Bath lavatory Toilet ?05 gpd to ~~.q~ t.c Disposal COST ESTllt.ATES FOR A FO~ MEMB~ FAMILY · Material Cost 1 shallow trap W. C. $70. 20, 1 flow control shower $15, 2 aerators at $1.50 $ 88.20 Labor Cost . $ 45.00 6 hr. $7.SQ/hr. •. Total Installation Cost 133.20 Expected Life Cost Per Year 6.45 Maintenance and Power Cost Per Year 0 Cost c;>f Water Saved Per. Year 8.10 cost of Power Sa11ed Per Year 4.37 f!n~t: nf' C:::.QUP.T'~O"~ C:::.:=tvPti l>P'I"' YP~'I"' . 61122 ·Total Savings Per Yeal," $ .. 21.09 Net Savings $.14.64 Figure 180 Use of Flow Control Showers, Shallow Trap Toilets, and Aerators . 23 Suite 212 Louis R. HovATER Consulting Engineer DESIGN SUPERVISION INSPECTION 1833 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California 92701 ·• (714) 835-8124 'W Mr. Fred A. Harper General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, Ca. 92708 November 16, 1971 Re: Proposal for Consulting.Engineer Services Air-Supported Roofs for Various Structures Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Harper: Please consider this letter as my proposal for performing consulting engineer services relative to determining the feasibility of installing air-supported roofs over various structures located at Plants Nos. 1 and 2 of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California. It is recommended that a study be made to include the following: 1. A brief history of air-supported roofs including a list of successful installations 2. A brief discussion of the design of air-supported roofs 3. A list of various types of materials for air- supported roofs available on the market today 4. The advantages and disadvantages of each. 5. Installed cost comparisons of each. 6. Brochures and samples of each. 7. ·Preliminary installation details and specifications of the recommended .roof (general concept only) 8. Technical data of and guarantees provided by the manufacturer of the recommended roof. My proposal for furnishing this study to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California is the lump sum amount of TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2200.00) including expenses. The study will be submitted in report form on or before 21 calendar days after written authorization is received to proceed. I look forward to working with you on this project and thank you for your interest and consideration. LRII:tas ~(!;;t!~ Louis R. H';;'i::er SPECIALIZING IN LININGS FOR WATER, SEWAGE AND POLLUTION CONTROL I RESOLUTIONS Al'ID SUPPORTI NG D.OCUMENTS December 8 , 1 971 -7:30 p .m. y .i WARRANT NO. 16802 16803 1.6804 J805. J.6806 16807 16808 16809 .16810 16811 16812 16813 16814 16815 16816 16817. 16818 16819 16820 16821 16822 16823 16824 16825 16826 16827 16828 16829 5830 ~831 16832 16833 16834 16835 16836 16837 16838 16839 16840 16841 16842 16843 16844 16845 16846 16847 16848 16849 16850 16851 16852 16853 16854 ... ~855 ~856 16857 16858 16859 16860 JOINT OPERATING FUND.WARRANTS IN.FAVOR OF AMI Adept Mfg, Inc., Pump Parts A-1 Equipment Rentals, Equipment Rental All Bearing Service, Inco, Beari~gs Hilary J. Allison, Employee Mileage Almquist.Tool &.Equipment Co., Small Tools The Anchor· Packing Coo, Gaskets & Pump Packing Aquarium Systems, Inc,, Lab Supplies Azusa Western, Cement RoH• Baker & Company, Inc., Pipe Supplies Bank of America, Bond & Coupon Collection Bearing Specialty Co., Couplings Bell Pipe & Supply Co,, Gauges Bell's Radiator Service, Truck Repair Benner Sheet Metal, Inc., Steel Fabrication Benz·Engineering, Inc., Compressor Parts Bird Machine Co., Dewatering Supplies Blower Paper Co., Electrical Tape Cal-State Seal Co., Seals Calgon Corp., Freight John Carollo Engrsp, Engineering Services Certified Laboratories, Inc., Solvents Frank Clark Co., Printing Supplies College Lumber Co.,. Inc., Building Supplies Commercial & C.B. Communications, Commilnication Equip. Consolidated Elect. Dist., Inc., Electricai ~upplies ·Constructors Supply Co., Small Hardware Costa Mesa Auto Parts, Inc., Truck Parts Clarence s. Cummings, Employee Mileage Curtin Scientific Co., Lab Supplies D/C Concrete Pumping Service, Equipment Rental Orange Coast Daily Pilot, Newspaper Subscription John M. Deck, Equipment Parts Dominguez Marine & Industrial Supply Co., .. Valves Eastman, Inc., Office Supplies Electric Machinery Mfgo Co., Power Panel '(MO 11-10-71) Electric Supplies Disto co., Electrical Supplies ·Enchanter, Inc., Ocean Research & Monitoring Ensign Products Co., Janitorial Supplies Essick Machinery Co., Rebuild Engine ·Fisher Controls Coo, Regulator Parts Freeway Machine & Welding, Machining .Larry Fricker Co., Chemicals City of Fountain Valley, Excavation Permit William H. Fox, Employee Mileage GAF Corp., Printer Repair Garden Grove Lumber & Cement, Building Supplies General Electric Supply Co., Electrical Supplies General Telephone Coo Georgia-Pacific Corp., Chlorine Golden.West Fertilizer, Grit Removal w. w. Grainger, Inc., Heater Graybar Electric Co., Inc., Electrical Supplies Groth.Chevrolet, Truck Parts H & H Welding, Equipment Rental Fred A.· Harper, Various Meeting & C.O.D. Expenses Harron, Rickard & McCone Co., Equipment Rental L. Heitman Equipment Coo, Inc., Equipment Rental Hercules Inc., Chemicals Howard Supply Co., Piping & Small Tools A-1 I' AMOUNT 9.0.30 11.00 74.26 14.25 16.91 . 305.94 59.60 130.42 148.73 15.89 93.71 27.76 ·17 .oo . 51.64 181.46 137.01 111.55 .32.00 ·39087 238.27 147.92 15.75 210.28 58.43 912.40 163.74 1,026.72 76.62 .689. 74 52.50 13.50 10.78 307.60 217.67 2,992050 963042 1,,635.00 115003 473.18 54.60 142.08 57.75 12.00 20.10 33.00 57 .75 1,095018 1,747016 5,873.52 888.oo 33.76 13.86 17.25 82. 75· 190.63 221.00 798.oo 85058 2,426.97 - WARRANT NOo 16861 16862 16863 16864 16865 0866. "'i"6867 16868 ·16869 16870 .16871 16872 16873 16874 16875 16876 16877 16878. 16879 16880 16881 16882 16883 16884 16885 16886 16887 16888 16889 16890 J891 ~6892 16893 16894 16895 16896 16897 16898 16899 169001 •• 16901 16902 16903 16904 16905 16906 16907 16908 16909 16910 16911 16912 16913 16914 16915 -'5916 ~917 16918 16919 16920 16921 IN. FAVOR OF. City of Huntington Beach,.Water Huntington Beach Art Gallery, Reimburse 0?