The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1971-12-28Irvine December 1, 1971 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District #5 10844 Ellis· Avenue P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention Fred Harper'· General Manager Gentlemen: . Agenca ltem No._:-~: ~I - Builders of Tomorrow's Cities ... Today Reference is made to the relocation of the 2!1' Bayside Drive sewer in conjunction with the development 9f Tract 3867, in accordance with the agreement dated October 1, 1970, wherein the District will participate to the extent of $18.,400. A study of the ultimat~ service boundary of the District indicates that the relocated line should be 36" in diameter or a second sewer line will have·to be installed later in Bayside Drive. Installa- tion of the ultimate size 36" line at this time wold be in the best interest of the District. 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 int:allation of a 36" versus 21" trunk. As applied to this project the reimbursable amount to Iryine would be computed as follows: ( Amount l ( Reimbursable = Installed cost to Irvine of 36" line Capacity of 21" line) Capacity of 36 11 ·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 : . Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District #5 · December 1, 1971 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 agreement and authorize the staff to amend the agreement of October 1,1970 at the next meeting of the District. Sincerely, Richard A. Reese Vice President, Planning. RAR/JP/pme cc: Robert Snyder Don Simpson -Shu~rman-Simpson Joseph Devl'in -City of Newport .Beach COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, F"DUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF"DRNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OF"F"-RAMP, SAN DIEGO F"REEWAY) TELE PH ON ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 December 23, 1971 TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 Gentlemen: Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting on December·s, 1971, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting: gg Tuesday, December 28, 1971 at 5:00 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California lj I CQJ . : Of OLtCTORS County Sanitation Distr icts of O ran ge Cou nty, Californi a DIS ·TRICT No . 5 P. 0 . Box 5175 108Li4 Ellis A"enue Foun tain Valley, Calif., 92708 ---__I -~~,,========================================A =G=E=N=D=A======= December 28 , 1 971 -5 :00 p .m. ADJOURN"1E'llTS .... ~ ... - COMP & MILEl'\GE7 ·····-- FI LES SET ll P •. ~ ........... V ( 1) Roll Call RESOLUTIONS CERTIFI ED .•• LITTERS WRITTEN ~ .• - MINU TES WRITTEN ... V...- MI NUTES ~ILE D .. v-/..- (2) (3) (4) (5) Appo intment of Chairman pro tern , i f n ec essar y Repo r t of General Manager Report of General Counsel Repo rt o~ staff and engineers on p r opo s ed ove r s i zing of · Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer at Prorr.ontory Point (6 ) Cons i deration of action on proposal of I:cvine Company to enter into a reimb~rsement agreement for overs i z i ng relocated Bayside Drive T:runl\. Sewe r at. Promontory · / I Point. See page 11 A11 '" ( r -' o. , ~ f.c f--Iv (7) Othe r business arid communications , if any '4~ 6 ( ( 8) Cons i derati on of motion to adjourn -'~4~ ( ) I () I . .. ~ .. December 1, 1971 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District #5 10844 Ellis Avenue P. O. Box 8l27 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention Fred Harper, General Manager Gentlemen: .. Agenca .. Ir~m No._.--;i .·I - Bui Ide.rs of Tomorrow's Cities •.. Today Reference is made to the relocation of the 21" Bayside Drive sewer in conjunction with the d.evelopment of Tract 3867, in accordance with the agr·eement dated October 1, 1970, wherein the District will participate to the extent of $18.,4.00. A study· of-the ultimate service boundary of the District indicates that the relocated line should be 36 11 in diameter or a second sewer line will have to be installed later in Bayside Drive. Installa- tion of the ult.imate size 36" line at this time waid be in the best interest of the District. Recognizing the Distr.ict' 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 reimbur~able amount to Irvine be determined on the basis of the increased capacity afforded by the irEtallation of a 36" versus 21" trunk. As applied to this project the reimbursable amount to Irvine would be computed as follows: / ~:~~~~rsable ) = (.Installed cost \ to Irvine of 36" line $18,.400 )· [ 1 Capacity of 21" line 1 Capacity of 36 11 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 #6 A-1 District 7 4 • - ' • ..,J• I C, •· Board of Directors · Orange County Sanitation District #5 December' 1," 1971 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 agreement and authorize the staff to amend the agreement of October 1,1970 at the next meeting of the District. Sincerely, Richard A. Reese Vice President, Planning RAR/JP/pme cc: Robert Snyder Don Simpson -Shuirman-Simpson Joseph Devlin -City of.Newport Beach Agenda Item #6 A-2 District 7 EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE :aO.P.RDS OF DIP.ECTORS OP COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS HOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, OF OR.i;NGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A regular joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of County . Sanitation Districts N"oa .• 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 Administrative Organization called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.o. The roll was called and the Secretary reporteA a quorum present for each District's Boarn. DISTRICT 5 Adjournment * * * * * * * * * Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned to December 28, 1971, at 5:00 p.m. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:59 p.m., December 8, 1971. STATE OF CALIFORNIA~ SS" COUNTY OF ORANGE I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of each of the Boaras of Directors of County Sanitation Distri~ts Nosv 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, io hereby certify that 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 ~ay of December, 1971 S-107 ---... -.... --... \:· -.--.~ -- ·. . -. '. - .. ':.,,........_......._-..---- • ..,, . .'II I I I, II • MAHAGSR'S AGt':N!JA REPOR T County Sanitation D i str i ct s • of Or1:1nge County, Cal i fornia ,..,...,_ -.. r-' " ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETii'm Tuesday, December 28, 197 1 5 :00 p .m. Telephones: Ar etJ Code 71 4 5 40 -29 10 962-2411 Dec emb e r 23, 1 971 IRVI NE COMPANY PHOPOSAL FOR OVERSIZING RELOCATED BAYSIDE DRIVE TRUNK SEWER /'.T PROMOHT CR Y POINT DEVELOPI•:EUT : The sole item of business to be t aken up at this meeting i s consideration of the proposal dat E:d December l, 1971 (ccpy attached) which was received and filed at the December 8 r eguJ.ar Board meeting . ... ..., It is the staff 1 s and District 1 s engineer 1 s r ecommendation 1 1'-.. that the Irvine proposal and formula be acc e pted , provided that reimbursement, without interest, by the Distrj_ct to the Company for ( ) the cost of oversizing be postponed until the enti re new Bayside Lt,i"i 1ct "11 Drive 'I'runk from the Bay Bridge P1..unP Station to Cameo Sh01·es is It.'. -. d -'' comrLL ei..:e . -.. It s hould be kept in mind that the proposed oversizing fr om a 21-inch to a 36-inch -Crunk for this one sectj_on of the future Bayside . Drive Trunk sewer wil l not be needed until sufficient areas south- easterly of the present District are annexed and developed to the extent that present facilities are inadequate. Thi s j_s the reason for stipulating postponement o f reimbursement until these events occ ur_, .. at which time it is contemplated that a master r eimbursement agreement for the entire n ew system to be installed will be nec essary . , L. • .. Ass t+ming that the cost of the relocated 36 -inch trunk at the Promontory Point devel0pment is $140 ,000 , the amount eventual l y reimbu!'Sable to the Company under the proposed Irvine formula will be approximately $93. 000 . On the other hand, the method of cor.lputi.ng the reimbursement amount b ased on the actual difference in cost of the installation of a 36-inch sewer over a 21-inch would be a pproxi- mately $56 , 000 , $37 _, 000 less from the formula prop o sed by the Company . However, it appears to the staff t hat the issue of the reimbursable amount is relat ively unimpo r tant if payments are postponed as proposed s i nce considerable interest* on the Company 's investment will acc:rue I i l~ ........ I .: ... -\, r II I id.. .. -I i n the i nterim . Al so, it shoul d be kept i n mind that t he reimburse -". ment wi ll be made from the connection charge funds coll e c ted for the 1 most part from deve l opers of Company land . In t h i s c onnecti.on, the Distri ct 1 s engineer, JVir. Donald C. Simpson , now estimates that the present connection char ge, escal ated as provided i n the District 's ordinance, wi l l be adequate t o pay for all of t he new facili~ies required by development of the a~ea south- easterly of the present District. This conc l usion is based on Mr . Simpson 's study o i ' the Company's planned development and wi ll be c onta i ned in a formal written report to the Board on this matte r in t h e near future. I :_ I -t I Ii -(-• .. .. - l -r "l .& ,L • Fred A. Harper General Manager •• *Assuming new Bayside 'I'runk is completed in 1977 a.nd reimbursement is made for a subsequent 5-year period, interest accrual at 6i% will L 1 be approxima.tely $45,000 ii' .l - I J ... "\ , '•"' .,. I,.. r •• / I ..JI ~-I IL ,. -I Ir I ... !: ...14" ..._ "'Ill. _, I -. -~ ;--..:,: •f . ' ... • .. - I L.. •' •; I -,, . ~ •s -2 -.·} ... I J ,... liJ ~~ _.. if. ~ ~ i ~~---~----.. --~-c===i...:. • n • I ... r ... t·1ee ting Date \ ~~ f)_ <\\ Time .5:00 Di s tricts :i:FS- DISTP.ICT 1 J OI NT BOARDS -----Just __ Harper Gris et Herrin Berton Westra Mi ller Coco Christie Root Po rter Clark ·Jackson Battin Coen - Cu lver DISTRICT 2 Davis _Fonte Finnell __ Gomez Brri i th Hileman Green __ McC racken ristie Root Gris et He rrin Cl ark J ackson _.Harper Just Culve r Harvey . Kane l Finnell Gomez Hemeon Lewis He rrin Griset He rrin· Gris e t Just Harper Hirth Croul Sims Zuniga Ho l den _Bogard Stephens on --Dutton ----Hyde Kroes en Wedaa Machado Mc Innis Hirth Winn -Schniepp Mc Whi nney _____;, ·-Battin Mi lle r Co co Par sons DISTRICT 3 Porter Hyd e Kroes en --Rogers -Hi rt h Berton West ra Shipl ey -1ticcrac ken Ch ristie Ro o t Sims --Zuniga -Clark Jackson Smi t h -Hileman Culve r Stephenson--Dutton Davis Fonte Wedaa · ·--Machado Green McCrac ken Winn --schniepp Battin --Harper Just Harvey Kan e l He r r in Griset * * Hemeon Lewis P'llde n Barnes Mitchell Whinney Boyd --Goldberg Sims Zuniga Stephenson __ Du tton OTHE RS Battin Haro er ....,..... DIS 1r;TICT s Bro,·m =.: Parson s ,/ Sylvester 7 Hi rth v Croul Lewis / Ba ttin _L_ Dunn Clarke DISTRICT 6 Sigler Porter Crabb Mcinnis Hi rth Ca rl son Battin Fin3 t.e~c DI STPJ.CT z Gallmiay r::•==r ' Hohener Miller Coco Gr:j..set He rrin Hun t Porte r Ke i th Roge r s Hi r th Lowry Smith Hi lema n Maddox Battin Martinson-- Niss on --v . DISTRIC'E 1 1 Piersall "'-"lipl ey Mc Cracken Sttf;e ns en ([ I' , '(41.. ..... Batti n · I DISTRICT 8 <%1M~. Bo Yet -Goldberg J2u~ fl~i tchel l ....._ Battin I . BOARDS OF D .. ECTORS County Sanitation Districts P. 0. Box 5175 II II of Orange County, California 108114 ~llis Avenue Foun ta in Valley, Calif., 9270e DIS·TR!CT /'Jo . 2. Adjourned Regular Meeting De c embe r 22, 1971 -5 :00 p .m. AGE~SD.A ADJ OURN MENTS ..•. ~ COMP & MILEAGE .. V. ... ~ vA l ) Roll Call FI LES SET UP ...... ~ ... .. RE SOLU TIONS CERTIF I ED ~ t mrns wmmi ~:: ..,/(2 ) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary v-(3) Report of Chairman MINUTES WR ITTEN ~ ... . MINUTES HLED .... ~ ..... . ./{ 4) Report of Ge.neral Man ager ./(5) Report of General Counsel v (6) Verbal report of Engineer on Water Reclamation Re connaissance Study (7) Consideration of motion to receive and file Water Reclamation Reconnaissance Study prepared by Lowry and Associates, dated October , 1971 ( 8 ) Verbal r eport of General Manager re Chine Ba.sin Iviunicipal Hate r District 's parti cipation in joint facilities (9) Conside r ation of motion to receive following transmittals in connection wi th Chino Basin Muncipal Wat i:::r District 1 s participation in joint facilities : · ~(10) /(ll) /(1_2 ) (1 3 ) ~) (...,,..( b) Proposal from Lowry and Associates , dated December 16 , 1971, to make necessary changes i n plans and spe cificati ons in cormection with Chino Basin Mun icip al Water District's participation, for a lump sum fee o f $3 ,500 Chino Basin Municipal Water District dated 1 2/21/71 offering to reimburs e County Sanitation Districts f or additional design expenses for their participa.tion in joint facilities Consid e ration of Reso lution ~o . 71-147 -2 , approving and authori zi!1g for execution, agreement with Chino Basin Municipa l Water Di strict, for participation in constructiori and ca.p a ci t~-rights of the proposed :::>a:1ta Ara Rjxer I::v.e ·_·ceptor Consideration o f mot ion authorizing General Manager to direct engineers to pro c eed with preparation of plans and specifications for Santa Ana Rive r Interceptor from Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue , based on alternate bids for capacities of 80 mgd and 50 mgd Othe r business arid communications, if any Consideration of motion to adjourn :;- '\wl RESOLUTION NO. 71-147-2 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT .. BETWEEN COUNTY SANITATION.DISTRICTS NO. 2 AND THE CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT; NO. 2, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ENTITLED "WASTEWATER INTERCEPTOR CAPACITY AGREEMENT" * * * * * * * * * "* WHEREAS, it appears in the best interests of the ·publtc health, safety and welfare for County Sanitat~on District No. 2, of Orange County, California, to enter into an agreement with Chino Basin Municipal Water District to provide for disposal of wastewater from said Districts by menas of the joint facilities of said County Sanitation District No. 2; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND qRDERED: Section 1. That the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 does hereby authorize execution of Wastewater Interceptor Capacj_ ty Agreement with Chino Basin Municipal Water District; and, Section 2. That the Chairman and Secretary of said District are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement in form acceptable to General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held December 22, 1971. Agenda Item #10 Meeting Da t e l.:)1d~l21 Time s:o 0 Distr j_c t s ~ DIS TRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS ------Jus t Ha rper Gris e t He r rin Berton .Westra Mi ller Coco Christie Root Porter Clark Jackson Battin Coen Culver DISTRICT 2 Davis Fonte Finnell Gomez -ith ./ Hil em an Gr een Mc Cracke 11 ristie --y Root Gris et Herrin Clark v Jac ks o n Harper Just Cu lver v' Harvey . Kanel Finnell ../ Gom e z He me on Lewis He rri n • II' Gris e t Herrin· Griset -,Just v' Harper Hirth Croul Sim s / Zuniga Ho l den __ Hogard -Stephenson v' Dutton Hyde Kroes en --We daa ,/ Machado Mcinnis Hirth Winn --Schniepp McW h inney ~ ----:. Battin v Miller Coco --Parsons DISTRI C1' 3 Porter Hyde Kro e s e n Rogers --Hirth --Shipl ey --Mc Crac ke n Berton Westra Christie Roo t Sims --Zuni ga -Clark Jack son Smi.th --Hileman Culver Stephenson--Dutto n Da vis Fo nte Wedaa --Machado Green Mc Crack en Wi nn --schniepp Battin --Harper Just Harvey Kan e l He rrin Gr ise t * * He me on Lewis Mitc heli lde n Barnes ~Whinney Boyd --Goldberg --Sims Zunig a Stephenson __ Dutton OTHERS Battin Harpe r ../ DIST IUCT 5 Brm·m ~ Parsons -Sylvester-::7 Lewis --Hi rt h Croul Dunn Battin Clarke DISTRICT G Sigler Porter Crabb Mcinnis Hirth Carlson Battin Finster DISTP.ICT 7 Gall0i·1ay .....-= I Hohener .Miller Coco Gris e t He rri n Hu_r1t Porter Keith Roge rs Hirth Lowry ~ Smith Hi l em a n Maddox Batt in Martinson j Niss on DISTR;ICT 11 Piersa ll ipl ey Mc Cracken Stevens ~en · 7J ~~ Battin -- DIST~ICT 8 Boyd -Goldb erg Mi tchell _..__ .B attin SIDNEY L. LOWRY PRESIDENT LOWRY ANO ASSOCIATES CJVIL ENGINEERS Agenda Item No. 9 a ..... ASSOCIATES 121 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92'701 HARRY C. BILLINGS, VICE PRES. Telephone 541-5301 Area Code 714 DONALD J. MARTINSON. VICE PRES. December 16, 1971 Mr. Fred A. Harper County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Dear Mr. Harper: This is in response to your r·equest to submit a proposal to revise the plans and specifications for the Santa ana River Interceptor Sewer from Plant No.1 to Katella Avenue, Contract No. 2-14-1, to show two alternate pipe sizes, one for 80 mgd and the other for 50 mgd. We propose to make all necessary changes to the plans and specific- ations for a total lump sum fee of $3500. If we are authorized to proceed with this work on December 22, 1971, the plans and specifications will be· completed by January 28, 1972. DJM/jk Very truly yours Lowry and Associates l/~j~ Donald J. Martinson EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE BOP.RDS OF DIP.ECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DIS'r:;{IC':(!S HOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, OF OR.i;NGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 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 V~lley, California. The Chairman of the Joint A1min~strative Organization called the weeting to order at 7:30 p.o. The roll was called ana the Secretary reporte~ a quorum present for each District's Boarct. ])!STRICT 2 Adjournment * * * * * * * * * Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of ~irectors 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~ SS~ COUNTY OF ORANGE I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of each of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Distri~ts Nos9 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, io hereby certify that the above and foregoing to be full, true ano correct copy of minute entries on meeting of said Boards of Directors on the 8th day of December 1971 ' 8th IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hann this rlay of December, 1971. 1, S-107 ,.. .... e • ~ -,,/ _________ .. ~- SIDNEY L. LOWRY PRESIDENT Telephone 541-5301 Area Code 714 Mr. Fred A. Harper LOWRY ANO ASSOCIATES . CIVIL ENGINEERS · 121 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE SANTA ANA, CAL.IFORNIA 92701 December 16, 1971 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Dear Mr. Harper: Agenda Item No. q.a ASSOCIATES HARRY C. BILLINGS, VICE PRES. DONALD J. MARTINSON. VICE PRES. This is in response to your request to submit a proposal to revise the plans and specifications for the. Santa ana River Interceptor Sewer from Plant No.1 to Katella Avenue, Contract No. 2-14-1, to show two alternat~ ·pipe sizes, one for 80 mgd and the other for 50 mgd. We propose to make all necessary changes to the plans and specific- ations for a total lump sum fee of $3500. If we are authorized to proceed with this work on December 22, 1971, the plans and specifications will be completed by January 28, 19~2. DJM/jk . f I Very truly yours Lowry and Associates l/1>4Uj~ Donald J. Martinson . .., Fiscal Year 1972-73 .. 1973-74 1973-74 1973-74 1973-74 .( Project Santa Ana River Inter- ceptor ·Reach 1 - Plant 1 to Katella Avenue Sarita Ana River Inter- ceptor Reach 2-- Katella Avenue to South Street Santa Ana River Inter- ceptor Reach 3 - South Street to Imperial Highway Santa Ana River Inter- ceptor Reach 4 - Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon ·water Reclamation Plant ( COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 PROJEC'l1 LlS'l' .L-t'OH GRAN'r APPLICA'I1ION .. Description 85 mgd sewer to provide ca-·· pacity for Upper Basin non- reclaimable wastes, sludge·. and brine disposal for water reclamation plant,, and relier of District Trunk Sewer system ·.Total Cost·. $7,700,000 85 mgd sewer to provide ca-$2,300,000 pacity for Upper Basin non- . reclaimable wastes, sludge and brine disposal for water reclamation ~lant, and relief of District Trunk Sewer system Duai' 1 ine to intercept low TDS $3, 500, QOO . water from Easterly area of District and convey to water .. reclamation plant -convey non- reclaimable wastes from Upper Basin to Plant No. 1 Convey non-recldimable wastes $1,500,000 from Upper Basin to Plant ·· No. 1 and provide capacity for ·northeasterly port~on of the District 10 mgd tertiary treatment plant $8,500,000 with Demineralization facilities for water spreading in Santa Ana River . . ( District No. 2 $4,800,000 50 mgd-waste water 5 mgd-non- reclaimable wastes $1,600,000 50 mgd-waste water .5 mgd-non- reclaimable wastes $1,750,000 ' 24-40 mgd- was te water $ 500,000 16 mgd-waste water $3,400,000 Secondary Facilities : 12/16/l l Other Agency $2,900,000 30 mgd· non- reclaimable wastes ( Cf3MWD) $ 700,000 30 mgd non- rec laimable wastes (CBMWD) $1,750,000 30 mgd non- reclaimable wastes . ( CBMWD) $1,000,000 (CBMWD) $5,100,000 Tertiary and demineraliza- tion facilities ( OCWD) iscal Year 1973-74 1973-74 1973-74 1974-75 1974-74 1974-75 1974-75 I \ \ ( Project South Street Pump Station and Force Main . ; . State College Boulevard Interceptor South Santa Ana River Trunk Santa Ana River Inter- ceptor Reach 5 -Weir Canyon to Orange County Line Richfield Interceptor Orchard Interceptor ' I Kraemer Interceptor ( Description 18 mgd pump station to de-. liver high quality waste water to reclamation plant To segregate and divert highly saline waste·water from tributary area of water- r·eclamation plant To intercept low TDS waste . water from Easterly area o.f. District and. Southerly of river and convey to water· reclamation plant .. Convey non-reclaimable wastes from Upper Basin to Plant No. 1 and provide ca- pacity for northeasterly portion of Orange County · that is expected to annex to the. District / J Direct low TDS water from .Atwood Subtrunk to Reclama- tion Plant Direct low TDS water from Atwood Suotrunk to Reclama- tion· Plant Collect low TDS water from oil producing area Total Cost $ 816,000 $1,600,000 $· 693,000 $2,400,000 $ 380,000 $ 278,000 $ 323,000' ..... District No. 2 $ 816,000 $1,600,000 $ 693,000 $ 600,000 5-16 mgd waste water $ 380,000 $ 278,000 ·$ 323,000 ( .. . f.'&!./ ltJ ;·r l Other Agency . - $1,600,000 30 mgd non- reclaimable wastes (CBMWD) .. lscal· Year ---- 1975-76 ( .. · . ·P.roject Carbon Canyon Darn Inter- ceptor i975-76 .-·:···carbon Canyon Inter- ceptor • ,· t •••• .( . . . Description Collect low TDS water from developing areas Collect low TDS waste water from Northerly area of District and. convey to Reclamation Plant. This facility will permit the abandonment of the City of Brea, Carbon Canyon Treat- ment Facilities Total Cost $ 549,000 $1,429,000 1975-79 Palm Driv~ Interceptor Connect Kraemer Interceptor $ 332,000 to Carbon Canyon Interceptor . . . BMWD -Chino Ba.sin Municipal Water District CWD -Orange Co~nty Water D+s.trict \ I . . . . ( District No. 2 Other Agency $ 549, 000 .... . ' . $ 332,000 ... I ,, I: ,, .1 I I 'I I ! I ,. I l,v ' .... ' J' 1../ {j (/) I - , JI I ~ <: II MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT NO. --===2 ,..--- ADJOUR NED REGULAR MEETING Dec e mbe r 22, 1971 -5 :00 p .m. P. 0 . Box 5175 10844 Ell is Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Tel ephones: Areo Code 714 540-2910 962-24 11 Th e purp ose of thi s adjourned meeting is to consider an agre e ment with the Chino Basin Mun icipal Water District (C B.MWD) fo r joint participation in the construction of the Santa Ana Ri ver Interceptor from Plan t No . 1 to the County line i n the Santa Ana Canyon . The enclosed d r aft of an agreement provides for the construction of a facility for the capaci t i es listed be l ow : Santa Ana River Interceptor Section 1 -Plant No . 1 to Santiago Creek Section 2 -Santiago Creek to Katella Avenue Section 3 Ka t e lla Avenue to Riverside Freeway Secti on 4 -Riverside F r eeway to 1 Yo r ba Linda Fr e eway (Imperial ) Section 5 -Riverside F r eeway to Yorba Linda Freeway (Impe ria l ) Section 6 -Ri verside Freeway to Yorba Li.nda F r eeway (Imperi al) Secti on 7 -Yorba Linda Free\t:ay to Weir Canyon (MWD Outlet) Secti on 8 -Weir Canyon (MWD Out l et) to Gypsum Canyon Section 9 -Gypsum Ca-nyon to Coal Canyon Section 10 -Coal Canyon to end of CSDOC participati0n Capacity -MGD CSD No . 2 C.i31'IWD 50 30 50 30 50 30 40 30 31 30 24 30 16 30 16 30 7 30 5 30 .. The newest cost estimate for this facility is The estimated shar ed cos t s are as fo llows : Cos t -$ x 103 Se c t i on ~ CSDOC CBMWD Tota l 1 2 ,396 1,437 3,833 2 1,625 975 2 ,600 3 1,456 874 2 ,330 4 1 185 139 324 5 .. 300 289 589 6 ,. ~ 185 231 416 7 ~ 419 779 1,198 8 366 679 1,045 9 ~ .... 