£ Expense Industrial Water Conditioning, Lab Water International Harvester Coo~ Trilck Parts . . Irvine Ranch Water District, Water KAR Products, Inc., Small Hardware Keeler Advertising Specialties, Office Supplies Keenan Pipe & Supply Co., Pipe Supplies Kelco Sales & Engr. Co., Equipment Parts Kellogg Supply, Inc., Soil Conditioner Kelly Pipe Co., Piping Supplies King Bearing, Inco, Bearings Knox Industrial Supplies, ~mall Hardware LBWS, Inc., Welding & Lab Supplies ~ & ·-N Uniform Supply Co., Uniform Rental Landis & Gyr, Inc., Telemetering Supplies Judy·Lee, Employee Mileage Lewis Bros. Battery, Batteries Liberty Electronics, Electrical Supplies Link Belt, Shaker Parts Liquid Carbonic Corpo, Lab Supplies RoW. McClellan & Sons, Inc., Plaster Sand Majestic Fasteners Co., Small Hardware Marine Biological Consultants, Inc., Ecology Studies Matheson Gas Products., Lab Supplies Mesa Supply, Equipment Parts & Small Hardware Metropolitan Supply Co., Small Hardware Milam's Electric Motor Service, Motor Rewind Moline Malleable Iron Co., Chains Monroe, Equipment Maintenance Agreement Moore Products Co., Regulators Herbert A. Moss, Special Labor Counsel Nashua Corp., Reproduction Supplies National Concrete Sawing, Inc.~ Core Drilling c. Arthur Nissen, General Counsel Retainer Noland Paper Co., Inco, Reproduction Supplies Oakite Products, Inc., Cleaner Orange County Door Closer Service, Small Hardware ·orange County Radiotelephone Service, Inc. Orange County Water Work:s, Water Pacific Pumping Coo, Freight ·Pacific Telephone Co. Paramount Steel Coo, Small Hardware . Perkin-Elmer Corp., Lab Supplies John J. Phillips, Employee Mileage Postmaster, Postage The Lee Potter Co., Inco, Maintenance Supplies Douglas E. Preble, Employee ?Jiileage REA Express, Freight Bernard T. Redican, Employee Mileage E.V. Roberts & Associates, Inc., Solvents Roseburrough Tool, Inc., Small Hardware Santa Ana Blue Print Co., Printing Santa Ana Electric Motors, Motor.Rewind Sargent-Welch Scientific Co., Testing Supplies Scam Instrument Corp., Relays Scott Refrigeration Service, Inc-., Compressor Repair s. F. Serrantino, Employee Mileage The Sherwin-Williams Co., Paint Supplies A.H. Shipkey, Inc., Tractor & Truck Tires John Sigler, Employee Mileage A-2 $ AMOUNT 13006 ·105000 80.00 75.85 13.50 121.88 14.15 1.,724063 19093 157.50 464.23 81054 84047 ·.832024 1.,,927 087 . 80o50 25.98 102022 54060 671.79 268054 52050 162.12 664011 250.94 170.32 83089 308.56 1,335060 55.90 222067 250.00 80.52 50000 700.00 265.28 199082 4o99 337.76 13.65 17063 538075 168.oo 194087 16065 300000 164045 52074 6025 80.10 145085 40.53 153002 692.29 32.13 241.50 954.04 14.40 174.43 278050 21060 WARRANT NO. 16922 16923 16924 16925 16926 Lj927 · ~928 16929 16930 16931 .16932 16933 16934 16935 16936 16937 16938 16939· 16940 16941 16942 16943 16944 16945 16946 16947 16948 16949 16950 16951 '1952 ~953 16954 16955 16956 16957 16958 16959 16960 16961- 16962 16963 16964 16965 16966 16967 -'5968 ~969 16970 16971 16972 16973 IN. FAVOR OF . Robert Skeels & Co., Small Hardware $ Smith Optical Service, Safety Glasses South Orange Supply, Piping Supplies Southern Calif. Chemical Coo,-Inc., Chemicals . Southern Calif o Edison Coo Southern Calif. Gas· Co. Southern Calif. Water Co. s·outhland Machinery Corpo, Equipment Parts Southwest Water Co. Sparkletts, Bottled Water Speed-E Auto Parts, Truck Parts Standard Oil Co., Gasoline & Oil John Wo Stang Co~p., Pump ~ Parts Steverson Bros., Hauling Services Surplus Sales, Control Panel Tex's Aquarium Supply, Toxicity Research Equipment 39 Stake & Building Supplies Co., Survey Supplies c.o. Thompson Petroleum Coo, Kerosene Triangle Steel & Supply Co., Steel Tustin Plumbing & Heating, Lateral Repair Harry !!'wining, Employee Mileage Vaniman Camera, Photo Processing & Supplies Wallace Trade Bindery Coo, Office Supplies Wallace & Tiernan, Pump John Waples R.So, O~or Consultant Waukesha Engine . S.ervicenter, Engine Repair Western Salt, Salt Whitney's Speedometer Service, Truck Parts Wilson Engine & Equipment, Engine Parts Russ Wold, Employee Mileage · World Travel Bureau, Inc., SWRCB Hearing Travel Don Wright, Employee Mileage Xerox Corp., Reproduction Serv~ce Everett H. York Co., Valves Zep Manufacturing Co., Cleaners- ~OTAL JOINT OPERATI~G CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN.FAVOR OF AMOUNT 146et94 79057 568034 151090 14,939.79 740.22 3.35 .8.14 1.41 88094 264087 2, 393063 1,279098 224080 . 420000 124095 5o78 135.41 166011 225oOCJ ·19o20 193094 26025 319037 222.70 628.30 32.03 22.24 185. 72 95.88 . 64.80 57.78 787050 154.73 98.90 Anaheim Dodge, Trucks $ 12,734097 James Go Biddle Co., Test Equipment 203060 John Carollo Engineers, Engineering Plant Consto 19,482.09 Brain Chuchua's, New Jeep 2,548038 Commercial & C.B. Communications, Comrno Equipment 342030 William P. Ficker, A.IoA., Architect J-13, J-4-1 4,888.75 Freeman Electric Construction, Contractor Pl-6-1 27,957.60 Jo Putnam Henck, Contractor P2-17 109,432095 J.Eo Hoagland & W.Wo Hoagland, Contractor P2-19 116,063.28 EoT.I. and Kordick, Contractor P2-ll-l 66,312000 Kordick and Rados, Contractor I-8 20,515050 BoHo Miller Construction Coo, Contractor J7-2/J-12 30,144.60· Osborne Laborator·ies, Inco, Pipe-Inspection I-8 250.00 Pacific Scientific Coo, Test Equipment 357000 Speed-E Auto Parts, Tools 103095 Star Printing Co., Printing -Environmental Impact Study 594030 Richard Terry & Associates, Environmental Impact Study 2,733 034 A-3 WARRANT NO •. 16974 16975 16976 16977 ..._ IN FAVOR OF. Healy Tibbitts Const~ction Coo, Contractor I~7-3 · $ Twining Laboratories, Testing P-1-6-1, P2-17/19, J•12 & I-7-3 Utilities Supply Coo, Tools . . F.T. Ziebarth Co., Inc., Contrac~or Pl-1R-l/P2-1R-l . . . TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING TOTAL JOINT OPERATING & CORF I' A-4 . AMOUNT 37,081.79 929020 258.21 30,431010 WARRANT NO. 16978. 