11 9 505 624 10 58 343 I 40 1 . ...,. S ubt otal 7 ,109 6,251 13 ,360 2 0% 1,422 1 ,250 "' 2,672 Total project c ost $ 8 ' 53 1 $ 7 ' 501 $ 16 ' 032 Pe rc en t of t o t a l 53 .2% 46 .8% 100% As the Di r ecto r s will recal l, the District 's engineers prepa r ed an Interim Five -Year Master Plan of Wastewater Facil i t i es for the Districts in March . The drainage area i n and o u tside the Distri ct within Orange County will ultimate ly r equi re, based on the current l and u se plans of the variou s communities , a' transport system and treatment and d i sposal f ac ilit i es fo r 134 mgd . . The bas i c p l an relies on conveying all of the waste wa t er t hat wil l be generated to the joint treatmen t works with u l timate disposal to the ocean . In July the District 's Board authoriz ed Lowry and Associates, the District's engineers , t o make a water reclamation r econnai ssance study to evaluate the possibility of the construction of water reclamation f aci l ities in the upper portion of the Di strict and to determine t he feasibility of rec l aiming waste water for discharge into the underground basin . This study was financed on a 50 -50 b as i s wi th the Orange County Water District . (A copy of the r e p o r t i s i nc l uded for the Directors ' review). Although the conc lus i ons of the r epo rt do not reco ~ne nd immediat e construction of upst r eam reclamation facilities because of present water q u ality problems, this alternative may become extremely feasible if proposed Federal legislation becomes law and secondary treat- ment is r equired throughout the nation , including discharges to the open ocean . I • ... .. .. I J The followin g alternatives have .been under the District 's staf~: (1) Construct -the Santa Ana Rive r Inter- ce p tor large enough to convey a ll anticipated waste water to either Plants 1 or 2 for treatment and dis - po sal Construct a 50 mgd capacity in the Santa Ana River Interceptor and plan to construct> when feasible> upstream water reclamation facilities with primary utilization of the Santa Ana River Interceptor to convey res i dues and blow down saline water from the upstream reclamation facilities to the joint works for treatment and disposal to the ocean ~ -. I We have held discussions with the staff of the Orange County Water District and they a r e proposing to recommend to their Board of Directors that they cooperate with our District to provide the nec essa ry additional tertiary treatment facilities and/or pursue the importation of Northern California water wh ich could be b l ended with the reclaimed water to lower the over -all saline content for ground water recharge. The Executive Officer of the Regional Wate r Qual i ty Cont r o l . Board and engineering personnel of the State Water Resou rces Control Board are in favor of upstream water reclamation if the present water quality can be improved . ·It is the staff 's r ecommendation that the Distri ct's capacity in the Santa Ana River Interceptor be 50 mgd anticipa - ting that water reclamation wi ll be feasible in the upper reaches of the ·District . . The agreement for the construction and sharing of capacity in the Santa Ana Rive r Interceptor contains two provisions which have be en re quested by the CBMWD because they have not yet com - pleted the arrangements for financing their share of the p r oject . (1) That Sections 1 and 2 of the project (Plant No . 1 to Katella Avenue) be advertised for two alternate pipe sizes; a 50 mgd facility and an 80 mgd facil ity . The CBMWD will pay the additional engineer - i ng costs involved ($3>500) . (2) CBMWD may withdraw their partic i pation in the project prior to the award of the first contract by District No . 2 . In the event the water district voids the contract , District No . 2 will then have the option of awarding a construction c ontract for a 50 mgd facility or an 80 mgd facilit y to Katella Avenue . The staff will report fully on this at Wednesday 's meeting . If the Board approves the agreement with the CBMWD on December 22nd and authorizes the District 's engineers to complete the plans and specifications in accordance with the reduc ed capaciti es of 50 mg d for County Sanitation District No . 2 and 30 mgd for the Ch i no Bas in Municipal water District, the project can be submitted for b i dd i ng the latter part of January with bids to be received on March 2nd . The construction contract can be awarded by District No . 2 Boa rd Ma rch 15, 1972, with or without upper basin agency participation . FAH :j Enclosures '• ' I --• .- · .. - I Fred A. General 711217 WASTE WP.L'rER INTERCEPTOR CAPACITY AGREEMENT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2. OF ORANGE COUNTY and CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT I' .~ ..... · WASTE WATER INTERCEPTOR CAPACITY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of Decem- ber, 1971, by and between COUNTY SA..~ITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORA~~GE COUNTY, herein referred to as "District 2", and CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, herein referred to .as "Upp<:r District". A. DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings herein set forth: ·--~ -· ... -------·---·-··---·· ... 711211 (1) "Audited Capital Costs" --The audited actual capital costs for a facility or project, adjusted on a net basis to reflect any Federal or State grants or related funding as herein- after provided. Items of audited capital cost shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, those shown on Exhibit "A". · ( 2) "Design Capacity" --The capacity used . for the basis of design as shown in the design calculations, or when not so shown, the actual capacity of pipelines and appurtenant facilities. ( 3) "District 2" --County Sanitation Dis- trict No. 2 of Orange County, a public agency formed pursuant to the County Sanitation District Act (Chapter 3, Part 3, Division V of the Health and Safety Code). (4) "Existing and Expanded Interceptor Facilities" --Those interceptor facilities now owned or to be constructed in the future by Dis- trict 2, singly or together with Sanitation Dis- tric~s, to provide capacity for conveyance of ·waste water from District 2 and Upper.District. (5) "Interceptor Capacity Right" --A right· of Upper District to deliver, and an obliga- tion of D~strict 2 to receive and convey to treatmeh1:t;f'ciCTiities of Sanitation Districts, a stated regulated maximum flow of waste water. ... Upper District shall not by reason of ownership . of such interceptor capacity right be deemed or construed to have or acquire any ownersh~p in any specific interceptor facilities. 711217 . ' . ( 6) "Maj or Repair~" Any repairs requiring._ expenditures· in excess of $5 ,·ooo for ~my one · · incident. (7) "Ordinary Repairs" --Any repairs other than major repairs. (8) "Reach" --A ~ortion or segment of the proposed Santa Ana River tnt:erceptor, selected for cost and shown as such on Exhibit "B". (9) "Regulated Maximum Flow" --The maximum rate ol ~aste water flow which can pass: through the controlling flow regulator, expressed as millions of gallons per 24 hour day (m.g.d.). (10) "Upper District" --Chino Basin Municipal Water District, a public agency formed pursuant to the l1unicipal Wa:te·r District Law (Water Code §§71, 000 et seq). (11) "Sanitation Districts" --Those County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (organized pursuant to said County Sanitation District Act) which are parties to the Joint Ownership Operation and Construction Agreement dated October 8, 1958, and amendments and supplements thereto. (12J "Santa Ana River Interceptor" --The proposed interceptor sewer of District 2, as shown on Exhibit "B". (13) "Waste Water" --Industrial, municipal and domestic liquid wastes. (14) "Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Agreement" --An agreement between Upper Dis- trict and Sanitation Districts, executed con- currently herewith, whereby Upper District is entitled to obtain waste water treatment and disposal from the existing and expanded facilities of Sanitation Districts. B. EXHIBITS Attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof, are the following exhibits: -2- 711217 HA" Items of Audited Capital Costs. "B" Plan of Santa Ana River Interceptor, showing point of discharge by Upper District to District 2, and schedule showing anticipated capacity of various reaches and identifying design capacity of various reaches. · "C" --Quality Criteria. C. RECITALS 1. District 2 is authorized by statute to contract with any district or governmental agency for the handling, treatment and/or disposal of waste water originating within or without its boundaries, if, in the judgment of the Dis- trict's board, it is for the best interest of the District to do so. 2. Upper District is authorized by law to acquire, construct and operate facilities for the collec- tion, treatment and disposal of waste water for the pro- tection of surface and subsurface water supplies and is authorized to join with one or more public agencies, private corporations, or other persons for the purpose of carrying out any of its powers. · · · 3. Upper District and Sanitation Districts are concerned with the development of a regional water quality management program for the Santa Ana River Watershed, con- sistent with existing Federal and State policy, and an in- tegrated regional outfall facility for ocean disposal of non-reclaimable waste water is an essential component of any such program. To that end said districts have executed the waste· water Treatment and Disposal Agreement. 4. It is in the best interests of District 2 and Upper District to enter into an agreement whereby waste water originating in the Santa Ana River Watershed upstream from District 2 may be carried to the treatment and disposal facilities of Sanitation Districts through existing and ex- panded interceptor facilities of District 2. 5. This Agreement between District 2 and Upper District is in the best interests of all Sanitation Dis- tricts and the approval of each of said districts endorsed hereon is deemed by District 2 and Upper District to -3- signify a willingness on the part of.' Sanitation Districts to amend the Joint Ownership,· Operation and Construction Agreement in such respects, if any, ··as may be necessa:r;y' to give effect to the purposes and provisions of this Agreement~ D. COVENANTS IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and of the covenants, rights and obligations herein-contained, the parties hereto covenan~ and agree as follows: 711217 1. Interceptor Capacity Right. (a) Grant of Right. Effective on :the date determined pursuant to subparagraph {d) hereof, District 2 hereby grants and conveys to Upper District the interceptor capacity right herein- after described. (b) Nature of Interceptor Capacity Right. The right of Upper. District to deliver waste water under said interceptor capacity right shall not be deemed a right to use any particular exist- ing or future interceptor facility of District 2. District 2 shall have sole discretion,. as between it and Upper District, with regard to the manner of disposal of such waste water. Said right shall be, however, an undivided perpetual right in Dis- trict 2's existing or expanded interceptor facil- ities between the point of delivery referred to in subparagraph {e) hereof and the appropriate treat- ment, facilities of Sanitation Districts. '-,;t. cii::,M"u.L . (c) Quantity of Capacity Right. Said inter- ceptor capacity right shall be 30 m.g.d. regulated maximum flow. · . (d) · Effective Date of Capacity Right. Said interceptor capacity right shall be acquired by and vested in Upper District upon making the capital payments as provided in Paragraph 2 hereof. (e) Point of Delivery. Distirct 2 shall be obligated to receive waste water pursuant to said interceptor capacity right at the upper terminus of its proposed Santa Ana River Interceptor, as shown on Exhibit "B". -4- I I 2. Capital Payment. In order to provide for such interceptor capacity r·ight for Upper District, District 2 will have to invest capital in construction of the-pro- posed Santa Ana River Interceptor. In lieu of its own capi- tal investment in such physical facilities, Upper District shall pay to District 2 for said 30 m.g.d. regulated maximum flow interceptor capacity right an amount equal to the follow- ing percentages of the audited capital cost of the several reaches of Santa Ana River Interceptor, adjusted for optional construction specifications as provided in Paragraph 3 hereof: 711217' Reach % of Audited Capital Cost of ~each 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 '" 37.5 43.0 49.0 55.5 65.0 81.0 85.5 100.0 Said amounts· shall be estimated qS accurately as possible and billed.to Upper District by District 2 periodically (thirty [30] days prior to each progress payment by District 2, during the design and construction of said interceptor) and shall be pay~ble by Upper D~strict twenty (20) days from receipt of billing. An adjustment to actual co~ts shall. be made on or before 120 day_s after substantial completion of said construction. Upper District's share of any sub-. sequently incurred costs or of Federal or State grants shall be payed by or refunded to Upper District 90 days after billing for such costs or receipt of such grant funds. 3~ · Construction Schedule. District agrees to use due diligence to complete construction on said Santa Ana Ri.ver Interceptor on the following schedule: Treatment Plant to Katella Avenue Katella to Riverside Freeway· Riverside Freeway to S.B. Co. Line 12/31/J-i13 12/31/~7-<./- 12/31/X 1.r 4. Relocation, Reconstruction, Major Repairs, or Replacement Costs. In the event District 2, for reasons other than its own convenience or benefit, incurs future costs for relocation, reconstruction, major repairs or re- placement of any portion of existing or future interceptor ...:.s- facilities in which Upper District is physically utilizing capacity, Upper District shail payi ·subject ~o Paragraph_2 hereof, that percentage of the cost.thereof which 30 m.g.d. bears to the design cap?ci ty of said facilities whic!1 are so relocated, reconstructed, repaired or replaced. District 2 shall give Upper District reasonable notice of any such relocation, reconstruction, major repairs or replacement, and said payment shall be made within thirty (30) days after presentation of invoice by District_2. · .. 5. Operation and Maintenance .Expense. Upper District· .shall pay annually, upon billing by District 2, its propor- tional share, based upon total flows in said line during the preceding year, of all operating and maintenance ex- penses applicable to each reach of Santa Ana River Intercep- tor, including ordinary repair and any property ·taxes payable. thereon, but not including depreciation. 6. Quality Criteria. The quality of waste water discharged by Upper District into the existing and expanded interceptor facilities· of District 2 shall comply wi·th the quality criteria applicable to receipt of waste water for treatment under the waste water Treatment and Disposal Agree- ment. Saia quality criteria apply only to the blended flow delivered to District 2 by Upper District. 7. Quality Violations. In the event waste water delivered by Upper District into the existing and expanded interceptor facilities of District 2 fails to meet said Quality criteria, and said violation constitutes a threat to the safety and continued operation of existing or expanded interceptor facilities of District 2 or of other facilities of $anitation Districts, District 2 reserves the right upon twenty-four (24) hours' notice in writing to suspend all or part of Upper District's use of the existing and expanded interceptor facilities of District 2 and to suspend the exercise by Upper District of all or part of its interceptor capacity· right until such time as said waste water complies with said Quality criteria. Upper District shall pay to District 2 the cost, as reasonably determined and certified by District 2, of repairing any damage to District 2's exist- ing and 0{panded interceptor facilities caused by the discharge, after receipt of such notice to suspend, of waste water from Upper District's system in violation of said Quality criteria. . 