16979 16980 16981 16982 16983 '...I 16984 16985 16986 DISTRICT NO. 2 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Lowry and Associates, Reclamation Study DISTRICT NO. 3 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF County Sanitation Districts of L.A •. County, Interdistrict Sewer Use ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTIAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Boyle Engineering, Engineering 3-18 County of Orange, Compaction Test 3-16 H. v. La~nnaster & Co., Inc.,Testing 3-16 Merco Construction Engr., Contractor 3-16 DISTRICTS NOS. 3 & 11 SUSPENSE FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Boyle Engineering, Engineering 3-17 DISTRICT NO. 5 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF City of Newport Beach, Conn. Collection Fee DISTRICTS NOS. 5 & 6 SUSPENSE FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Shuirman -Simpson, Engineering 5-19 -B- AMOUNT $ l,J.86.25 $ $ lo,465.00 594.29 . 6.50 29,760.87 $ 40,826.66 $ 41,768.36 $ 11,465.00 $ 64.oo $ 8,705.21 WARRANT NO. 16987 16988 16989 16990 16991 16992 16993 DISTRICT NO. 7 . OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Royle· Engineering, Engineering Services DISTRICTS NOS. 1 & 7 SUSPENSE FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Boyle Engineering, Survey 1-12, 7-6~1, 7-6-2 . County of Orange, Compaction Test 7-6-1, 7-6-2 _ and 1-12 Mike Masanovich Construction Co.,Contr. 1-12 Osborne Laboratories, Inc., Pipe Insp., 7-6-1 & 1-12 Ernest E. Pestana, Inc., Contractor 7-6-2 Sully Miller Contracting Co., Contractor 7-6-1 -C- AMOUNT $ 1,521.00 $ 2,107.25 1,150.18 115,254.oo 1,350.00 307,548.90 _276,891~ 55 $ 704,301.88 COUNTY SAHIT . .;TIC!~ IilST'!\ICTS Or"' ORM~GE COUf..9TY P. o. BOX 5175 -10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 CH.ANGS ORDER . . . C .•. o. NO. ___ l ____ _ CONT'RACTOR: HEALY TIBBITTS CONSTRUCTION COMP.ANY DATE: December 8, 1971 JOB: PUMP STATION & ADDITIONS TO BYPASS FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. l,JOB NO. I-7-3 Amount of this change order (ADD) (L.~UODQ $ · 9,856.83 '-"' In a~cordance with co.ntra.ct provisions, the following changes in the contract ano/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following addit~ons to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. REFERENCE: . Contractor's °letters dated August 5, August 10, Au·gust 16, · August 25, October 8,°0ctober 11, October 15, October 22,.· and November 16,-·1971. ~ . ·' ·nistricts' letters dated July 27, .August 5, .August 13, August 16, October 5, October 11, October 20, October 22; and October 27, 1971. Sheet S-1, Revisiqn 1 of the Plans. • .. . . 'v..I 1. Modify wet well structure to prevent anticipated settl~ment and to accorrunoda te the lower inve.rt elevation of 84" RCP Sunflov1er Trurik, (Project No. 7-6-1). ADD 2. Remove unsuitable foundation material exposed by structural excavation and replace with compacted gravel fill as indicated in the propos?l and di.~ected. by· the engineer (298 cu. yds •. @$7.50), ' ADD TOTAL.ADD For delays associated with.the above extra work the contractor i's hereby granted an extension of contract time·of 37 calendar days • .... . 7,621.83 2,235·.00 $ 9,856.83 TOTAL TIME EXTENSION -37 calendar days .... . . Agenda Item #15. D-1 All Districts .. COUiiTY ~,~;ir!;~Trc.:; DIS.L:UCTS OF' ORAr:G:;~ cour;TY P. 0. BOX 312'"( -l024i~ Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 CHAHGE ORDER .C • 0 • NO • _ __.l~(_;;:;C__,o.-,;;n~t.;:;.in;;.;.u.;,;.;e;;:;..;d.-.)J.-·- CONTRAC.TOR: Healy Tibbitts Construction Company DATE: December 8, 1971 JOB: Pump Station & Additions to Bypass Facilities· at Plant No.l, Job No. I-7-3 Amount o~ this chang~ order (ADD) (~~~ $ 9,856.83 In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. continued •••••• SUMMARY OF CONTRACT TIME: Original Contract Date Original Contract Time· Original Completion Date Days Extended This Change Order Revised Contract Time nevised Completion Date July 14, 1971 150 calendar days December 11, 1971 ·37 calendar days 187 calendar days January 17, 1971 ======================================================================~==== Orig~nal Contract Price $ 11~2·.! 4za. oo Prev. Auth. Changes. $ -0- This Change (ADD) ~'OOC'i') $ 9,856.83 A~ended Contract Price $ 152,334.83 Board aut.h_orization date: "-11 Approved: ·. COUNTY SAUITATION DISTRICTS of Orang~ Co~nty, California December 8, 1971 By · /s/ Paul G. Brown Chief Engineer . HEALY TIBBITTS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY By-------------------~--~~------Agenda Item l£15· D - 2 .. All Districts ----- December 1, 1971 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District· #5 10844 Elli$ Avenue P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention Fred Harper, General Manager Gentlemen: Builders of Tomorrow's Cities ••• Today . ·• •t Reference is made to the relocation of the 21" Bays.ide Drive sewer in conjunction with the development 9f Tract 3867, in accordance with the agreement dated October 1,. 1970, wherein the Distric.t will participate to the ex.tent. of $18.~400. . · · A study of the ultimate service boundary of the District indicates that the relocated line should be 36 11 in diameter or a s·econd sewer line will have to be installed later in Bayside Drive. Installa- tion of the ultimate size 36""line at this time wald be in the best "...,J interest of the Distric·t. · Recognizing the District's present financial circumstances, The Irvine Company is· willing· to finance the master plan size sewer line in place of the 21" line, provided the District will agree to reimburse Irvine for an equitable portion of the cost. We suggest that the reimbursable amount to Irvine be· determined on the basis of the increased capacity afforded by the intallation of .a 36" versus 21" trunk. As applied to this project the reimbursable · amount ·.to Irvine would be computed as follows: ( Amount l ( · Reimbursable = Installed cost to Irvine of 36" line .: Capacity of 21" line ) . Capacity of 36" line/ Please note that the $18,400 amount is the obligation of the· District outlined in the agreement dated October 1, 1970. · The Irvine Company• 550 Newport Center Drive• Newport Beach. California 92660 • (714) 644-3011 .. ·-·~---·---·----····----·---··-----. ·-· --~·---.. ~----;-.. ~-----. ·-, .... ______________ -·---------------..:.