711217 8. General Provisions. (a) Flow Regulator. Upper District shall install a flow regulator capable of controlling -6- \.wl 711217 the rate of flo\.1 of al·l waste· water discharged from.its coilection system for disposal through the existing and expanded interceptor. faciliti~s of District 2. The flow which can pass through said flow regulator at any given tirne shall be set at the amount of the then-current regu- lated maximum flow of Upper District's treatment and di~posal right und~r the Waste Water Treat- ment and Disposal Agreement. · The design and location of such flow regulator shall be subject to prior approval by Sanitation Districts. Said device shall be subject to such inspection and -testing by District 2 as it may require~ All costs for installing, maintaining, reading and testing said device shall be borne by Upper Distr~ct. (b) Assignment. This contract shall not be trans- ferred or assigned by Upper District without the prior written consent of District 2; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent Upper District from designating for, or allocating to, public agencies or other users within Santa Ana River Watershed upstream from District 2, a portion of the interceptor capacity right granted herein, so long as such nction does not affect Upper Dis- trict 1 s liabilities and obligations hereunder to District 2. Up?cr District s~all te the entity n~vin~ primalry responsibility fer regional re-allocation in the area upstream from District 2 of this and similar rights in District 2 1 s existing and expanded facilities. (c) .. Acts of God. Neither party hereto shall be liable for failure to comply with any term or condition of this agreement by reason of flood, fire, earthquake or act of God; provided, that due diligence is exercised to repair or replace facilities damaged and to perform hereunder follow- ing such occurrence. 9. · Option to ca·ncel. In order to meet its time sched- ules, District 2 has begun design and preparation of specifi- cations on the Santa Ana River Interceptor. At the request of Upper District, and at its sole cost, alternate bid specifications are being prepared for construction of the interceptor, assuming its construction, with and without Upper District participation. In consideration of said cir- cumstances, Upper District shall have to the date of opening of bids on said Interceptor to cancel and withdraw from this agreement and all obligations hereunder, except its -7- .· 711217 I '. costs of preparing said alternate specifications. This . option is provided expressly because of uncertainties -in a pending application by Upper District for Federal ·and State participation in its share of capital costs hereunder. 10; Approval by Sanitation Districts. This agr·eement shall not be effective for any purpose unless and until each and all of Sanitation Districts (otherthan District 2) have approved the provisions hereof and have indicated their willingness to cooperate with District 2 to such extent as . may be necessart to enable District 2 to carry out and per- form its obligations to Upper District as pereinabove provided. · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures as of the day and. year first above written. Approved as to form: MILLER, NISSON & KQGLER By Approved as to form: CLAYSON I . STARK I ROTHROCK & MANN By Special Counsel -8- COU~TY S.fu~ITATION DISTRICT . NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY By By CHINO By By Chairman of the Board of Directors Secretary BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT President Secretary 711217 I i The undersigned County Sanitation D1stricts, parties to the Joint Ownership, Operation and Construction Agreement, dated October 8, 1958, do hereby approve this agreem~nt and indicate thereby their willingness to cooperate with Dis- trict 2 to such extent as may be necessary to enable it to carry out and perform its obligations to Upper District. as hereinabove provided. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 OF ORANGE COUNTY By Chairman of the Board of Directors . Secretary COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT .... NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY By By Chairman of the Board of Directors Secretary COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY By. ----c..-h-a-=-i-r_m_a_n_o_f~t~h-e ___ _ Board of Directors By Secretary COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6 OF ORANGE COUNTY By By Chairman of the Board of Directors Secretary COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY By By Chairman of the Board of Directors Secretary COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY By By -9-· Chairman of the Board of Directors Secretary EXHIBIT "A" ITEMS OF AUDITED CAPITAL COSTS 1. Engineering 2. Desi·gn Survey , . . 3. Construction Survey 4. Inspection 5. Prime Contractor 6. Soil Testing 7. Pipe Testing 8. Right-of-way 9. Plans and Specifications 10. Permits 11. Litigation and Legal Fees 12. Districts' Force Accoupt 13. Administration 711217 . -10- rQftH :-~·H" -· ~ .. :~!;'!.!;· ;• 'j.j1·:·' : ;·:,·c·: LOWRY 6 ASSOCIATCS Ut&a1t ••t•tU•14 A•fllwt ..... , ....... ., ......... . ;·~,.~~ ~ ,/ :.:. : .. :~ ~~~ ~~,: ... • .: •• ~ • ·-', I : ••. : ~~\ .... II-. Cwrtnr •• Ot•••• c-11 ,.,_.., c. .... IM•I ~-. ~ _. _ .. _._ ·< '; ; :::-. :· .. .--. I · ~Piii•' ''-. l I 'j • ' 'I • ' I .: I. I I '\ ' .'" I\ I~ ~" 11 .• '" \ . ! /· . . ... I • ,.. , , I I . . \,\ ·. • ' . I ~ . I !-' - .· . ,, '/ ., ... 1· .. I I , ' 1 . , I '( \ :, ' . 1- , • ! ~' ' . "'' ,, .. ·\ ~ ,, .._, .... I \ .. . ' I \ . •. ...a • I I I ~-· .( . .. ,., . \ \ , ,, \ •,t I (. E G E N 0 -Exislino Trunli. Focililies ; Proposed Trunk Focililiu • Dislricl Boundory ,.-Pipe Oiomeler 14"(•141 • '----Pipe Cnpocity in MGO . ' . I I~ '· .• ,, .. l' 1' ·. ' ~· r·.:r :, .,, I .... t/ 1WO S•ZCS I.Rf SHO•N FOR THC SAllill. I.NA l\rvt:ll 11c1CAC(P10A SCW[ll THC SVALLCll SI?( 1$ I011Ht N[lOS or JUSl SANIUTIOIC O•SffclCl r.o. 2 loe[ L&l\.;U Sil( lhClUOCS I. CAPACITY or ~o UGO 1011 1H[ "''"" II.NIA AHA AIYCA t&:.IH, INTERIM FIVE YEAR MASTER PLAN OF WASTE WATER FACl.LITIES --------• -·'"1 ..------·-----------+--+-.. COUNTY S/\NIT/\TIO~~ DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY,. CALIFORNIA i11.1 . ._,,, .. 0 7 ! r Reach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 711217 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF ANTICIPATED CAPACITIES BY REACHES (MGD) .. Allocation Total Design Capacity · District 80· 50 " 70 40 61 31 54 24 46 16 37 7 35 5 30 (j -12- of Design Capacity Riverside 2 District 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30. Sheet 2 of 2 Agenda !tam No._~t-b...__ C H I NO BAS IN MU N ICI P AL De c ember 21, 1971 \" J DISTRICT J. ANDREW SCHLANGE GENERAL MANAGER T ELEPHONE (714) 9 8 7-1712 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No . 2 of Orange County P .O. Box 8127 Fountain Valle y, Ca lifornia 92708 Gentlemen: I n Para g raph 9 of the draft Waste Water Interceptor Capacity Agreement now under ne got iation between our two districts, there is pro vi sion for preparation of a l ternate specifications for bids o~ the initial units of the Santa Ana River Interceptor. It is our understandin g that your consulting engineers have given a firm bid of $3,500 as the additional cost of such alternative bid preparation . Ou r board of directors has authorized this district to reimburse District No . 2 for this expense on a firm basis . Meanwhi l e , we have further authorized filin g the necessary application for federal and state grant assistance on this i nterceptor project . The Interceptor Ag r eeme nt appears to be in fairly good form. As soon as modifications of the Treatment Agreeme nt are worked out , we should be prepared to execute·th e forma l contracts . Si ncere l y , . d ~ , ' 1 Vl ·--Cv~L ..., ~-c/~v.4' ,,,L:J Carl B. Masingale , Presidlnt CHINO BASIN llJUi~ICIPAL 1,'ljrl'ER DISTRICT /em 8555 ARCHIBAL D AVENUE -POST OFF I CE BOX 697 -CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 -----------------------------------------------~----------------------------~~ ----------------~~~~~~~~~~~·----------------------------------------------~~ CARL B. MASINGALE PRESIDENT RAY W . FERGUSCN VICE -PRE.SI DE NT ERNEST L. KEECHLER SE.CR ET ARY ALEXANDER R. TOBIN DIREC T OR JACK F. COMSTOCK DIRECTOR ... , · .FINAL DRAFT 12-20-71 ~ Joint Management Board . Santa Ana· Watershed Planning Agency P.O. Box 2678 . Riverside, California 92506 Gentlemen: The matter of a pipeline to convey water containing high concentra- tion of mineral salts to the Ocean from the Santa Ana Watershed has come under considerable scrutiny in the recent past from the public, from elected officials, and from engineers and scientists. There has been considerable uncertainty as to the necessity for the pipe-. line, what its use ·should be, who should pay for it, what its size should be, and the wisdom of providing such a facility at all. The inclination of decision-makers