---. ----------... ----~ Agenda Item #24 E-1 District 5 •. --------------·--·-------·--------·-·--------.--~~ -------..--------- ---· - Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District HS December 1, 197i In order to expedite the construction of this project we hope the Board of Directors of District #5 will approve in concept-the . proposed reimbursement agre~ment and authorize the staff to amend t~e agreement of October 1,1970 at the next meeting of the District. Sincerely, Richard A. Reese Vice President, Pla1:1ning· RAR/JP/pme cc: Robert Snyder ' Don Simpson -Shuirman-Simpson Joseph Devlin -City of Newport.Beach . .. -----·-·----··--··--··-· ·--····--·-··--. . --·····_,.-··--·----·-··--·· .. --·------·-------·· ---·------.. ---·--··---·-· ·---·· ... ----~·--....-·--··-·-·----·--·--- Agenda Item #24 E-2 District 5 RESOLUTION NO. 7i-l42-ll APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON-COMPANY RE: RELOCATION OF NEWLAND AVENUE PUMPING STATION FORCE MAIN A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD. OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11; OF OR!.\.NGE COUNTY, .CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY RE: . . RELOCATION OF NEWLAND AVENUE PUMPING STATION FORCE MAIN * * * * *.* * * * * The Boards of Directors of C_ounty Sanitation District No. 11, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section ,1. That the letter dated November 18, 1971,· from Southern California Edison Company requesting relocation of a portion of the Newland Avenue Pump Station Force Main, be received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. That the certain agreement dated -------- between the District and Southern California Edison Company providing for relocation of a portion.of the Newland Avenue Pump Station Force Main in a manner satisfactory to the District's . staff and engineers, an exchange of easements, and payment by Southern California Edison Company for all construction, . engineering, and incidental costs in connection with the relocation be approved; and, Section 3. That Southe:rnCalifornia Edison Company be required to deposit $10,000 with the District prior to commencement of said relocation; and, Section 4. That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board be authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the District, in form acceptable to the General Counsel •. · PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular me€ting held December 8, 1971. Agenda Item # 35(a) -G-District 11 .... --.. --·---------·.-· ... .a.-·-------·----- ..,. ·~ KEITH. .. AND ASSOCIATES ::~~~: ' CONSUL TING CIVIL ENGINEERS IS:2S SOUTH GRANO AVENUE SANTA ANA, CAL.IFORt.llA D27C5 C7t41 S4t•S308 December 7, 1971 ~ .r Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation District No. 11 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California .Attn: Mr. Paul Brown Mr •. Ray Lewis ·' ' Re: Engineering and Survey Services for Relocation of 15" Force Main, Southern California Edison Company Property. Gentlemen: -· ., ~n response to your request, we are pleased to submit herewith our prqposal for fu~nishi~g the subject services •. We propose to furnish complete plans and specifications in accordance with good engineering practice and the standards of the C6unty S~n~tation District. Since this is an unusual project, we respectfully request that the project be completed at our regular hourly rates with a maximum engineering, surveying and miscellaneous cost not to exceed $6000.00. If you need additional information please call me. A.copy of my estimate of time and our r~gular hourly rates· is attached herewith. MKK:m Attach. HYDRAULICS Agenda Item #35(b) Very truly yours, -~ ~eith and Associates -··1,7,,.,7 /. . / _f_/J / I .. /.,-~-le A )\ ,e_.c:_.{;:(\ Milo K. Keith MUNICIPAL. SERVICES ·--·--•. ---·--.-·--------·----··--_:,._ --··---------·---. ----·------ G-1 (p. 1) District 11 . . --,----------------------. ·------· --~ --· ·-- .• ----.-- CSD NO. 11 15 11 VCP FORCE MAIN RE.LOCATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMP~NY ESTIMATE OF TIME L = 2200'+ = .Plans Drafti!lg: 80 20 E!igineer: 10 sp·ecifications Engineer: 10 Typist: 20 Surveys Preliminary: 40 Construction:lO Miscellaneous 2 Sheets Plan & Profile 1 Sheet Details 1 Title "Sheet hrs. @ $18.00 = $1440.00 hrs. @ 18.00 = 360.00 hrs. @ 22.00 = 220.00 hrs. @ $22.00 = $ 220 .·oo hrs. ·@ .12.00 = 240.00 hrs. @ $52.00 = $2080.00 hrs. @ 41.00 = 410.00 Legal Descriptions: L/S = $ 300.00 Mee~ings, etc. Agenda Item #35(b) L/S ..... G-1 (p~ 2) = 500.00 . $5770.00 .• · ... .• District 11 _ __. .... -----------. -------~------- • . . . . KEITH-AND ASSOCIATES CONSUL TING CIVIL ENGINEERS 15 2 S SOUTH GRANO AVENUE SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92705 C714J 541•530e AUGUST 1, 197.1 SCHEDULE OF CURRENT HOURLY CHARGE RATES FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY OUR COMPANY OFFICE PERSONNEL: Principal Consultation --------------------- Registered Civil Engineer ---------~---~---­ Design Engr., Survey Supervisor, Legal Documents -----------~-------------­ Junior Engr., Draftsman----------------~--- Secretary Services ------------------------- FIELD PERSONNEL: Resident Civil Engineer -------------------- 3-Man Survey Party ---7-~-~----------------­ ,2-Man Survey Party· _ _:----.---.----:-----------:-· 1-Man Daily Inspection Services ------------ MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES: Stakes, Monuments, Print~, Misc. Material SUB-CONTRACTS: Special engi-neerin.g when required of electrical, mechanical, structural or archite~tural services will. be b!lled at cost pl~s 8~. $32.00 per hr. 26.00 .. per hr. . 2 2. 00. _per hr. 18.00 per hr. 9.00 pep hr. $22.00 per hr. .52.00 per hr. 41.00 per hr. 12.00 per hr. Cost plus 20% Rates shown above are subj~ct to revision for FIELD PE~SONNEL on .August 1, 1972 under terms and condiL·ions of Operating Engineers Survey~rs Contract. We look forward to serving your engineering and survey needs and we thank you for your consideration of our firm. HVDRAUL.ICS MUNICIPAL. SERVICES •. ----·----------·--·-·---------" ·-----·--···----~--·-· ---·~ ----~ ........ __ ., _________________ --·---o--------··--··-----·------ Agenda Item #35(b) G-1 (p. 3). District 11 RESOLUTION NO. 71-143-2 GRANTING TD11E EXTENSION TO KIRKHILL RUBBER COMPANY RE: SEWER CONNECTION LATE PENALTY CHARGES A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ·oF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING TIME EXT~NSION TO KIRKHILL RUBBER COMPANY FOR SEWER CONNECTION PRIOR TO IMPOSITION OF LATE PENALTY CHARGES * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS) Kirkhill Rubber Company on 6/23/71 made application for sewer connection for the disposal of industrial wastewa.ter to the sewerage facilities of County Sanitation District No •. 2_, of · Orange Coun:ty; and, WHEREAS, appropriate charges for the subject connection became due and payable August 23, 1971, forty-five days following said connection; and, ~ WHEREAS, said Company ordered a,i;id anticipated installation of additional facilities to recirculate and reuse the greatest portion of their waste flow within the prescribed forty-five days; and, . . WHEREAS, recent railroad negotiations resulted in.unforeseeable · delays in delivery of the aforementioned additional facilities; and, WHEREAS, the Districts support and endorse programs of water conservation and progressive water management; and, WHEREAS, Article 11, paragraph (b) of the District's Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202 provides that the Board of Directors may by resolution consider a special agreement for situations requiring special consideration; and, WHEREAS, Kirkhill Rubber Company on October 15, 1971, applied to the Board of Directors for special consideration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED: That Kirkhill Rubber Company be granted an extension of ninety days for compl.etion of the aforementioned additional facilities prior to the imposition of any late penalty charges. PASSED AND .ADOPTED at a regular meeting December 8, 1971. Agenda Item #38 -H-District 2 f!':;PJ Consulting Engineers and Gco1~gists CONVERSE, DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES 2022E South Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92705 Telephone (714) 549-3094 December 1, 1971 County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County P. 0. Box 8127 ·Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: . Subject: Gentlemen: ¥r. Ray Lewis Project No. 0-71-408-A, Proposed Knott Interceptor, Contract No. 3-17 ·. Discussion with Mr. Conrad Hohener, Jr., Principal Engineer with Boyle Engineering, indicates a need for information to supplen:ient that contained in the soil investigation report dated November 10, 1971, for the proposed Knott Interceptor. Anticipated future freeway construction may impose ground surface loads of as much as 5000 pounds per square foot over the interceptor pipe in the vicinity.of Stations 185+00 to 211+00. It is proposed to drill three borings, each to a depth of 40 to 50 feet to develop information on the settlement characteristics of soils below the pipe under uniform, high surface loads. A supplementary report pre- senting our findings and recommendations for supporting the pipe, if necessary, will follow the completion of testing and settlement analysis. The fee £-or the investigation described is $2, 000. We will start work as soon a~ authorization is received and permits are obtained • . Thank you for this continued opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours, ~~r.-·1 , ~ ... ~ ~/'" ~a:-,, -;~-' ,.r: -~ / )~ ....... ,_ Thomas D. Lake Principal Engineer TDL:eg cc: Mr. Gonrad Hohener, Jr. Pasadena, Santa Ana, Las Vegas Agenda Item #43 -I-District 3 corn~TY SAIHT1\TI~:ir·; DI~TRISTS OF ORJ'~r;a~ COU!·:TY P. O. BOX 8127 -10~41+ Ellis /:.venue · Fountain Valley, California 92708 CHANGE ORDER C .O. NO. -------- CONTR~CTOR: MERCO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS. INC • DATE: pecember 8. 1971 . JOB: BEACH BELIEF TRUNK SEWER. REACHES 17. 18 and 19. CONTRACT NO. 3~16 Am9~nt of this change order (A~D) (~~) $ ___ 9_7_7_. 8 ...... 7"--' \._/ .In acc9rqance wi:th cont:ract provisions, .the following changes in the contract and/or contract wor.k are hereby authorized and as comp·ensation. therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract P!ice are hereby approved. REFERENCE: Contractor's letter and invoice to the District datea November 12, 1971. The Contractor was directed to remove the large block of concrete encountered in the trench prism at the intersection of Rosecrans and Beach Boulevard, Station 64+75, so that the 21 11 VCP sewer could be constructed. Board authorization date: December 8, 1971 Agenda Item #44 ADD 977.87 TOTAL· ADD 977.87 Original Contract Price $ 453,122.15 Prev. Auth. Changes,c. O .#1,Add $ __ 1_, _14_8_.... • ...;;;;2-.3_ This Change (ADJ?)(~) $ 977 .87 Amended Contract Price · $ 455' 248. 25 -J- . Approved: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Orange County, California RESOLUTION NO. 71-141-3 AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD. OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE . OF EASEMENT FROM DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain Grant of Easement dated Noyember 16, 1971, wherein the United States of America, Department of the Navy, does grant to County Sanitation District No. 3, a permanent easement for sewer purposes for property . . . situated in the County of Orange~ State of California, in connection with construction and operation of the Los Alamitos Pump Station (Seal Beach Boulevard Pump Station), Contract No. 3-12, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That the real property over which said easement is granted is more particularly shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", . attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and, Section 3. That said Grant of Easement is accepted by the District in exchange for waiver of connection fees for the Naval Weapons Station; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Board of Directors be authorized and directed to record said Grant of Easement in the Official Records of Orange County, California. . PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held December·8, 1971. Agenda Item #45 -K-District 3 c.;u UltTY ~!. l"i lT1"!.T lC.. ;_: L .. :·~· !< l ~_;-~' :-J rJ:· 0 :!J~:. ~..: ~ 1..:1...1 U i•TY P. 0. BOX ol2'""( -10·~)~ i~ Elii~ !. ve:-!ue. Fountain Valley, California 92708 CHANGE ORDER · · C .o .. NO. 1 --=--------- CONTRACTOR: COLICH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DATE: December 8, 1271 JOB: SUNFJ...OWER INTERCEP'fOR, REACH 3 & RED HILL·INTERCEPTOR,.REACHES 4 & 5. COWl'RACT NO. 7-6-3 . . . Amount o~ this change order {Xlll)}} (~~ $. · -o- '--' In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the · contract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions frqm the contract prLce are hereby approved. · REFERENCE: Contractor's letter to the District dated October 18, 1971. Boyle Engineering's letters to the District dated November 3 and November 17, 1971. The Contractor shall install 54" diameter RCP instead of 51 11 diameter RCP as called for in the subject contract. ·Any additional expense for this change will be borne by the contractor and there will be no additional charge to the District. · Original Contract Price Prev. Auth. Changes This Change (~) ·(tm!§g~~) Amended Contract Price Approved: $ 1,060, 422. 58 ~ -0-"'----- ~ -o-"'---- $ l,060,L~22.58 Board authorization date: ~ecember 8, 1971 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Orange County, Cal~fornia By /s/ Paul G. Brown Chief Engineer COLICH CONSTRUCTION COMPA?\TY By ____________________________ __ Agenda Item 1149 -L-District 7 RESOLUTION NO. 71-145-7 ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY ·TO TEE DIS'l'RIC·1· (Annexation No. 24) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD.OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY. SANITATION DISTRICT NO.. 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT, SANTIAGO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ANNEXATION, ANNEXATION NO. 24 . * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES. HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:· Section 1. That application has heretofore been made to the Local Agency Fonnation Commis~ion for annexation of territory to County· Sanitation District No. 7, by means of a petition filed with said Commission by the majority property owners·; ·and, Section 2. That the designation assigned by said Commission to the territory proposed to be annexed is "Santiago Jti.nior H~gh School Annexation, .Annexation No. 24 to County Sanitation District No. 7 11 , the exterior boundaries of which are described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution; and, ·Section 3. That the territory hereinbefore referred to is uninhabited; and, Section 4. That the reason for annexing said territory is to obtain.and provide public sanitary sewer service to said territory;· _and, Section 5. That annexation fees in.the amount of $7,321.05 have been received by County Sanitation District No. 7; and, Section 6. That, as authorized by resolution of the Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Acto of 1965) of Title 6 of tne Government Code, Section 56261, ·the territory hereinbefore referred to and described hereinabove, be and it is hereby ordered annexted to County Sanitation District No. 7. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting December 8, 1971. Agenda Item #50 -M-District 7 ~· /) Om:J/!12 ENGINEERING 0 : .. ENGINEERS• ARCHITECTS . ; 412 SOUTH LYON STREET • SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 .• TELEPHONE <714> 547-4471 ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 December 3, 1971 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attention Mr. Fred A. Harper 1 General Manager Gentlemen: In response to the board's request we ore pl easel to submit our proposal fo_r performing engineering services for the preparation of plans and specifications for the West Relief Trunk, Reaches 19 1 20 and 22 as presented in the "Master. Pion Trunk Sewer Facilities" for District No. 7 by Boyle Engineering, dated May 1969. The proiect will begin at Edinger and Red Hill Avenues., extend northwesterly .• , along Edinger to the west side of the Newport Freeway, then northerly through easements to McFadden Avenue and Williams Street, continuing either on Williams Street or on Tustin Village Way to the Santa Ana Freeway, then through easements to First Street, northerly again through easements to Fruit Street, then easterly on Fruit Street to Tustin Avenue and finally northerly approximately 660 feet on Tustin Avenue to the point of termination. The · proiect is approximately 3.5 miles long and will vary in pipe size from 24 inches down to 15 inches. Total estimated cost, including construction, engineering, surveying, inspection, legal, administration and inc_idental costs, is $675,000. This proiect will supplement the existin.g West Trunk and subtrunk system and provide ultimate master plan facilities to serve a rapidly growing area of medium and high density residential and commercial development. It will also provide service to the proposed 600-bed Santa Ana Community Hospital on Tustin Avenue. We will perform the following professional engineering services for the proposed. · proiect. 1. Check for latest land use within West Relief Trunk drainage area and update land use plan as required. Consult with cities of Tustin, Santa Ana, and Orange, the county, major land owners, and the Santa Ana Community Hospital. Revise master pl~n flow c~lcul.ations cs required to conform to latest land use plans. · ' . -. . PROFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R I N. G. AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda Item #51 District 7 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 · December 3, 1971 Page 2 2. 3. 4. s. . 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. n. 1.2. .. 13~ 14. 