to date has been to reject the proposal on the grounds that too many of the questions were unan- swered. The ~gency's planning investigation has proceeded under an assumption that the pipeline would not be available and that mineral salts would have to be handled in other ways. We have projected future water quality effects with an assumption that in the Upper Basin (above Prado) soma of the lower volume, more concentrated brines would be i~olated in evaporation ponds and the remainder of the salts would be disposed of as at present -by blending into groundwater or the Santa Ana River, except for those exported via the Chino Basin Municipal Water District's non-reclaimable waste line. In the Lower Basin it was assumed that collectible salts would be sewered to the ocean, as at present, through the.County Sanitation Districts of Orange County sewerage system~ Our projections show that the current adverse salt balance situation in the Upper Basin and in the Santa Ana Forebay would become much worse under the above assumptions. The principal manifestation of the salt build-up in the Upper Basin would be ever-increasing con- centrations of dissolved minerals in the lower Chino, Temescal, and Arlington subpasins, but some :increases would occur throughout all subbasins. Further, the total dissolved solids content of water flowing ·through Prado .to Orange County would continue to be much higher than it should be for correction of a worsening salt imbalance in the Santa Ana Forebay. · . . The sources of mineral salts would not be limited to the area near Prado, however; the hydrologic system and water supply and sewerage ·practices are such as to cause salts from almost all parts of the Upper Basin to be transported to the subbasins near Prado for dis- posal and accumul~tion • . As a conseauence of our oro·ections I must recommend to vou that you see to provide a pipeline of limited capacitv to remove*excess .. ··Page 2 mineral salts from the Basin as a part of your future water · resources management I make this recommendation on the \..,I 'f.o owing bases: ! . l" Year a) Necessity, as discussed above. Removal.of accumulated PQIIution requires the pipeline now. More pollution will inevitably accumulate in the future. b) Limited Use, only for mine~al salts which are known to be non-toxic, either acutely or chronically, and otherwise not harmful to aquatic organisms indigenous to the Southern ·~California Bight. This use could·possibly be extended to use for transport·of floatable or settleable solids to a ·treatment facility located on the pipeline in Orange County, but in general these materials should be separated prior to discharge into the pipeline. TDS of water dipcharged to the.pipeline should be at least 750 mg/l. c) Size, not to exceed 30 million gallons per day. While this size is not adequate to convey the entire quantity of projected future.production of water containing excess· mineral salts, it shoula be adequate to contribute signi- ficantly to an overall salt control program which must in- clude careful selection of water sources, strict control· of degradation where possible, limitations on the types of water-using industries which may locat~ in the Upper Basin, and desalination to maximize re-use of water while· . _reducing the volume of high TDS ~ater to be disposed of. 'j'.r. Based oi:i t1!e quantity estima~es given in the Attachment · and estimated TDS concentrations for the various sources, the tonnage of mineral salts which would be removed would 'be as follows: · Estimated Estimated Quantity Concentration Source mg:d TDS, mg/l Salt Removed Tons/Yr. Totals Tons/Yr. Initial Industrial 3.1 1~000 4 ,·100 ! •I . ··Municipal 8.6 1,200 15,600 · · Accumulated . ·11.1 1,000 16,900··. 20-Yr Industrial 5.1 1,000 7,700 Municipal 15.7 1,200 28,700 Accumulated 11.1 1,200 20,300 56,700 Average 47,000 . ' ,, : d) Wisdom. One good argument agains.t having the pipeline at all is that more industry, people, and automobiles.may be . lured to the.Upper Basin along with ~heir demands for urban •!I . " . • • : ' : .• l f I• I "t' ·••:, • • "'• • • . . Page 3 development and their smog. Perhaps. But we also must make a decision on what to do about providing potable water to people already living in the Watershedi and what to do about existing accumulations of salts which now threaten.to elim- 1nate entirely the utility of several subbasins ·for storage and distribution of usable water. I believe the pipeline is needed merely to sove existing problems. The wisdom of allowing more industries, people, and automobiles must be decided by those who have the authority to regulate land use changes. The wisdom of refusing good quality water t~ current residents in order to discourage additional residents certainly seems questionable; this would be equivalent to encouraging smog to limit land development • . e) Cost Allocation. The present and projected sources of mineral salts for conveyance through the pipeline are well defined. The salts would enter the pipeline nea+ Prado; they have originated and will continue to originate in many parts of the Upper Basin, as described above. The ultimate allocation of costs to pipeline users and other benefici- aries would be partially a function of.· actual future· re- source management program developments and partially a matter of negotiation among usets and other beneficiaries. At the present time, however, it is necessary to proceed with the financ'ing of the project in order to take advantage of cost savings which would .accrue in a jQint project with the County Sanitation District of Orange County (CSDOC), and to obtain maximQm participation from California and the United States under their current construction grants pro- gram. (Eligible projects may receive grants for 80 percent of construction costs during the·next four t~ ·fiv~ years.) I recommend to you an interim joint financing venture which would re- sult in estimated expenditures approximately as follows: ·Cost . . Estimated Construction Cost · -Less 80. percent Grant Financing CBMWD Financing WMWD Payment to CBMWD OCWD Payment to CBMWD SBVMWD Payment to CBMWD CBMWD Net Payment 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 ' ' '· ) ' Page 4 This schedule assumes that SBMWD, which ha·s funds available and authorized for purchase of non-reclaimable: waste export capacity, wo.uld contract with the CSDOC for a· joint project and that the other three Districts would each pay to CBMWD a share, resulting_ i.n the following capacity ownership: . CBMWD · WMWD _SBVMWD OCWD 11.25 mgd 6.25 mgd 6.25 mgd 6.25 mgd Thus, CBMWD would purchase the first five mgd and each District would purchase 25 percent of the remainder, Again, this formula applies to the interim financing period only and not to the ultimate cost allo- cation. It should be a simple matter to agree to a future realloca~ion of costs as the complete water management plan is implemented. · The Attachment to this letter contains a summary of the bases for estimating present and future volumes of high TDS water to be dis- charged through the pipeline.· "I caution you that the quantity esti- . mates, both present and projected, are very conservative and could · easily be 50 percent to 100 percent too low. However, by making the pipeline no larger than 30 mgd, maximum water conservation and re-use would be encouraged. Further, desalination facilities could be used to reduce export volumes as necessary. In any event, desalination would be required to control peaking, since the quantity estimate of 30 mgd is based on average daily flow. I suggest to you, fu~ther, that the Agen9y should begin immediately to develop more details and investigate the feasibility of a central. toxic waste processing facility. Limitations on toxicants through source control will create a need for alternate disposal methods and there are probably significant savings to be realized with a central treatment and disposal facility. I · BBD:gs Attachment . · ~- Sincerely yours, Bill B. Dendy, Manager .. I" ATTACHMENT .. There will be two major sources of mineral salts which could be ex- ported safely to the ocean through a pipeline from the Upp~r.Sahta Ana Watershed: (a) current wastewater production and (b) accumulated· pollution. · (a) Current Wastewater Production . ' ' ~ . 