15. Hold conferences with representatives of the district, property owners or lessees involved, interested cities, and other. public agencies and others, to review and discuss al I aspects of the proiect. Make arrangements for and coordination of field surveys, soils investigations, and pavement coring. Prepare preliminary engineering studies and design for review and approval. . · · Prepare engineering data for regul.atory permit applications that may be required by the cities of Tustin and Santo ka, the Orange County Flood Control District, the Orange County Road Deportment, the State Division of Highways, and the Santa Fe Railway Company. Prepare detail plans and specificatio~s •. Prepare estimates"of quantities and costs. Delive·r the original tracing·s of the plans and reproducible plates of the specifications for the district's use in preparing the necessary number of copies for record purposes, distribu- tion to prospective bidders, etc. Prepare legal descriptions and plots for right-of-way acquisi- tion as required for facility IOcation and construction. . Assist the district in securing bids, tabulation and analysis of bid results and in letting of contract. . Check shop and working drawings as may be submitted by the contractor. · ~ Review laboratory reports on materials tests and inspection and correlate such reports with the intentions of the plans and specifications. Furnish consultation and advice to the district or its agent during construction. Furnish periodic observations of construction work and progress and provide appropriate reports to the district. Observe initial operation of the proiect, witnessing performance tests as required by the specifications and reporting same to the district. · B 0 Y L,E. EN G I N EE R I N G Agenda Item #51 N-2 District 7 . . . Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. ! · December 3, 1971 Page 3 .. 16. 17. Make a final inspection and report of the completed project with a representative of the district or its agent. Prepare record drawings (11 as-constructed 11 } when construction work has been completed and accepted. by the district. This shall mean the original tracings of the plans will be modified, if""neCeSsary I because Of deviations from the Original Work• When inspection is carried out by personnel not directly employed by the engineer, modifications to the original . tracings will be based upon information supplied to the engineer by the district. The original tracings after being modified will become district property. We propose to provide the services in items 1 through 17 for a basic fee of $31,640. It is suggested that payment be monthly on a percentage completed basis up to 90 percent at time of delivery of plans and specifications with 100. pe~cent payment when the work is. completed and accepted .by the district. Field surveys will be required in order to prepare' the plans and specifications. These surveys will include taking topography and culture within the project I imi ts. We propose that all field surveys necessary for design b~ performed on a per diem basis at the following hourly rates: 3-man survey party -$48.00 per hour, 2-man survey party -$33. 00 per hour, and Ii censed surveyor - $21.00 per hour. Payment is to be monthly as invoiced. If construction staking is requested these rates wil I remain in effect o . ~ In the event the district requires daily inspection services we propose to provide this service upon written request by the district, at an hourly rate of $12.00. We propose that all outside services required and approved by the district such as soils investigations, pavement coring, and plant inspection for quality control for materials used on project construction will "be paid directly by the district upon presentation of a statement of such outside servic~s with the engineer's certification • . If we are authorized to proceed with this work at the December 8th board meeting, plans and specifications can be ready for the board's approval at the May ·1972 . board meeting. . Respectfully submitted, ~OYLE ENGINEERING n thiuV/¥-&,,ud)~- Conrad Hohener, Jr., C. E. 10951 Principal Engineer ps BOYLE ENGINEERING Agenda.Item #51 N-3 District7 ·~, v '( '\J ; 101 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE• ORANGE. CALIFORNIA 92666 •• 714/639-5000 R. E. DRINKGERN VICE PRESIDENT AND TRUST OFFICER County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P. O. Box 8127 Fountafn Valley, California 92708 No'\lember 29, 1971 Re: Annexation into District 117 .of Willard Smith Estate Property, Parcel 14, Assessor's Map Book 379, Page 01, County of Orange Gentlemen! It is respectfully requested that the referenced property be annexed into County Sanitation District #7. Attached is a copy of the true and complete ~egal description of the property. The undersigned is the Administrator of the Estate which are the true and complete owners.· The assessed value of this property on the last assessment roll, was land $29,130.00 plus buildings of $1,000.00, which equals $30,130.00. There are two voters presently residing on the proper_ty. This property will be developed as a standard subdivision (Tract 7565) within the existing zoning in the City of Orange. This zoning R-1-8000 was placed o~ this property many years ago • . Attached is a check for $325.00 which is the annexation fee. Please send all correspondence concerning this annexation to: Mr. Arnt G. Quist, Civil Engineer· Hall & Foreman, Inc. 2530 N. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, California 92711 ~-Ve~r tr~y yours, r ~ ·L ,.. . ,~~r .. t-t-i ·-~, Drinkgern Vice President & Trust Officer RED:bgt encl. F1RST IN PERSON:.t B"-1''.i".ING S!:P.V!CE Sl:llC'E 1~06 Agenda Item //53 0-1 District 7 / I I / / / / / I / I / .. --I -.. I / --------/ / I ./ I \ . ---·. -.. ~ --·-... -.. ,, 0 -2 ' \ -f-0 ,.-, ~-· :-· Xf . • N ... - ,_._ l -------' ...... -·. '. ,--> ..... 7 ~ I 't; . f , ~ ..- \. '-' •• > 1. U r _-: . ,,-,/ • I' , . .- 1 .. ./ I l ...... 1 Y 1 I ••• 'F 0 • -........ ~----\,-=·~~--- District 7 '\ RESOLUTION NO. 71-140 CREATING A SUSPENSE FUND A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 6, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFOR~IA, CREATING A SUSPENSE FUND FOR PAYMENT OF OBLIGATIONS JOINTLY UNDERTAKEN, ESTABLISHING PERCENTAGES OF CONTRIBUTIONS; AND DESIGNATING DISTRICT NO. 5 AS AGENT * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6, of Ora~ge County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That County Sanitation District No. 5, of Orange County, California, is hereby authorized and directed to establish a suspense fund for the purpose of the payment of joint obligations in cormection with the repair of the Co~st Highway Force Main, Contract No. 5-19; and, ' Section 2. That County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6 shall bear the percentage costs of the obligations chargeable to said suspense fund in the following perc~ntages, to wit: District 5 District 6 Unit 1 88.8% 11.2% Unit 2 100.0% Section 3. That County Sanitation District No. 5 be appointed agent, to act for itself and County Sanitation District No. 6; and that the Chairman of said District No. 5, and the Secretary, be authorized and directed to sign warrant books for said suspense fund; and, Section 4. That, upon written request of the General Manager, the County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed to transfer funds from the Districts' Accumulated Capital Outlay Funds to the Suspense Fu~d herein provided. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting· held December 8,1 1971. Agenda Item #25(a) -P-.Districts 5 & 6 ---··-···------...-·· ... -....... ------..-. ·---·---·--·-·-·.--· . --,~· . .-.. &"'··-.-·-· ......... , __ _, .. .,.~··· ---. . Signal . Propartias1 Inc. 1010 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. California 90017 Telephone: (213) 482·0722 ·"-'-!--~----~~--- December 7, 1971 Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts -of Orange County, California P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mr. Fred A. Harper . Subject: PROPOSED ANNEXATION NOo 15 TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo 11, SIGNAL ~OLSA #1 ANNEXATION Reference: Letter of December 3, 1971 from County Sanitation Districts of Orange County,-California to Sign~l Properti~s, Inc. Gentlemen: We hereby request that, in lieu of a lump sum payment to the District in the amount of $91,806.00, we be allowed to defer complete or partial payments until all or any portion of the area in the subject annexation requires sewerage service as covered in the Amended Annexation Policy, Resolution No. 64- 136-11. We appreciate your coopera~ion. Very truly yours, SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION ,_ cc: R. R. James, Signal Landmark, Inc. 1538 North Century Boulevard Santa Ana, California 92703 G. D. Stringer, The Stringer Company P. O. Box 698 La Habra, California 90631 one of The Sign~! Companie~ [t] __ ._ •• , I ••• •" -~--····· ... -· • ~~ Agenda Item #35(c) Q-1 Secretary District 11 .-.. • •· ....... ,.. -·----·--·--···.,...---~ •-·---••• _._ •· •·•• • --..---... --.: -_..,, ........... --·--·-•-·-. ,..--•· ••-· -•;r ... ---•·-··•·--.-...... --:-•··•• .-,.--_.,--•---_._, -.. • -·--· •• --· ----·•··-. ..,_.. Signal Properties, Inc. 1010 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017 ...--...... December ·3, 1971 Subject: Proposed Annexation No. 15 to County Sanitation District No. 11, Signal Bolsa #1 Annexation _,,.. _. In connection with the above r.eferenced proposed·annexa.tion the District has been advised ·by the Local ~;gency Formation Commission that said annexation has been approved subject to final verification of boundaries. Before District No. 11 can grant final approval (tentatively set for the·Board of Directors regular meeting on December 8th} it will be necessary for you to deposit annexation fees with the District in a total amount or·$91,806.oo. . If you have any further questions concerning this matter please ~o not hesitate to contact me • ... J. Wayne Sylvester Secretary, Board of Directors JWS:gc I' ' ' Agenda Item #35(c) Q-2 Distri'ct 11 •. •.• •• &. RESOLUTION NO. 71-146-7 AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE ·.OF EASEMENT FROM IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange Co~nty, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain Grant of Easement dated ---------, wherein the Irvine Industrial Complex does grant to County Sanitation District No. 7, a permanent easement for sewer purposes for property situated in the County of Orange, State of California, in connection with construction of the Sunflower Interceptor, Reach 3 and Red Hill Interceptor, Reaches 4 and 5, Contract No. 7-6-3, is hereby approved antl accepted; and, Section 2. That the real property over which said easement is granted is more ~articularly described and shown· on Exhibits "A" and· "B", attached hereto and made a_part of this resolution; and, Se€tion 3. That said S}rant o"f Easement is accepted at no cost to the District; and, Sec.tion 4. That the Se.cretary of· the Board of Directors be authorized and directed to record said Grant of Easement in the Official Records of Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held December 8, 1971. I' Agenda Item #55(a) -R-District 7 .. ... ' . . -·--·-·· --;.-.. --·-----··----... -----. , .· (' .-. ·-.· .-.~-~-. ~.·, ... ... ·.: ~ ... ··.·:: . ..... -'·. ··.·. ' / .. . ' . .- . · < ... : .. -~. ··~ . -~·--. ~ ..... I :, . -.. ......... · . ..:.-.. ...... ...... ~ . .··=·.· ·. -· .. · .. .. .. . SCALE: -l" a. 100' '. \ .. ::-.(::·.:.;..::\..·:..:-~·:PORTION OF LOT 133, BLOCK 7, IRVINE SUB- : DIVISION, M. M. 1/88 ·---------------·, SKE'I'CH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ~ROPOSED 20 FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR REDHILL INTERCEPTOR SEWER; REACH 4, COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT N0.7 OF ORANGE COUNTY ~· ~~:-::-~~::--~·j O<S!~~ EG~lLB" HTGHJEEBJNG r-:-»-----·--------1-D-,..,-..,.-.;-N-K-.-L-.-1 412 SO CNN S,_HT SAMA ••u C•c•• 1 · 1 · ... llL? Ll.l-, 1 ~,\?"iJuly 1 71 i B ·C07-11, w-970 .... ____ Re.Y.J....S_e,.M_ .... . ., 1.:•o.::".l\CO . s 0 -~ 101-52 " . . . . .. . .. .. ... ·-- 1 f~ :-1 .. ,. <· r , _. . . -· ··------!" ...... .. -- Exhibit "B"