4 !:. ; I ' • ..... ... I· • • ..... ' I High TDS {>750 mg/l) .water from industry could be discharged to the pipeline ·if rigid control of toxic materials were exercised to prevent their entrance into the system. Estimated ·quantity of non-toxic, high TDS industrial wastewater currently being pro- L.1t iJ t ,·,~ 1 duced in a reasonable service area for the pipeline .'is 3.1 mgd. The 20-year projection is 5.1 mgd. ·These estimates are based on the "Inventory of In- ~ ' I \ I austrial Wastes in the Santa Ana Watershed" which was conducted by Bechtel for the Agency and the pro- jections· of developed industrial acreage contained in the Urbanomics Research Associates' "Population · and Land Use Projections for the Sa~ta Ana .Watershed, 1970-2020," also prepared for the Agency. The initial service area was defined to include high TDS industrial wastewater presently.being produced in Operational Areas 18, 19, 20, 26, and 31. The 20-year projected service area includes the initial service area plus projected future increases in the same Operational Areas plus one-half of the projected. future increases in high TDS industrial wastewater in Operational Areas 15 and 17. The attached map shows approximate boundaries of the projected service area. The estimates.also include .03 mgd of water softener regeneration brines from Operational Areas 4 and 15, assumed to hold constant over the 20-year period.· The initial and projected quantities esti- . mated above are extremely conservative and could be ·as much as 50 percent too low. (2) High TDS (>750 mgd) municipal wastewater could be dis- charged to the pipeline if rigid control .of toxic mat- erials were·exercised to keep them out of the sewer systems. The initial quantity of municipal wastewater which could qualify for discharge to ·the pipeline is ·a.·6 mga.· The 20-year projection is 15.7 mgd. The assumed initial and 20-year service area for high TDS municipal wastewater is Operational Areas 19, 20 and 31, and the La Sierra Area of Operational Area· 15 • . • (b) ., 'I I .•. I • Page 2 Attc;tchm~nt. The municipal wastewater from that service area will continue to be high in TDS until an alternate·, better quality water supply can be furnished. At· that time the wastewater might have a TDS low enough to allow discharge to the Santa Ana River or local groundwater. In that event, however, it would become necessary to ·implement pumping controls to prevent accumulated pollution in the Temescal and Arlington subbasins from degrading the river or adjacent subbasins. The ·· amount to be pumped could be as much as the amount .of pumping· reduction, plus the amount· of rising water now originating in Temescal. To be conservative, how- ever, it is assumed that the-amount of groundwater to ·be pumped would be the sarne as the above estimated municipal wastewater production for Operational Areas 15, 19 and 20. This estimate is probably as much as 50 ercent too low since it does not take into consi- deration the pumpage reduction due to rep acement o ..... · Urban-Outside water demand. Accumulated Pollution In order to pr()tect adequately the future quality of water flowing from the Upper Basin ~hrough Prado into Orange County it will be necessary to exercise control of some of the pollution which has accumulated in the Upper Basin. High TDS water (much of it over 1000 mg/l) will continue to flow into the River from the lower Chino subbasin immediately above Prado. Much of the high Tbs rising water c.ould be extracted, as discussed above for the Temescal and Arlington subbasins, and exported directly to the ocean through the. proposed pipeline. The quantity of rising water at present is estimated to be 12,400 acre-feet per year, or about 11.1 mgd. The lowest 20-year projection of rising water from all alternative operational plans studied for the Chino basin is 11.1 mgd, also. All other alternative plans analyzed, from which a recommended plan will be chosen, would produce greater amounts of rising water in the future. The amount after 20 years will most likely be at least 25 to 50 percent higher than at present. · In sununary, conservative estimates of the quantities of high TDS water which could be safe]y discharged to the proposed pipeline·are.as follows: . \ . ' .... . . Industrial Sources . Municipal Sources (or equi-.1 valent pumped groundwater Temescar a~d Arlingto~) Pumped Groundw~ter- Chino Basin ·· ·. · To~tal ..... , • t .. ii I ., .... · .. •·· ! : ·. . . ·, J Initial mgd 3.1 8.6 11.1 ·:· . . : .. '·· . . ' Page 3 Att·achment 20-Yea;r . · -Projection mgd . . . . ·.·. : ,· .. 5.1 15.7 ·11.1 -. 3lo9 . • .. .. . _: . .• ; I'~ ! .,; • . .,· .. t ...... .( :..AJ I J1 / r· ~J : \ . ""' ~ J ., I ! ' !. __________ ·- . " . , . . . \U.l~~ ~ ....... : ,......., ' .. ( .· ·1.~:::tgULJ.:;J:.J::. ·( L.EGEN D: THE SANTA ANA WATERSIIED AREA 111..l 1) ;1PPl?ttiMA11; S ER.UlCf /\ L:fA Fe R.. £,( Pcl:..T t:· 1:: 14 •61J ., D S !..U ,Ht;K . SANTA ANA WATERSHED PLANNING AGENCY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FHOGRAM ----···--------------------··----------------::_::-~~:;:~·0~~~.~~:_~ ~E~1:~ ·~:~~':;-::=:-:~~~ ------- Descr ip tion REVENUE Tax Revenue (at c urrent tax rate o f $.4255 ) Ot h e r Reve nue Federal & State Participation Ups t ream Participation Misc ellane OLlS COUNTY SANI'l'ATION DISTRICT. NO . 2 PROJECTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT FISCAL YEARS 1971 -72 THROUGH 1975 -76 1971 -72 197 2-73 $ 3,888 ,000 $ 4,o84 ,ooo 1 ,409 ,000 1, 860, 000 808 ,000 400 ,000 Carry -Over from Previous F iscal Year 579 ,000 8 ,567,000 9 ,90 7,000 'I'otal Funds Available $1 4 ,443 ,000 $1 7,059 ,000 EXPF.ND I Tu RES District Construction $ 340,000 $ 4,300 ,00 0 Bo n d R.et i r eme n t 634 ,ooo 612,000 Othe r Exp e nditures -Operating and Joi n t Works Ex pansi o n 3 2562 ,000 4 .2 213 2000 Tota l Expendi tures $ 4.536 2000 $ 9 ,125 20 00 Carry-Over to Following Fiscal Year $ 9 ,907 ,000 $ 7,934 ,ooo Necessary Reserve fo r fo llow ing y ear {4 2629 2000 ) {4 2573,000 ) dry period Fund Balance o r (Deficit ) $ 5 ,278 ,000 $ 3 ,361 ,000 One cent added to tax rate wil l r a is e $ 91 ,390 $ 95 ,960 12 -22 -71 197 3-74 1974 -75 1 975 -76 $ 4,288 ,000 $ 4 ,503,000 $ 4,728 ,000 1 ,42 3 ,000 1,013 ,000 998 ,000 32 4 ,oo o 392,000 101 ,000 400 ,000 350 .,000 3::0 ,000 7,934 ,ooo 5 ,378,ooo 1,592 ,000 $14,369,000 $11,636 ,000 $7 ,769,000 $ 4,679,000 $ 6 ,320,000 $2 ,481 ,000 590 ,000 571,000 554 ,ooo 3,7222000 3 2153 2000 3 2224,ooo $. 8299 12 000 $10204420 00 $6 2259 2000 $ 5 ,378 ,ooo $ 1,592 ,000 $1 ,510,000 {5 2107 2000 ) {32 2082000 ) {2 2452 2000 ) $ 271,000 $(1,616 ,000 ) $( 942,000 ) $ 100,758 $ 105 ,800 $ 111 ,086 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO . 2 • REV I SED SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT CO NST RUCT I ON PROJECTS 2.2 -'~1 ~--I ., . 1 9 70/71 through 1976/77 Total U12 str eam Dist . #2 1 9 70/71/72 1272/i'.'.3 1273l'.74 1274/75 1 975/76 l c7.': _:!J Santa Ana Ri v e r Inte r - cepto r to Kate l la $ 7 ,700,000 $ 2 ,900,000 $ 4 ,800 ,000 $ 600 ,000 $4 ,20 0 ,000 Santa Ana River Inter- ci::pto r -Kate lla to South Street 2 ,300,00 0 7 00 ,000 1 ,600 ,000 $ 800 ,000 $ 800,000 So.nta Ana River Inte r - C'8ptor -South St . to Impe ri a l Hi g hway 3,500,000 1,750 ,000 1,750,000 875,000 8 7 5 ,000 S:.nta Ana Ri--1 e r Inter- ccptor -Imperial Hwy . to :·iei r Canyon 1,500 ,000 1 ,000 ,000 500 ,000 250 ,000 250 ,000 Wa~er Rec l amation Pl ant 8 ,500 ,000 5 ,100 ,000 3,400 ,000 1 ,200 ,000 2 ,000 ,000 $200 ,000 South St . Pump S tati on 8 1 6 ,00 0 816 ,000 and Fo rce Main ~-08 ,000 4 08 ,000 St.;.t e Co l l ege Bl vd . In~erce pt or 1,600 ,000 1,600 ,000 800,000 800 ,000 Sout h Santa Ana Ri ve r , Trunk 693 ,000 693 ,000 346 ,ooo 347~000 Sa:-lto. Ana River I nter- c0pto r -\·Ie ir Canyon to Orange County Line 2 ,400 ,000 1,60 0,00 0 800,000 400 ,000 400,000 .. ~ Ric hfield Inte r ceptor 3 8 0,00 0 380 ,000 190 ,000 1 90 ,000 Orc h a rd Intercepto r 17 8 ,ooo 178,ooo 89 ,000 89 ,000 Krc.emer Inte r ceptor 323,000 323 ,000 1 6 1,000 i62 ,ooo C:J.rbon Canyon Dam Interceptor 549 ,000 5L~9 , 000 -0 -274 ,ooo $275~GOJ Carbon Canyon I n te rc eptor 1 ,429 ,000 1 ,4 2 9 ,000 l,000 ,000 42?. -.)_}\) f'··.lrn D1 ·l v1~ Intercep t or. 332 ,000 3:1~' 00~ }(,(). 000 J ( ,, \ . *32 ,~00 ,000 $13 ,050,000 $19 ,150 ,000 $ 600 ,000 :~l ~' 2'0 0) 000 :~I~, 679 , 000 :~6 ' c.J ,ooo $~) lJ.<~ I 000 ·' '· . -' . l. l •t) f ( I "' --.. --------